House of Representatives
22 November 1978

31st Parliament · 1st Session



Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden) took the chair at 2. 1 5 p.m., and read prayers.

page 3157

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers:

The Economy

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth.

That the economic policies of the Australian Government represented by the 1978-79 Budget are economically disastrous and socially reprehensible.

Your Petitioners call on the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to reverse its economic policies which are causing irreparable damage to the Australian economy and unnecessary economic and social hardship.

And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Armitage, Mr Humphreys, Dr Jenkins, Mr Keith Johnson, Mr Les Johnson, Mr Barry Jones, Mr Serin and Mr Martin.

Petitions received.

Medical Benefits: Abortions

To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the provision of payments for abortion through items of the Medical Benefits Schedule is an unacceptable endorsement of abortion which has now reached the levels of a national tragedy with at least 60,000 unborn babies being killed in 1977.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will so amend the Medical Benefits Schedule as to preclude the payment of any benefit for abortion.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Aldred, Mr Bourchier, Mr Burns, Mr Lynch, Mr Macphee, Mr Nixon and Mr Street.

Petitions received.

Pornographic Publications

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That we the undersigned, having great concern at the way in which children are now being used in the production of pornography CALL UPON THE GOVERNMENT to introduce immediate legislation:

  1. To prevent the sexual exploitation of children by way of photography for commercial purposes;
  2. To penalise parents/guardians who knowingly allow their children to be used in the production of such pornographic or obscene material depicting children;
  3. To make specifically illegal the importation, publication, distribution and sale of such pornographic child-abuse material in any form whatsoever such as magazines, novels, papers or films;
  4. To take immediate police action to confiscate and destroy all child pornography in Australia and urgent appropriate legal action against all those involved or profiting from this sordid exploitation of children.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will protect all children and immediately prohibit pornographic child-abuse materials, publications or films.

And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman, Mr Dobie, Mr Roger Johnston and Mr Ian Robinson.

Petitions received.

Medibank

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully show:

That we believe the Federal Government’s decision to abolish Medibank Standard is unjustified, reducing medical benefits for the Australian people to an all time low.

The planned abolition of Medibank Standard will place an unnecessary burden on the poor and the disadvantaged in our community. The decision to reduce the rebate paid to 40% of the scheduled fee is an attack on real wages.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government should reverse its decision on these matters and develop proper consultation with the trade unions and the community to restore Medibank to the Health Scheme originally intended.

And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hayden and Mr Kerin.

Petitions received.

Commando Expeditions: Award of Medal

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.

The Humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectively showeth:

  1. In 1943 and 1944 two small scale raids were undertaken by Australian and British Commandos on shipping in Singapore Harbour.
  2. The first operation named ‘Jaywick’ reached Singapore in September1943 from a base in Australia using a captured Japanese vessel known as ‘The Krait’, sank seven (7) ships, a total of 39,000 tons and returned to Australia. This was the longest successful small scale raid in the history of War.
  3. The second operation named ‘Rimau’ attempted to repeat that raid in September1944. The raid was detected in the entrance to Singapore Harbour and the commandos were forced to retire. A submarine sent to pick them up did not keep the appointed R.V. and the raiding party was forced to set out for Australia in their canoes.
  4. Many of the commandos were killed by Japanese search parties near the Indonesian Islands. Three commandos in an incredible feat of endurance and heroism, paddled two thousand five hundred (2,500) miles from Singapore to Romang Island only 400 miles from Australia. This journey was one of the most fantastic in the history of war- in the history of the sea.
  5. All the Commandos who had not been killed were finally captured, court martialled and ceremoniously executed in Singapore by Samurai Sword only 39 days before the Japanese surrender.
  6. The Commandos were ceremoniously executed because the Japanese considered-

It would be a disgrace to the fine spirit of these heroes if we thought of saving their lives. ‘

Major Kamiya the prosecutor at the Japanese Court

Martial who made the above comment went on to say, inter alia-

These heroes must have left Australia with sublime patriotism flowing in their breasts and with the confident expectation of all the Australian people on their shoulders.

As we respect them, so we feel our duty of glorifying their last moments as they deserve, and by doing so the names of these heroes will remain in the hearts of the British and Australian people for evermore.’

  1. Due to the secrecy surrounding operation ‘Rimau’ its members were completely ignored and received no recognition at all. No attempt was made by the authorities to inform the relatives of the circumstances of death. The only official notification was that they had been killed in action in 1945. It was not until the publication of a book called ‘The Heroes’ by Ronald McKie in1960 that the relatives read for themselves of the manner in which the commandos died.
  2. To date, the exploits and deaths of the ‘Rimau’ commandos have not remained undying in Australian history as the Japanese expected, following the ceremonial execution. They have been forgotten and ignored by Australia. They are the Forgotten Heroes.
  3. On Saturday 8 July1978, the 33rd Anniversary of the end of operation ‘Rimau’, the members of the 1 Commando Association held a memorial parade to honor the memory of these gallant men, and of the men of Jaywick’ many of whom were also members of the Rimau’ raiding party. The parade was held before the Geat War Memorial in Hyde Park Sydney. Relatives of the men of ‘Jaywick’ and ‘Rimau’ were flown from all parts of Australia to be present.

A specially commissioned March called ‘The Forgotten Heroes’ was played for the first time by the Band of the New South Wales Police Force.

  1. At the Memorial Parade a medal in the form of the drawing reproduced hereon was presented on behalf of each of the members of operation ‘Jaywick’ and ‘Rimau’. The medal was designed and presented because repeated requests by the 1 Commando Association at all levels of Government to obtain some official recognition for these men had been refused.

Your Petitioners humbly pray that the members, in the House assembled, will take the most urgent steps to approve the conferring of the medal on the men of ‘Jaywick’ and Rimau’ on behalf of the people of Australia to honor the memory of these gallant men so that future generations of Britain and Australia will know and admire what these men did and their memory will remain in the hearts of the British and Australian people for evermore.

And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Les Johnson and Mr Killen.

Petitions received.

Australian Broadcasting Commission

To The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully say we are concerned about the deteriorating standards of A.B.C. radio and Television programmes.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament take immediate steps to appoint an independent inquiry into the A.B.C. which:

  1. Investigates the practical experience and qualification of the commissioners to perform their duties.
  2. Determines the effects of staff ceilings and reduction of funds, in real terms, on standards.
  3. Thoroughly reviews the organisation to determine its present effectiveness.
  4. Ascertains if any external or internal censorship exists.
  5. Makes recommendation to reduce censorship and improve the efficiency and standards.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Les McMahon and Mr Ruddock.

Petitions received.

South Australian Country Rail Services

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. That any downgrading or closures of Country Rail Services in South Australia would have grave consequences for the Railway Industry, Primary Industry, Individual Country Communities and the State as a whole and calls on the Parliament to ensure that the Federal Minister for Transport takes the necessary action to maintain all existing services.
  2. That continued and increased Public Subsidy is fully justified in the long term National Interest. by Mr Porter and Mr Wallis.

Petitions received.

The Budget

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble Petition of we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively showeth:

That because this budget will further increase the number of persons unemployed, because it reduces the average worker’s spending power by$10 per week, because it will reduce the income of pensioners, because it is unfair in placing a greater burden on the poor rather than the rich, and because it is driving this country into a depression.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that:

The Federal Government withdraws this budget and provides Australia, within this session of Parliament, with a revised budget that increases the level of economic activity in Australia, lowers unemployment, removes the burdens placed on the disadvantaged, and revives business and consumer confidence in the future of this potentially great country.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Armitage.

Petition received.

Air Fares to Europe

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the question of cheaper air fares between Australia and the United Kingdom and Europe and vice versa should be resolved forthwith with the inclusion of Laker Airways United Kingdom Charter Services and that Laker Airways be permitted to operate from all Australian capital cities on a regular basis: We the undersigned petitioners demand the Government take immediate action and implement air policies in line with public opinion and consistent demand. And we your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. byDrBlewett.

Petition received.

Broadcasting: Radio 3CR Melbourne

To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

That radio 3CR Melbourne, be made to adhere to the required standards of broadcasing, as laid down for all other radio stations.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will enforce the required standard of broadcasting as laid down for all other stations, on community radio 3CR on Federal Government to legislate against incitement to racial hatred and violence.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr N. A. Brown.

Petition received.

Post Office, St Albans, New South Wales

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows:

  1. that Australia Post is considering closing the Post Office at St Albans NSW.
  2. that such a closure would cause hardship amongst the inhabitants of the Macdonald Valley NSW because of:

    1. the isolation of the valley,
    2. b ) the considerable distance to the next Post Office,
    3. the untrafficability of the roads in wet weather and their totally impassible nature in frequent floods,
    4. d ) the undesirable social consequences of cutting down on communications in an area where communications are already difficult,
  3. that the usage per head of population of the Post Office ‘s services is not less than the national average.
  4. that therefore the Post Office at St Albans NSW should not be closed.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by MrCadman.

Petition received.

Commonwealth Land Holdings

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Division of Indi respectfully showeth:

That land designated for acquisition in terms of the AlburyWodonga Agreement and the legislation bi-lateral therewith, but subsequently by decision of the Ministerial Council for Albury-Wodonga released from compulsory acqusitionprocedures and declared to be no longer necessary for development by the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation should be released from designation- and returned to the sole control of Local Government Authorities for planning purposes.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament direct the Chairman of the Ministerial Council to seek the agreement of the other members of the- Ministerial Council to decide in favour of the release of such land fromdesignation in order to restore to those electors of the Division of Indi- affected by such designation the same rights and freedoms which they formerly enjoyed, and which are currently enjoyed by those citizens whose land was not designated for acquisition purposes in terms of the said Agreement and the- supporting legislation.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron.

Petition received.

Television

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Central Coast Region of NSW respectfully showeth: that we object to the poor television reception in this area.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Minister for Post and Telecommunications rectify the situation as soon as possible by approving ( 1 ) licences to allow the installation of suitably located translator stations, or (2) whatever other means may be considered necessary.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cohen.

Petition received.

Australian National University and Canberra College of Advanced Education

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. that if the laws governing collection of fees from university students are amended so as to prohibit compulsory membership of student associations, the provision of support and welfare services to students will be grievously curtailed.
  2. That the present provision for conscientious objection to student bodies at the Australian National University represents an adequate and sufficient safeguard to personal liberties.
  3. That in order to ensure complete freedom of association within universities, and to ensure the automony and intellectual freedom of student bodies the prevailing system should not be done away with.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that provisions for membership of student bodies at the Australian National University and the Canberra College of Advanced Education should not he altered.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fry.

Petition received.

Whaling

To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled.

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that due to the new information on whale communication, behaviour and intelligence, and to the depleted state of most of the great whale stocks and the uncertainty associated with whale population estimates, that commercial whaling is no longer acceptable to the vast majority of Australians. It is urged that immediate steps be taken to end this activity. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Giles.

Petition received.

Australian Broadcasting Commission

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth that the term of the current staff elected commissioner of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, expires on the 22nd October1978.

We pray the government will direct that this position should continue, and that the Minister will authorise the Commonwealth Electoral Officer to proceed with an election, by all ABC staff, of a new commissioner, and your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mr Graham.

Petition received.

Taxation

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The proposed introduction of a Retail Turnover Tax will

  1. Impose an intolerable burden on retailers- seriously inconvenience shoppers and prove difficult and expensive to administer.
  2. Increase the cost to consumers of clothing, food and other goods essential to maintenance of an adequate standard ofliving.
  3. Place a disproportionate tax burden on Australians least able to pay

Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members in the House assembled will not introduce indirect tax measures such as a Retail Turnover Tax or the administratively more difficult Value Added Tax as to do so would exacerbate the inequalities in our taxing system.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Les Johnson.

Petition received.

Atomic Reactor

To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That they oppose the construction of any additional reactor at the Australian atomic energy establishment at Lucas Heights in NSW.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mr Les Johnson.

Petition received.

Pensions: Lone Fathers

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully say that we are concerned about the discrimination which exists against the children of those parents who are in receipt of the Supporting Parents Benefit in comparison with children of Single Parents who receive the Widows Pension. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament take immediate steps to ensure that this year’s budget allow for Lone Parents to be given the right to receive a pension with the same benefits as are given with the Widows Pension, and we also request that Parliament take immediate action to instigate one (1) category of Lone Parent Pension to eliminate the discrimination currently experienced.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMrO’Keefe.

Petition received.

Political Asylum

To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the undersigned are deeply concerned that:

It appears, from reports in the Australian Press, that Jacob Prai and Otto Ondowame, refugees from West Irian who are now imprisoned in Papua New Guinea, may seek political asylum in Australia. It is clear that if asylum is not granted, their lives are in serious danger.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That, in the interests of human rights, the Australian Government immediately grant this asylum if it is sought.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mr Simon.

Petition received.

Pensions

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled the Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the decision of the Australian Government to depart from its 1975 election promise, a promise re-affirmed during the 1977 election campaign, that pensions would be increased twice-yearly in line with increases in the CPI, will seriously add to the economic burdens now borne by those citizens who are wholly or mainly dependent on their pensions.

Your Petitioners are impelled by this fact to call upon the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to review the abovementioned decision, and to determine-

That pensions will be increased twice yearly in line with rises in the CPI as promised by the Prime Minister in 1975 policy speech.

And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Thomson.

Petition received.

page 3161

CENSURE OF THE GOVERNMENT

Notice of Motion

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I will move:

That this House censure the Government for.

economic incompetence in creating the worst recession since the Great Depression;

persevering with policies which will aggravate the serious unemployment problem especially among the young;

the breaking of solemn promises made to the electorate;

the succession of scandals involving the Government arising from Ministerial improprieties; and

5 ) the neglect of key areas of social responsibility.

Mr SINCLAIR:
Leader of the House · New England · NCP/NP

– Even though the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) is debasing the currency on censure motions, Mr Speaker, I seek leave to move a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders to enable him to move his motion forthwith.

Leave granted.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr SINCLAIR:
Leader of the House · New England · NCP/NP

– I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving forthwith the motion of censure of the Government of which he has given notice for the next sitting.

I wish to inform the House that I accept the notice of motion given by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) as a motion of censure of the Government for the purpose of Standing Order 1 10.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion of Censure

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

-I move:

That this House censures the Government for-

economic incompetence in creating the worst recession since the Great Depression;

persevering with policies which will aggravate the serious unemployment problem especially among the young;

the breaking of solemn promises made to the electorate;

the succession of scandals involving the Government arising from Ministerial improprieties; and

5 ) the neglect of key areas of social responsibility.

It is less than a year since the general election which extended the life of this Government. Yet in that brief time this Government has been through a series of policy contortions unprecedented in this country. Virtually every major policy with which the Fraser Government sought to reassure the electorate 12 months ago has been reversed. A year ago the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) sought to reassure the electorate that there was no substance to the clouds of suspicion over the ethical standards and propriety of his Government. Yet those clouds have continually darkened and deepened in the past year. The Prime Minister set out to convince the electorate that his Government’s approach to economic management was sound and successful. What was promised then was abandoned within a few short months, but the Government has never looked like being successful in economic management. That has been the prime exemplar of its incompetence. This Government, bound to its present course of policy, is a positive danger to the current well-being and the future of this country.

In the space of one year this Fraser Government has spurned and invalidated the mandate it was given by a trusting electorate. It has lost the support of the Australian people, the majority of whom it has punished consistently for its own mistakes. It is a discredited and discreditable government, living on borrowed time. The arrogant contempt which has become the hallmark of this Government is nowhere better illustrated than in its performance in this Parliament. In the past week or so the Prime Minister and his colleagues have been pretending that proceedings in this House have somehow been dominated by the Opposition pursuing personal issues affecting members of the Government. The suggestion is not only untrue but also a travesty of the truth. We have not shirked the responsibilities of a parliamentary Opposition to pursue issues once raised. Without exception, I might add, they have been serious and legitimate issues, bearing directly on the collective integrity and standards of conduct of the Government But to pretend that they have been anything more than a diversion in the overall proceedings of the Parliament is merely a rather ridiculous attempt to deceive.

The opportunities for the Opposition to influence the order of business in our type of parliamentary system are limited, yet this year the Opposition had intitiated no fewer than 48 debates in this House; no fewer than 26 of those debates have dealt with various aspects of the Government’s economic policies and management- a subject which the Prime Minister has been pretending we have ignored. Perhaps the reason why the Prime Minister is unaware of the extent of this parliamentary scrutiny of his performance is that he has chosen consistently to ignore it. The Prime Minister has never taken part in any of those 48 debates, not even to defend colleagues or his own pet ideas. He is not even in the House now. It is a remarkable record which speaks for itself.

On eight previous occasions this year the Opposition has found it necessary to invoke the ultimate sanction available to it, namely, that of the censure motion. On those eight occasions the Prime Minister has spoken on four. The best that can be said about that is that it is an immense improvement on his record in general debate. It is significant that five of those eight censures have been forced by this Government’s attitude to propriety- the subject on which it posed for so long as a paragon. Two of those debates concerned the collective Cabinet conspiracy for which Senator Withers, the former Government Leader in the Senate, was made the scapegoat. The clouds of scandal and suspicion have never cleared from this Government. They are another of its hallmarks. It should be clearly recognised that they are of its own creation. It is the duty of the Opposition to question and probe, and that we have done.

It is, however, entirely spurious to suggest that the Opposition created the issues in question. The state of the economy epitomises the outlook and the incompetence of this Government. Last week the Prime Minister commandeered nationwide broadcasting time for the purely political purpose of trying to quell the rising tide of opposition to his economic policies, especially the rising tide of opposition within his own party room meetings in Parliament House. This Prime Minister promised in 1975 that Australia would be returned to economic health within three years. He has broken that promise as he has broken scores of promises in these three years. He insists on pursuing discredited policies which would not succeed even with another three years. Now he finds it necessary to begin a new brainwashing of the Australian community. It seems that, after all, life can be easy. The Prime Minister says: ‘Just wait for it. In the 1980s all of our dreams can be realised’. What the Prime Minister is trying to say to the Australian people is simply this: ‘Don’t judge us by what we have promised in the past. Don’t judge us by our record. We have a whole new catalogue of promises for the future. Let us start the scoreboard all over again’. That is what the Prime Minister really means when he talks about ‘runs on the board’.

We have seen the launching pad of a massive hoax- a totally unprincipled exercise performed by a government whose credibility is plunging to zero. It is not hard to see why the Prime Minister considers this exercise to be necessary. One has only to look at his statements on the economy over these last three years to find the reason. In November 1975 he said: ‘We have a comprehensive strategy to restore prosperity’. In June 1976 he said: ‘There is now growing evidence that the economy is moving forward’. Fifteen months later the Prime Minister was still trying to pretend that the evidence existed, that the ‘runswere on the board ‘. In one of his Sunday night homilies, he said: ‘Australia today is back on the road to economic health’. A month later in the election policy speech, bullishness knew no bounds, if one can excuse the term in the light of recent events at Nareen. The Prime Minister in that policy speech stated:

Our nation is on the move. We are ready to stride into a new era of prosperity.

Now, apparently, we have a shortened stride. We are told that we cannot reach the new era of prosperity until some unspecified time well into the 1980s. As recently as March, the Prime Minister assured us:

This year promises significant progress in the Australian economy.

Let us examine what, in fact, this year has meant for the Australian economy. From February, so the Prime Minister promised in his policy speech 12 months ago, unemployment would fall and keep on falling. On a seasonally adjusted basis, which provides the only true measure, 422,000 people are now registered as unemployed, that is, 34,000 more than in February, the month from which the Prime Minister said unemployment would fall. The latest figures show on a seasonally adjusted basis 6.6 per cent of the work force unemployed. In November 1975 the figure was 4.6 per cent. Furthermore, as many as 250,000 people have just dropped out of the work force altogether. This is what has happened this year under a Government which promised in 1975 that there would be jobs for all those who want work.

Let us look at interest rates. A year ago, the Government promised a cut of two percentage points in nominal interest rates. That has not happened. So far, the important rates, that is those for bank overdrafts and housing loans, have dropped half a percentage point At considerable risk, especially to external account, the Government is trying to bludgeon lenders into another half per cent cut in housing rates. Whether or not they succeed in this exercise, the promise of 12 months ago obviously has not been fulfilled. In fact, the last three years have seen the real rate of interest which is the one that counts increase by 4½ per cent

As a result we are all promised a gastronomic spectacular by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony). I hope it will be one of the television events of the year. On November 26 last year, in Bathurst, he displayed such touching faith in his leader that he promised that he would eat his hat if interest rates did not come down two percentage points in the next 12 months, that is, by next Sunday. The Deputy Prime Minister has made his commitment but even at this late stage, I would counsel him to caution, both for the sake of his digestion and for the fact that without his hat he will have nothing to talk through at Question Time in this House.

Let us look at the deficit It used to be a favourite subject of the Prime Minister and his colleagues when they were in opposition. They do not talk much about it anymore. They are forced to admit that either they have no control over the deficit or they have been deliberately faking the Budget figures. In three years, they have made no significant progress at all in reducing the deficit Last year’s deficit blew out by more than $1,1 00m, some of it because wrong assumptions were used quite deliberately in the original estimates. This year, the same sorts of fiddles are going on. Unemployment benefits have been under-estimated by more than $100m even after allowing for the new dole police who are expected to knock $50m off the total bill. The average benefit payment will increase by S per cent and the number of recipients by 13 per cent.

The Budget assumption on revenue from payasyouearn taxation was set deliberately high. It was over-stated in the Budget by at least $80m, which, of course, will go into the deficit. After taking into account the necessary revisions of the Budget figures, announced and unannounced, it becomes clear that the total public borrowing requirement for this year is at a record high. It is $ 1 SOm to $200m higher than last year and about $800m higher than in the Budget which I presented to this House in 1975. Mr Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table detailing the Government’s borrowing requirements for 1978-79.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr HAYDEN:

– Under this Government, the balance of payments has been pushed into a most precarious state, aggravated by the continuing investment allowance which pushes up demand for imports of capital equipment. This Government’s foreign borrowings have pushed our debt obligations up to a record level of $325 per head of population- $325 for every man, woman and child in the nation. At the end of 1974, that figure was $77. Yet this is the Government that professed to be horrified by the thought of large-scale overseas borrowing. This is the same Prime Minister who in 1976 chose to devalue the Australian currency by 17.5 per cent rather than borrow to the extent of $ 1 ,000m.

This Government’s foreign borrowings, received or in the course of negotiation, now stand at $3, 538m. I suspect that the figure will be $4,000m by the end of this financial year, the way the balance of payments is progressing. The cost of servicing this enormous debt will place a significant strain on our balance of payments in the 1980s. Interest payments will add another $200m. How does the Prime Minister justify this situation, especially with the pressure developing on our balance of payments in a period when the energy import bill of this country will be moving to an additional $2,000m a year, which by itself will contribute enormous destabilising pressure?

The Prime Minister likes to equate his style of economic management with household budgeting; yet he has borrowed more than his Government holds in international reserves. The Government continues to borrow to hold up the reserves and the Australian dollar, but it appears to be incapable of adequately strengthening either. Again I would like to have a table in relation to the borrowings incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Source: Reserve Bank of Australia Statistical Bulletin. (Note that since 1976 procedures to determine the value of Australia’s gold holdings were changed. These changed procedures has added about $ 1,000m to the value of official reserve assets.)

Source: Budget Paper No. 6- Securities on Issue 1978-79.

  1. As of 15 November 1978.
  2. Total debt as of June 1978 plus $809m borrowings to 15 November.
  3. Includes announced Japanese Yen Public Issue of $23 lm.
Mr HAYDEN:

– The latest sleight-of-hand, of course, is the much-vaunted decision of the Commonwealth to let State governments borrow overseas. Quite clearly, the Commonwealth hopes that this will further add to Australian reserves- which is to the Commonwealth’s benefit, of course- while the exchange rate risks of borrowing are transferred to the States. We still have not been told whether there is to be any indemnity for the States. Whether the State governments will actually go ahead with this scheme remains problematical.

While the Government in Canberra continues to manipulate interest rates downwards, overseas interest rates are tending to rise- especially in the United States- with the result that foreign borrowing must become less and less attractive to the governments in the States. And this is claimed to be a great advance!

Apart from borrowings, our balance of payments would be greatly assisted by a strong balance of trade. The fact is, though, that our trade balance is also going downhill. The Government is grandstanding on the international stage about protection, especially in the European Community, while it uses protection to avoid making long term decisions. It has used this strident, sterile approach to trade policy as a substitute for real thinking. Australia’s trading future is not with Europe; the Government knows that. The future is with Asia and the Middle East- areas to which the Government refuses to give adequate recognition.

Let me mention just one more subject under this general heading of economic incompetence and breach of faith. That is the question of income redistribution. Wage earners have their special reason for losing faith in this Government, for actively distrusting it. Time and again the Prime Minister and his henchmen have attacked the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for not doing what they want it to do. Justice, equity and the proper performance of a statutory and constitutional role are not matters that impress these people. They want their own way and will brook no interference. They have served up rubbish as socalled evidence in wage hearings, and then whinged to high heaven when it was recognised as rubbish and rejected. The Government clings to theories about ‘real wage overhang’ while there is no empirical basis for such theories. Our two leading research bodies in this field are the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research and the Flinders Institute of Labour Studies. They say the Government’s arguments are baseless. The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission says they are baseless. Many employers and their organisations believe they are baseless. But the Prime Minister ploughs on, poisoning the climate for industrial relations and discrediting the institutions which try to maintain sanity in this vital area of policy.

The Fraser Government has opened a second front against the wage earner using the taxation system. This Government has consistently favoured the rich as against the poor and the middle income earners.

In February, with its window dressing cuts in taxation, then again in the budget with increases in personal tax and indirect taxes, the Fraser Government has favoured those at the top of the scale. Welfare pensioners and the unemployed are denied indexation of their payments, but people at the Prime Minister’s salary level and companies in the super-profit category get the benefit. This is not only a cynical and unjust treatment of the majority; it is bad economics. This Government professes to seek a return to profitability in the private sector. Yet it makes that objective virtually impossible to achieve. If the Government had a sense of history it could look back and see that from the 1950s profits have recovered as the economy has recovered. Taking money away from those who tend to spend more and giving it to those who tend to save more through wage and tax and expenditure policies will suppress demand, stifle recovery and delay renewed profitability. Increased economic activity, improved economic healththese are the ways to recovery. We will not solve our problems with the bleak and destructive policies pursued by the Prime Minister.

The House and the community do not have to take my word for it. Some of our most eminent authorities share the same view. The Australian Mutual Provident Society is hardly a Labordominated pressure group. But the AMP reported only last week that there did not seem to be any immediate likelihood of significant improvement in the economy under present policies. The Society had this to say:

While stability of prices and wages may be necessary before renewed growth can take place, stability will not itself produce growth. The impetus for that must come from elsewhere.

That was the AMP Society. Let me refer to Rydge’s, a far from radical business journal and one greatly respected in the business community. The October issue of Rydge’s contained an editorial which had this to say:

What is needed here is the development of a revivalwithoutinflation strategy . . . The Government could think of ways of increasing capital investment in areas that will take up some of the slack in industries where there are vast pools of excess capacity, both in terms of capital and labour. The construction industry is just one where output could be expanded at short notice.

Here, the Government might think of increasing capital funds available for welfare housing, freeing up savings bank funds even more for private home building, and look at ways of increasing investment in public facilities such as sewerage services, bridges, highways and hospitals.

Such capital investment programs spread among the several extremely soft segments of business would have a multiplier effect through the whole range of business activity.

What Rydge’s proposes is precisely what this Opposition has been proposing. Let us look at the 1977-78 Annual Report of the Australian Industries Development Association. This organisation supports Government policy and even believes it will hold until election year 1980, But AIDA warns the Government that on present trends unemployment will become steadily worse. Its projections indicate that unemployment will increase each year to the mid-1980s until unemployment is around 10 per cent by 1984-85. Research by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research indicates that the unemployment rate will be between 8 and 12 per cent by 1984-85 if present policies continue. The Institute ‘s report of this work notes this:

A key finding of the projection is the importance of government expenditure (especially current government expenditure) to employment growth over the projection period.

Public demand growth explains a high proportion of the employment growth in spite of the fact that the contribution of public demand to overall GDP is less than 1 0 per cent.

Let me quote one more section, from the Institute’s conclusions. It says this: the unemployment rate is likely to increase and, depending on participation rate movements, this scenario implies unemployment to levels of 650,000 to 900,000 persons by 1984-85, and the demand-supply gap is likely to widen further.

What this all boils down to, Mr Speaker, is this: The nation, the Government and the Parliament are being subjected to the wilful, misguided and stunted misapprehensions of an economically illiterate Prime Minister. A Liberal, held in the highest regard by just about every person in this house, and by just about everybody who ever met him, had this to say about the Prime Minister

There is something frighteningly cynical about a leader who can speak with such conviction when he must know that he is talking economic nonsense. This is even worse than not knowing he is talking nonsense.

Those words, Mr Speaker, as you would recognise, were written by the former honourable member for Wakefield, Mr Bert Kelly, in his book, One More Nail, published only this week. I can do no more than endorse the modest view of the former honourable and modest member.

I have spoken before about the outlook for this country in the 1980s if the present policies of this Government are pursued further. It is a dismal and unnecessary prospect Australians should be able to look forward to the 1980s. They can not do it while the Fraser Government persists in chasing the inflation figure at the cost of everincreasing unemployment. The Opposition has put forward alternatives which offer hope and growth. Their thrust is endorsed widely in the business community, including by some of the authorities I have already quoted, by State governments and even by members of this Government

Let me briefly recall some of the main points of our alternative proposals, presented originally to this House in August. It is an alternative that recognises that inflation and unemployment must be tackled together. It recognises the need for close consideration of the balance of payments, of the need to control the money supply, to keep the lid on inflationary expectations, and to keep downward pressure on interest rates.

The Prime Minister has already demonstrated a predilection outside this House to misrepresent the figures of our alternative proposals. So for the record, let me make them clear We propose an expansion to the net deficit of about $840m to leave it at much the same level as last year’s domestic deficit. It is a reduction if expressed as a proportion of the gross domestic product. Outlays would be increased by about $530m, with much of this finding its way into housing and building construction. Tax cuts totalling $470m would be made, with the tax burden being shifted from the middle and low-income earners to the upper income brackets, to wealthy mining companies and to those people receiving unearned capital gains on capital accumulations in excess of $200,000.

Our package could be expected to produce growth of about 5Vi per cent, and the economy has the excess capacity to handle this without creating inflationary pressures. That would generate 160,000 jobs instead of wiping out another 90,000 as the Government proposes in its Budget for this fiscal year.

Our alternative would not only make a significant reduction in unemployment; it would reduce the consumer price index as well. On both points the Government proposes the opposite. We have also put forward additional proposals for a modest stimulus to the home building industry, currently operating at its lowest point for 12 years. These proposals are vitally necessary when there are more than 90,000 families on the waiting lists of State housing authorities.

We have demonstrated, Mr Speaker, that there is an alternative, that there is hope, that the 1980’s can be a period of achievement and fulfilment The obstacle is the policy of the Fraser Government, its insensitivity to needs, its narrow and myopic outlook.

The change of its direction is inevitable. It is only a matter of time. This censure motion defines in broad terms the failings and shortcomings of this Government- matters which affect the life of every Australian. They add up to a record unparalleled for its contempt of the people and Parliament of Australia. It is a record which richly deserves the censure of this House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the motion seconded?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– I second the motion, Mr Speaker. This is a censure motion of the Government relating to a number of matters of which the Australian people are well aware. Let me reiterate the terms of the censure motion:

  1. 1 ) economic incompetence in creating the worst recession since the Great Depression;
  2. persevering with policies which will aggravate the serious unemployment problem especially among the young;
  3. the breaking of solemn promises made to the electorate;
  4. the succession of scandals involving the Government arising from Ministerial improprieties; and
  5. 5 ) the neglect of key areas of social responsibility.

There has to be evidence to sustain that sort of censure motion and there is such evidence. I refer honourable members to an example. A New South Wales survey of public opinion was taken on 19 and 20 August, immediately following the latest Budget introduced by this Governmentthe deficiencies of which my leader has carefully analysed. A very significant factor emerged from the survey of households in New South Wales. The result was that only 23 per cent agreed that one could trust the national Government in Canberra to do what is right. That was the position- 23 per cent of Australians felt that they could trust the Government because of what it has done to them. I will give a further example of this. If honourable members take the public opinion polls as sampled, electorate by electorate, they will find that the unfortunate previous State Liberal leader, Mr Coleman, who was thrashed at the elections, had a public opinion rating well above that of the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). The survey showed that in the electorate of Fuller Mr Coleman had the support of 30 per cent of the people and the Prime Minister had the support of 20 per cent of the people. That rating applied in every electorate in New South Wales.

Mr KEATING:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Howard would not have held his seat.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-If the Treasurer, who is sitting opposite, were to go to the polls he would be defeated in his own electorate, according to the public opinion polls. Why should the Government not be defeated from the point of view of what it promised the Australian people and what it has done? Let us look at the evidence against the Government. The last election policy speech on behalf of the Government made on 2 1 November 1977 opened with these magnificent lines:

We are ready to stride into a new era of prosperity . . .

Can honourable members imagine it? What sort of a stride is it? It is a stride that would be taken by an ant, if one could measure it. How could the Government convince the people of Australia that it really had a policy for them? Is it any wonder that those public opinion polls, the results of which I have announced, taken of the people of New South Wales- this is the opinion of people throughout Australia- clearly show that they cannot trust the Government? Another line in the Government ‘s policy speech stated:

We have reduced taxes, revived incentive . . .

A further line stated:

We have restored integrity in Governments and all praise to Phillip Lynch who has upheld the highest traditions of the Westminster system.

Can one imagine that to be so, with the land scandals rife right across Victoria and the Hamer Government in dire trouble? The Hamer Government will be annihilated whenever it faces the polls because of the land scandals in Victoria and the misappropriation of funds. Is it any wonder that the Government is faced with problems? The policy speech continued:

Because of our job assistance strategy, because of the growth and development our policies have made possible unemployment will fall from February and keep falling.

Is unemployment falling? It has reached massive heights. Is it any wonder that the people of New South Wales want the Government to answer to them on its mandate? It delivered a promise, a contract, to them that it would perform efficiently, that it would perform in the areas of economic management and unemployment, that it would adhere to its promises and that it would adhere to the proprieties of ministerial integrity. The Government failed to keep anyone of those promises. I should like to refer to a couple of other matters that were mentioned in that speech before I deal with the issue which is the subject of debate. It stated:

We have shown that the public can be protected; that a fair and resolute stand can work. It worked in the air controllers strike, in the postal workers dispute, it worked against the ACTU’s uranium moratorium- they backed down.

And in the Victorian power dispute, it was our move to deregister the unions involved that led to the strikers returning to work.

What nonsense that is. In every case those disputes were settled by the well known method of conciliation and arbitration. If anything, all the Government’s legislation in those areas exacerbated the disputes. We have a remarkable spectacle in that the only time the Prime Minister comes into this House- apart from Question Time when we never get any answers- is in the event of an industrial dispute, to lend his weight to the so-called settlement of the dispute. What sort of weight was used to try to settle the air traffic controllers dispute? Honourable members did not even have a chance to discuss it in the Parliament. But we were threatened that we would be called together to pass emergency legislation. We place on record again the fact that the dispute was settled by Bob Hawke and we will pay a bit of credit to Sir Reginald Ansett who also played a part in the settlement. Let us state the clear position. The Government talked about the postal workers’ dispute. The postal workers were already under threat of the standdown provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The Government raced in and introduced Commonwealth legislation affecting only Commonwealth employees, to provide that any one of its Ministers could stand down and sack an employee who would have no right of appeal. That did not settle that dispute; it exacerbated it. That dispute was settled in the normal process of conciliation and arbitration.

The Government tried to get itself involved with the Victorian power dispute. The Prime Minister told this House how he was going to solve that dispute. It was not solved on the basis of any Federal legislation. It was solved with the good sense and ability of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and other organisations in the Victorian establishment. The validity of that legislation is based on a very weak premise indeed. The Government talked about a trade and commerce power as a means of solving those disputes. Recently we had the classic example of the Telecom Australia dispute. In the middle of the dispute the Prime Minister of this country came into this House and said to the workers: You have lost your pay. That pay will remain lost. You will not get it. I guarantee it’. The dispute was settled within 48 hours on the basis that the men would recover all their lost pay, to which they were entitled. It was settled by Justice Gaudron ‘s having the intelligence to convene a conference on a Sunday to get those disputants together and to get the effective processes of conciliation and arbitration working. Is that not the way an intelligent government should deal with the matter? Why is it that the Government wanted to take some sort of praise for this sort of legislation which could have brought the nation to a standstill?

Again the Government proposed to deal with the tramway dispute in Victoria on the basis of its so-called intelligent legislation of conciliation and arbitration. In that case conscientious objection to unions was used as a basis for a dispute. We heard Barbara Biggs saying: ‘I am not going to be involved with the tramways union. I do not mind being involved in any other union’. That is an incredible way of sustaining a conscientious objection. That reason was going to be the basis of another complete stoppage in Victoria because of the Government’s legislation and because of its inability to understand the situation or because of course, it manipulates certain puppets throughout Australia who can promote people to cause that type of industrial dispute. Barbara Biggs is no exception. It is well known that she paid a surprise visit to Western Australia to get some sort of briefing as to the situation.

Let us have a look at the position. Taxation reform was the Government’s promise in the last election speech which stated:

This Government has brought in the largest and fairest reforms ever made to Australia’s tax system . . . From 1 February further tax cuts will come in for every Australian wage and salary earner. This year alone, the person on average earnings will be saving $6 a week from these two reforms.

What happened to those reforms? The Government gave them to the people to get their vote and as soon as they gave the Government their vote, it snatched the savings back and took more money from the people. Is it any wonder that the Government’s popularity is down to 23 per cent in public opinion polls? The nation cannot trust this Government and cannot trust its Leader. By all means, let the Government parties hang on to their Leader if they think they can survive. That is a matter for them. But have a look at public opinion. In relation to social security and health, the mandate speech states:

We have taken politics out of pension increases by linking them automatically with the Consumer Price Index.

That is another promise that has gone, and pensioners are parading throughout the nation asking what happened to that promise. Mr Treasurer, you must be very worried about the situation because you are deemed to be an honourable man. You are a man who at least adheres to your promises, but you have had to break nearly every one of them because apparently somebody else is dictating your economic policy.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to refrain from using direct address to another member.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Through you, Mr Speaker. If I could intrude that into Hansard, that should put it in order. The mandate policy speech continues in respect of Aborigines:

We are acting to end the offensive paternalism of past policies towards Aborigines. We will continue to encourage self-management of Aboriginal programs and make them masters of their own affairs.

We have since had the Aurukun and Mornington Island situation, and what a tragedy that was from the point of view of Aborigines being entitled to manage their own affairs. It was a complete denial of their entitlement. The Government repudiated that promise.

Mr Ruddock:

-What would you do?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Listen carefully and do not interject. When the Government introduced legislation relating to land tenure on the basis of the description of the sort of land it was going to try to protect in Queensland, the Opposition put an amendment stating very clearly that the land described by the Queensland statute as being trust land for Aborigines would remain their land.

Mr Ruddock:

– You would still be fighting over them as pawns.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– The honourable member is very impatient, very worried. He knows that we put forward that amendment, and if it had been carried the land would have been classified as land over which the Commonwealth had control. The amendment identified that land and if it had been accepted it would have meant that the Queensland State Government could not have taken it away. When we put the amendment to the Government it was repudiated and, as a result, within three days of that innocuous legislation going through both Houses- Lord knows why it was ever passed; it has achieved nothing- the Queensland Government acted to reclassify its trusts and made this Government’s legislation useless, hopeless, of no value whatsoever. The Prime Minister was asked on a television program: ‘Well, Mr Prime Minister, now that the Queensland Government has acted to beat your move to control the land, what have you in mind?’ That worthy gentleman said: ‘We expected this. I have a contingency plan which we are about to bring into operation.’ We have never heard of that plan. The Government has done nothing for the Aborigines in Aurukun and Mornington Island. It has been left solely to the likes of Hinze and others to dictate what will be done in respect of Aborigines. Apparently the best they can get is some sort of period lease, with somebody else controlling them.

The points I have mentioned in the short time available clearly show that every one of the Government’s promises has been broken and it has no intention of ever keeping them. The Government betrayed the trust of the Australian people when it suggested that they should vote for it. On that basis, let us look at the Government’s record since it was elected. What is its incredible track record in the short space of time it has been in office? It should be borne in mind that, luckily for the Australian people, the Government will face an election within another 50 parliamentary weeks- about 150 parliamentary days. That is not long for it to try to rehabilitate itself. Let us look at the record. In February of this year it was announced suddenly that a Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference was going to be held in the main city area of Sydney, an area where there could be no protection. It was clearly understood that the Conference was thought to be a good front, a good curtain raiser for the new Parliament that was to assemble shortly thereafter. We had the tragedy of three people being killed because of the lack of security arrangements, with the Army being called out by the Prime Minister, running all over the New South Wales countryside with machine guns and tanks because there was going to be a confrontation; we were going to get rid of the people who had committed this dreadful outrage. Of course, those people have not been discovered to this day. I ask the question: Why was the Conference held in that area? Why was there such a lack of proper security arrangements? Why was the Conference held in the middle of a main city thoroughfare, without adequate supervision?

We then come to the extraordinary situation of the appointment of Sir John Kerr to an ambassadorial post which had previously been announced as being defunct. The post was suddenly revived. The worthy, distinguished knight was appointed on the basis that he would be able to fulfil the obligations of the post. It was well known that everybody in Australia objected to that appointment, despite what the gentleman concerned, who is now writing for the Sydney Morning Herald for a fee of $85,000, or less, or more- I do not know which- might say. His promoter is Harry M. Miller, so it is not a bad financial proposition. What was the real situation surrounding this appointment? It was suggested that the real problem was that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) dared to suggest that Sir John Kerr should not accept the appointment. The whole Australian nation said that he should not accept the appointment. That is why he did not accept it and that is why the Prime Minister ran away from the situation.

The third matter was the IBM-Facom affair, where the Prime Minister personally intervened in the tendering process. Not a small amount of money was involved- the contract was for a $20m computer. The contract would have gone to Facom Australia Ltd if it had not been for the Prime Minister intervening on the basis that he thought that something ought to be done. The result has been that nothing has happened. Despite the indiscretion and lack of integrity of the Prime Minister in that matter, the result is that still no tenders have been let for that computer. Even at the time of the intervention by the Prime Minister, the computer was required urgently. Then we had the Aurukun and Mornington Island issue, which I have mentioned. We saw the complete failure of and backdown by the Government on that issue.

Then came another interesting matter, namely, the McGregor Royal Commission inquiry into the improprieties which occurred in the Queensland electoral redistribution. What an interesting matter that was. It was raised by an honourable member on the Government side of the House. It was raised by the then Deputy Government Whip the present honourable member for Fadden (Mr Donald Cameron). Because he raised the matter, he promptly lost that position, such is the sense of loyalty that is exhibited by the Prime Minister. Let us look at the interesting aspects of the evidence that was given to that Royal Commission by no less a person than Senator Withers. We can accept that the evidence he gave was pretty genuine because, when a person is in the witness box and is subjected to the nervous strain of cross-examination, he at least has to tell the truth because someone is questioning him all the time. He is not in the haven of the Senate chamber, where he can give any answer he likes; he has to tell the truth. When in June 1978 the Commissioner asked why the redistribution was hastened, we find that Senator Withers gave this incredible answer when talking about the events which occurred in the previous June:

We had an election coming.

How did Senator Withers know that we had an election coming? At that stage the GovernorGeneral had not announced that there was going to be an election. At that stage it was expected that this Parliament would run its normal term of three years. But Senator Withers was able to tell the Commissioner that he knew, well before anybody else was able to say so, that an election was coming. That is an incredible situation when we look at what is involved. The Governor-General alone has the discretion to decide when an election will be called. Yet Senator Withers was able to tell the Commissioner that the Government knew well before July 1977 that an election was going to be called. Another issue is involved in this. In giving evidence to the Royal Commission, Senator Withers said:

Could I put it this way: it was decided that all the allegations -

That is, all the allegations of impropriety-

  1. . would be ignored, and that the maps would be got through the parliament with the greatest expedition so that the government could have a December election option if it wished.

I stress the words ‘if it wished’. We know the proprieties involved in the calling of an election. It is not a matter of an early election being called because a government wishes that to happen; it is a matter of an election being called at the discretion of the Governor-General. That discretion has to be exercised on the basis that there are good and valid reasons for the discretion to be exercised. When we asked the Prime Minister, as I did last November, whether he would table a copy of the advice he gave to the GovernorGeneral on that occasion and whether he also would table a copy of the Governor-General’s reasons for calling an early election, the Prime Minister said that he would consider the matter. We have not seen hide nor hair of those documents to this day. It is a useless exercise for the distinguished former occupant of the chair of Governor-General to be writing articles for newspapers for a very handsome fee if he will not tell us what were the reasons for calling such an early election.

Early elections have been called on previous occasions, but for every occasion there have been precedents. The Governor-General made public his reasons for the double dissolution in 1975, but he did not give his reasons for granting a double dissolution in 1977. The documents relating to the election in 1974 were tabled. The documents relating to the 1951 double dissolution, the 1929 and 1931 general elections, and the 1914 double dissolution were all tabled. The documents relating to only one extraordinary dissolution were not tabled, and that was the last extraordinary dissolution. What sort of government is it that cannot face the people of Australia, that cannot give an honest account of the situation? It appears that this Prime Minister had in his pocket a double dissolution whenever he wanted it. What was the pay-off?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

– The first point that has to be made -

Mr Keating:

– I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Opposition has moved a motion of censure, which is the most important action it can take in the Parliament under the Standing Orders.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order involved.

Mr Keating:

– We are not to be joined by the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order. The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Keating:

– The Prime Minister is slinking under his desk listening to the debate on the intercom.

Mr SPEAKER:

-If the honourable member for Blaxland continues to speak after I have drawn to his attention the fact that no point of order is involved, I will have to deal with him.

Mr HOWARD:

– The first point to be made in this debate is that this motion which the Opposition has moved is not about the economic competence or otherwise of the Government; it is not about the Government’s policies relating to unemployment; it is not about election promises; it is not about an alleged succession of scandals involving Ministers; it is not about areas of social responsibility. This motion is about the cumulative sensitivity of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) to the fact that he is increasingly being seen in the Australian community as a person who ignores the significant responsibilities of his office. This motion, in company with the challenge which he gave a few days ago for a national debate with the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) about the economy, is about the dawning awareness by the Opposition leader that he is not doing his job; it is about a realisation on the part of the honourable member for Oxley, the Leader of the Opposition, that over the past 12 months he has attached more importance to the Queensland redistribution than he has to the economy and employment, that he has thought that the business interests of two of my colleagues on the front bench have been more important than the economy.

Mr Uren:

-i take a point of order, Mr Speaker. We want the butcher, not the block.

Mr SPEAKER:

-If the honourable member for Reid continues to take pointless points of order, I will deal with him.

Mr HOWARD:

– Perhaps even more importantly, this motion may well be about another fact which is internal to the Australian Labor Party and which is best illustrated by the information that when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking in the debate in which we are presently engaged, there were 22 Opposition members present and when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) was speaking there were 29 Opposition members present. Above all, this debate is an eleventh hour attempt by the Opposition leader to respond to the criticism that has justifiably been made, not only from this side of the House, newspaper editorials and newspaper commentators, but also undoubtedly by his own party, that he has neglected his duties as Opposition leader. He has ignored the fact that the prime role of an Opposition is to present itself as an alternative government. He has shown an obsessive preoccupation with personal attacks on members on this side of the House. He has demeaned the forms of the House. He has devalued the currency of a censure motion. He has failed to deliver as an opposition leader an effective alternative to this Government.

Knowing that the parliamentary session is coming to an end, knowing that in Question Time he has not set about crossexamining the Government’s economic policies and its policies on employment, social responsibility and taxation, realising that he has but three days left he decides, as a desperate last minute bid, to pull on a censure motion which is as empty as the attacks the Opposition has made on my honourable colleagues on the front bench of the Government ranks. Above all, this motion ought to be seen for what it is. It is not a serious attempt to censure the Government. It is not a serious attempt to present an alternative to the policies and performance of this Government throughout the past 12 months. It is a procedural device to bolster the position of the Leader of the Opposition who realises not only his lack lustre performance during the past 12 months but also that the clouds of ideological differences within his own party, as illustrated by the motions on human rights of the Victorian Branch of the Australian Labor Party and the resolutions of other sections of the Labor Party, will come home to haunt him.

This motion has nothing to do with this Government’s performance or the alternatives offered by the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues throughout the year. It purports to call into question the economic competence of the Government and the management by the Government of the country’s economy not only over the last 12 months but also over the last two years. It gives to the Government an authority, before the Parliament rises, to say something about its record in economic management over the past 12 months. I welcome that opportunity. It is a record of which the Government is proud. The Government believes that it demonstrates the fact that it has used the right combination of policies over the past 12 months which are designed to respond to the fundamental causes of the current economic problems.

The first and most important indicator of the Government’s performance in handling the economy is, of course, the inflation rate. Surely, on that one point there could be a rare degree of objectivity by the Leader of the Opposition and a rare degree of unanimity between the Government and the Opposition not a grudging acknowledgment but a full acknowledgment that the Government has had spectacular success in reducing this country’s inflation rate. Let there be no doubt about it. The most important indicator of economic competence or incompetence is the country’s inflation rate. That is not a matter that is very seriously in dispute. It was acknowledged by the New South Wales Premier, Mr Wran, a few months ago. It is universally acknowledged throughout the Australian community as having been one of the remarkable success stories of this Government. Having taken office with an inflation rate, even on the most charitable interpretation that might be used by the Opposition, of slightly over 14 per cent, we have now reduced that rate to below 8 per cent.

A few short years ago the inflation rate in this country compared unfavourably with countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Our inflation rate is now below the average of OECD countries. There is no serious argument about that. International organisation after international organisation having respectability in economic affairs has commended the record of this Government in tackling the fundamental problem of inflation. Those organisations in increasing numbers are acknowledging, as this Government has acknowledged and proclaimed since it was elected in December 1975, the absolute link between the level of inflation and the level of unemployment. As recently as two or three months ago, the Secretary-General of the OECD Mr van Lennep when addressing a meeting of the International Monetary Fund in Washington said that there could be little doubt that the principal cause of unemployment in Western countries in recent years has been uncontrolled inflation. The message is very clear. Any party or government which ignores the link between inflation and unemployment does so at its peril, in terms not only of economic responsibility but also of delivering long term goods and benefits to those who are unemployed. On the first test of economic competence this Government has been a resounding success. We have reduced the level of inflation. Nothing can take that away from the credit of this Government. None of the interjections and heehawing of the Opposition can alter the fact that when it comes to inflation this Government undoubtedly has the runs on the board. Not even some of our critics outside this chamber are prepared to dispute that.

The Leader of the Opposition professed in his speech a great interest in the question of interest rates. I accept that the Opposition Leader might believe in the cause of lower interest rates. He might in his heart want lower interest rates in Australia. But he demonstrated, as a member of the Government in which he served prior to 1 975 and again in the alternative Budget that he presented in August of this year, that whilst he may believe in the cause of lower interest rates he cannot apply himself to the policies which will deliver lower interest rates. We all know what happened to interest rates in this country under the previous Labor regime. We all know what happened to the long term bond rate, bank interest rates, the overdraft rate and a whole plethora of interest rates in the country. Yet despite that experience and despite the overwhelming evidence that a government cannot let go of fiscal restraint and monetary aggregates and sail imagine that it can have low interest rates, he presented an alternative Budget which he claimed provided for a deficit of $3,600m or thereabouts. In reality, unless he were retrospectively to withdraw the investment allowance to affect other taxation concessions and to introduce a capital gains tax, the real deficit in the Hayden alternative Budget would have been well over $4,000m.

I simply pose the question to this House: What price lower interest rates with a deficit of over $4,000m? Not only would such a alternative deficit have prejudiced the cause of lower interest rates in the Australian community but also it would inevitably have meant much higher interest rates. A person with that record in Government and with that inability to grasp economic fundamentals in opposition can scarcely come into the House and chide the Government about its interest rate record. Since the Government took office it has proclaimed the cause of lower interest rates. It has pressed its belief in lower interest rates. It has been prepared to apply the policies which will give the circumstances in which interest rate reductions can occur. The runs, once again, are on the boardThere has been a reduction of over 1 1½ per cent in the long term bond rate over the past 15 months. There is in contemplation the cumulative reduction of one per cent over the whole of this year in housing interest rates charged by banks. There does happen to have been a reduction of 0.5 per cent in the overdraft rate for loans of under $100,000 and for certain other categories of loans. There does happen to have been a large number of interest rate reductions in the commercial field. So, in terms of performance, this Government has demonstrated a capacity to deliver the goods so far as interest rates are concerned.

Another key economic indicator, consumer sales, has indicated a steady increase over the past 12 months. Capital investment figures in this country have shown a very remarkable increase over the past 12 months. I acknowledge, of course, that the investment allowance, and particularly the phasing down of the investment allowance from 30 June, has had some impact on the figures for the first six months of this calendar year; but, even making allowance for that, the increase in capital investment has been very significant. Only today in this area one of my colleagues has drawn my attention to a table which appeared in yesterday’s Melbourne Age and which deals with an interesting economic indicator- not the only economic indicator, but an interesting economic indicator- and is a response to some of the gloom merchants on the other side of this House who are worried about the construction industry. The table indicates that approvals in Victoria for factory buildings in 1977-78 totalled $1 10m for the Melbourne area and $25m for country areas, against comparable figures the previous year of $86. 5m and $2 1 .4m.

Of course, that is only one group of figures, but it is another indication- a contemporary indication, an indication published yesterday- of the extent to which there is a greater willingness on the part of private people in Australia to invest because they have greater confidence and because inflation is under control. There is the prospect of greater economic stability.

Mr Uren:

– What about housing?

Mr HOWARD:

– There is the prospect of being able to invest with much greater confidence. We come, of course, to the area of housing- an area in which the honourable member for Reid is very interested. The most recent figures of significance in the area of housing are the lending figures. If the honourable member analyses the bank and building society lending figures for September and October he will find a very significant upswing.

Mr Uren:

– What about the component of new housing?

Mr HOWARD:

– Quite a bit of that upswing can be attributed to one of the Budget announcements, that regarding the asset ratios of the savings banks. The honourable member for Reid has interjected, saying: ‘What about new housing commencements?’ I will say something about new housing commencements, because it is relevant when we are looking at the housing area to understand one thing, namely that new commencements for housing are no longer the direct barometer of activity in the housing industry that they were 10 or 20 years ago. The fact of the matter is that in large parts of Australia there is a greater disposition to buy second hand houses or to carry out renovations than there was 10 or 20 years ago. The honourable member for Reid ought to understand not only that but also that demographic changes have reduced- they have not eliminated- the importance of new starts as an economic indicator.

Let me move to one of the sectors of the Australian community that were so abysmally neglected, even abused, while the Australian Labor Party was in office, namely, the rural sector of Australia. If ever a sector of Australia was treated as a poor relation by a government, it was rural Australia under the Whitlam Government. What do we find now in the rural scene of Australia? Do we find the unrelieved gloom that comes from the Opposition? Do we find hesitancy about the future in rural Australia? No, we find a situation of confidence, a situation of optimism, a situation in which export orders are rising, a situation in which a 35 per cent to 40 per cent increase in farm incomes has been predicted by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. I put it to the House that no section of the Australian community has been stronger in its support of this Government’s anti-inflation polices than has rural Australia, because the people there know and understand the ravages of inflation. They know and understand the impact on costs of the huge and automatic wage increases that occurred in earlier years. The message, using indicators, is a message of optimism, not of gloom. It is a message of the Government steadily overcoming the economic problems of Australia.

This Government has demonstrated a concern about this country’s position in international economic affairs. We have devoted great energy to improving Australia’s export markets. We have worked very hard to bring about sensible arrangements for the mining and export of Australian uranium. All that we have had from the Opposition has been constant sniping on this issue and a total ignorance of the enormous contribution that uranium exports can make to the balance of payments of Australia in the future. We have endeavoured to open up the export markets of this country to the European Economic Community. The Opposition has shown a total lack of interest in that. It has sniped at the concept from the word go. It has completely ignored the reality that this country cannot turn its back on the largest trading bloc in the world, and that it is in the long term interests of this country to try to develop greater export markets.

Throughout this year the Opposition has spent a lot of time talking about taxation. Taxation is a subject in which I have, of course, for portfolio reasons, a great deal of interest. There are two things I would like to say about taxation during this debate. The first is this: If ever a government has done something for the cause of greater equity in the Australian taxation system, it has been this Government over the past 12 months. This Government, to the eternal embarrassment of the Opposition, which has always championed the cause of the low wage earner, has done more through its attack on tax avoidance to reduce the inequities in the Australian taxation system than any other government has done since the Second World War. It is to the eternal embarrassment of the Opposition that in the three years it was in government- the champions of the fixed wage and salary earner who, because of his circumstances, cannot indulge in tax avoidance schemes- it did absolutely nothing. The attack that this Government has mounted and will continue to mount on blatant tax avoidance in the Australian community is a demonstration of its concern for the equity of the taxation system.

Moving from the narrower area of our antiavoidance measures, let me say something about taxation levels in this community. Let me remind the House that if the Hayden scales had stayed in place we would be paying $3,000m more tax this year.

Mr Willis:

– That is nonsense.

Mr HOWARD:

-The honourable member for Gellibrand is again sensitive on this. He has claimed that if Labor had remained in office it would have indexed the taxation scales. If that is the case, what was Labor’s response in 1975 when the then Opposition supported tax indexation? It was deafening silence. When the present Opposition was in government and we who are now on this side of the House proposed tax indexation as an alternative policy, it said nothing about it. It has taken 2Vi years to wring out of the Opposition a belated claim that if it had remained in government it would have indexed the taxation scales. The truth is that for the whole time the present Opposition was in government, it believed in the rhetoric of its then leader at Blacktown in 1972. After listing the huge program of public expenditure of a Labor government in answer to the rhetorical question How will we pay for it?’ he said: ‘We will pay for it through the huge and automatic increase in taxation collections which occurs from inflation’s impact on the progressive taxation scales’. That was the policy Labor followed in government.

For Labor to claim now that it would have indexed those tax scales had it remained in government is completely unacceptable and without credit. The reality is that the Labor Government believed in taxation through inflation. It did not want openly to legislate tax changes. It did not want openly to admit to the Australian community that it was increasing taxation. It, least of all, can claim now that it would have indexed the tax scales. This Government has done more to simplify personal taxation, this Government has done more to reduce taxation in the Australian community, than has any other government since the war. This year, for the first time in 10 years, there will be a real fall in the level of personal tax collections. This Parliament has already passed legislation abolishing Federal gift and estate duties. This Government has introduced tax indexation which forces governments openly to legislate changes. It has given significant taxation incentives to the corporate sector through the investment allowance and through the trading stock valuation adjustment. Its record on taxation is such that, despite the necessity temporarily to increase personal tax in the last Budget, the cost to revenue of the Government’s tax indexation and tax reforms of last February in this financial year will still total some $700m.

So let there be no doubt that when it comes to taxation the Opposition’s attacks on the Government are without substance. The Government has demonstrated a commitment to tax equity and a commitment to taxation reform. It has demonstrated a commitment to bringing greater incentive back into the personal taxation system. Briefly,, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition talked about industrial relations and criticised the Government’s conduct of industrial relations. Throughout the time that we have been in government we have tried to balance firmness in those situations when it is required with a willingness to conciliate and to consult with the trade union movement. It is the Fraser Government which has restored the National Labour Consultative Council. It was the Labor Government which effectively dismantled the old National Labour Advisory Council because the then Minister for Labour and Immigration believed that he knew more about industrial relations than anybody else and it was not necessary to have it. The only response that the Opposition has on industrial relations, and it ought to be remembered by everybody in this House and known throughout the Australian community, is that one of the first acts of the Labor Party if it were returned to power would be to repeal the industrial legislation introduced by this Government. That would mean repealing legislation to protect individuals against discrimination and persecution and repealing legislation to protect essential services. It would mean repealing legislation which is designed to remove as far as possible from the Australian community the abuse of union muscle; that is the pledge of the Opposition if it is returned. That ought to be remembered and understood in the industrial relations context.

The Leader of the Opposition criticised the overseas borrowing program of the Government and sought to establish through the use of certain figures that the overseas borrowing program of the Government was storing up a huge debt for future Australian generations. He ignored to tell the House that the percentage of overseas debt to gross domestic product at present is lower than what it was ten years ago; that the interest liability for our overseas indebtedness now is no greater than it was ten years ago. He neglected to tell the House that traditionally this country has been a net importer of capital and that in those circumstances it is entirely consistent with the sort of economic policies that we have been following over the past three years to have a significant overseas borrowing program. Therefore, this motion which is categorised by the Leader of the Opposition as a serious attack on the performance of the Government over the past 12 months is nothing more than an eleventh hour attempt by him to respond to the mounting and legitimate criticism that he has ignored the real responsibilities of an Opposition Leader over the past 12 months. It is an attempt to bolster his own position within his own party. It is not a serious attempt to grapple with the performance of this Government over the past 12 months. He has not presented a credible case to this House regarding economic competence, regarding domestic economic management or regarding the alleged incompetence of the Fraser Government. In those circumstances I move as an amendment to the motion:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: this House reprimands the Leader of the Opposition for-

1 ) his failure to properly address any of the substantial issues facing Australia;

demeaning the House by obsessive personal attacks;

belittling the House by unwarranted and careless attacks on the Speaker and hence Parliament as an institution, and

attempting to disguise the left wing policies and trends within the Labor Party ‘.

Mr Young:

– I rise to a point of order. Obviously we have not had access to the amendment. I raise a question about the reprimand being based on the premise that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) has made personal attacks. There has been absolutely no justification for that or for the premise that he has made attacks upon the Speaker. I ask you to rule whether the amendment is in order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The amendment is in order.

Mr Neil:

-I wish to second the motion.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-What a cynical ploy by the Government to move an amendment of this nature to the Opposition’s motion when the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) sits mute and will not come into the House to defend his Government or himself against attack by the Opposition.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I interrupt the honourable member for Blaxland. The honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) is calling my attention. He is saying he wishes to second the amendment. It does not require seconding, it having been moved by a Minister under the Standing Orders.

Mr KEATING:

– What a cowardly Government. The Opposition takes the most supreme sanction against a government by moving today a censure motion against the Prime Minister and the Government and the Prime Minister brings out his highest paid lackey, the talking head from Bennelong, to come and to defend the Government against serious charges while the Prime Minister is slinking in his office listening to the intercom, again not prepared to come back into the House to answer the Opposition’s attack. I have been in this Parliament nine years and I have never seen a government which has been so cowardly in not coming to meet the attack from an Opposition on a censure motion. Never would Prime Minister Gorton, Prime Minister McMahon or Jack McEwen, the former Leader of the Country Party, brook this kind of parliamentary procedure- one or two speakers a side on a censure motion. They would have 12 speakers a side, there would be a real debate and they would face up to their responsibilities. They would come in to debate, to defend their case.

Instead of that, this Prime Minister just sits in his office or comes in to hear his speakers and then walks out. I would like the Press of this country to start reporting for a change that the Prime Minister will not fight; that he will not enter parliamentary debates; that he will not speak; that he is afraid to face his colleague, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), in the Parliament, on television, on radio or anywhere else. We hear a lot from the Press about how the Leader of the Opposition mistakes Allan Walsh for Creighton Walsh or some other minor slip and that is reported but what is never reported is the cowardice of the Government parties. The Prime Minister is now walking from the chamber.

Where is Doug Anthony, the Leader of the Country Party? Where is the Deputy Leader of the Country Party? Where is the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party? Where are they? They are not game to come into this House. In recent times the deputy leaders of the Country Party and the Liberal Party have both been invited to speak inside and outside this Parliament and to the National Press Club. On both occasions they have declined because they are wounded Ministers; they are incompetent; they cannot speak; their public careers are so besmirched by their personal actions that they are unable to stand on a public platform. Therefore, half the front bench of the Government parties, the Deputy

Leader of the Liberal Party and the Deputy Leader of the Country Party cannot. They are broken, wounded men and they cannot defend their own Government. Instead they bring the Treasurer on and the member for St George (Mr Neil). I ask you! The member for St George- the arrogant ant of Australian politics.

The Prime Minister talks about the performance of the Opposition, but where is he now? He is back in his office again like Keyhole Jack. This Government will not defend itself because it is a dishonourable Government. Look at the standards of this Government in the last six months. Take the Prime Minister’s involvement in the Facom issue. In no other country under the Westminster system but Australia could a Prime Minister have survived with any credibility, with any face or self respect after having put his hand into the bowels of the tendering processes of the Commonwealth of Australia to the benefit of a particular company and got away with it. That is what happens in this country. The Prime Minister stood in this chamber barefaced and talked his way out of the issue when everyone in the Parliament, in the Press and in the public knew that he was guilty of this major misdemeanour of government. The former Treasurer, the right honourable member for Flinders whom I just mentioned, the most famous real estate agent in the country, was guilty of a major misdemeanour, was stood down by the Prime Minister and yet was investigated by his own Queen’s Counsel -

Mr Howard:

- Mr Speaker, I take this point of order very seriously. It is improper for the honourable member for Blaxland to allege a serious misdemeanour against the right honourable member for Flinders. The word ‘misdemeanour’ and the word ‘serious’ have connotations about conduct of people which were entirely unsupported by the known facts regarding the right honourable member for Flinders. I ask that that allegation be withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call on the honourable member for Blaxland to withdraw the word misdemeanour’.

Mr KEATING:

– I will withdraw the word to get on with the debate and just say this -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will withdraw.

Mr KEATING:

– I withdraw and just say this: The right honourable member for Flinders was investigated by his own firm of accountants- a similar situation to that in the case of the right honourable member for New England, the Minister for Primary Industry- and then by a Q.C. personally known to him. The report of the Q.C. which was supposed to exonerate him was never made public. The Prime Minister and the Minister saw it but it was never made public.

Mr Sinclair:

– I rise on a point of order. The honourable gentleman is now reflecting on the Queen’s Counsel who acted for the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party. I believe that the nature and form of the accusation are totally unjustified and I believe that the honourable member should withdraw it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I cannot require the honourable member to withdraw it; it is not unparliamentary.

Mr KEATING:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. Everyone in Austraiian business knows that a submission cannot be put to the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the major coalition Party. Business never take a serious case to him any more. He is finished. We know it. Honourable members opposite know it. He is sitting there a dead man, unable to appear in debate. No company in Australia will go to the Minister with a serious submission because he could not get a piece of toilet paper through Cabinet, and honourable members opposite know it. He is completely impotent; he is wounded; he is besmirched; and he is incapable of commanding respect in his Party and Cabinet. That is the situation of the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party. That is also the situation into which the Minister for Primary Industry is fast emerging. I turn now to the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party, the man with a roomful of gold teeth. This is the man who is sitting on a probated will with a bundle of money involved in a company structure where debts are outstanding. We on this side of the House are still waiting to see just how this man clears himself and how the two deputy leaders of the parties in the coalition Government can survive as Ministers in this country with a so-called free and open Press and parliamentary scrutiny without defending the charges against them whenever they are put. Instead we have this pious, unctious lecture from the honourable member for Bennelong, the Treasurer, at the behest of the Prime Minister.

The architect of the great Senate debacle of 1975, Senator Withers, was despatched by the Prime Minister to a worthy end, in the view of honourable members on this side, simply because he was like the Prime Minister; he was delving into the electoral redistribution processes, telephoning distribution commissioners and trying to effect a decision in favour of the Liberal Party. Other Ministers have had trouble. There was a scandal concerning the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Mr Garland) which went to a court hearing but because the Government did not raise an ex officio bill of indictment no indictment continued. The judged trailed his coat in the judgment but nothing was to come of it. This is the performance of the Fraser Government. Yet it has the hide to say that people can trust it. In the 1975 election campaign, I was in Mossman in Queensland. At the end of a hard day’s campaigning, I was leaning on a bar of an hotel with an old farmer beside me. The Prime Minister appeared on television and I asked: ‘What do you think of this fellow?’ He looked hard at him and said: ‘Son, if I had a dog with eyes as close together as that I would shoot it’.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will withdraw that imputation.

Mr KEATING:

– I will withdraw it, Mr Speaker. The Government ought to realise that the hardest job it has is marketing Malcolm Fraser as a believable commodity because he is now regarded as the most untrustworthy Prime Minister in the history of this Federation. It does not matter where one looks for examples. One can look across the board. I take the case of interest rates. It was said that interest rates would peak in February, would be falling from February. That is the promise. What is the fulfilment? Interest rates have been reduced by one half a per cent not by two per cent as promised. The permanent building societies in New South Wales are making a mockery of the Government because it is trying to go against the real forces of the market. Inflation is jammed at 8 per cent. Look at unemployment. It is now moving from 7 per cent to 8 per cent. The Government said that would also fall from February. Of course it will now reach a peak next year and not this year. The Minister for Labour and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) belatedly, in a fit of honesty had to tell us this. When the Prime Minister was questioned about this major promise and policy he said: ‘Maybe I was over optimistic’. Is that a defence in the breaking of this election commitment? In every respect no matter where one looks this Government is unfair and unjust.

The Treasurer talked about taxation incentives. There were plenty of tax incentives for Esso-BHP- $150m of additional unearned revenue came out of the windfall pricing agreement with no taxation mechanism to tax it back. The Government gave $800m to Australian business by way of the investment allowance, not for any capital widening but for capital deepening and labour displacement. The investment allowance displaced more labour in Australia in the last 12 months than any other single factor. And the Government is supposed to be worried about unemployment! The Government talked about our scheme involving $20m-odd for the various things that the Labor Government was interested in, or the urban and regional development policies involving about $ 150m! Where do they stand compared to the $800m investment allowance and the $ 1,000m which the Government will give to Esso-BHP consortium in the next three years? Utah Mining (Aust) Ltd, Australia’s most successful and profitable company will receive a $33m remission of duty.

How can the Government possibly talk about equity or fairness? It represents narrow corporate interests. That is what it has always claimed to represent and that is what it is doing now. The honourable member for Bennelong prides himself on being the man chosen to overfeed an overfed sector of Austraiian corporate life. Yet the little newspaper boys in the street are to have the backsides taxed off them. This Government places punitive tax rates and increased tax on long service leave and annual leave. There are examples wherever we look. The Treasurer talks about indexation. We have about quarter indexation. It was half and then it was half of half. It is very partial indexation. This is great change, great tax equity from the so-called competent Treasurer!

All we hear from the Treasurer at Question Time and at other times is all the gobbledegook that he learns at the Treasury. Sir Frederick Wheeler and Mr Stone got him in a room in December of 1977 and said: ‘Now you must understand these phrases: “Monetary aggregates, fiscal constraints” ‘. He had all the words pumped into him and he parrots them at Question Time. When he is asked a serious question, such as the one from the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) about a forward exchange market, he cannot answer it. He virtually said: We will have a look at it’ and sat down. He could not answer the question by the Leader of the Opposition on the impact of the States’ loans the other day. .There is no scrutiny of this by the Press. It is not stated that sensible questions are being asked by the Opposition and by Government members and that inane replies are coming from the Treasurer. That is all regarded as evasive. That is smart politics. To evade in the Parliament is smart; it is tough. There is competence on this side of the House and competence on the back benches, but the Treasurer is incompetent. He just mouths all these platitudes, words and economic jargon he has been taught at the Treasury.

The point is that the Treasurer has been given the job. He has been plucked out of the Government back bench. He has been in the Parliament for four years and has been a Minister for three years. He is the Prime Minister’s favourite. He has been given the job. His influence in the Government parties is very little while Malcolm Fraser is Prime Minister of this Government and the leader of the Liberal Party. When the Prime Minister goes, the Treasurer goes with him and the economic policy goes with them. Let us look at the second string, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) and little Tony Street. God help us. Where will this Government be? It is a Government without leadership. The one leader that the Government had with any kind of competence, Withers, is on the back bench in the Senate.

Let us look at the inflation rate. This Government says that it is committed to reducing the rate of inflation. Inflation in this country is jammed at 8 per cent. No matter how the Government wants to gloss over the fact, the rate of inflation has been 8 per cent for two quarters. By the latter part of this year, when the indirect charges are pumped into the consumer price indices the inflation rate will be much higher. So, three years of toil, sweat, and labour for the Australian electorate have gone in getting down the inflation rate from probably 12 per cent to about 9 per cent- a 3 per cent drop and that is all. Yet, what has been the massive social cost? We talk in this Parliament about statistics. We are always talking about inflation, unemployment, the gross national product, growth rates and the rest, but where is the social measurement of the distress and disaster of the young unemployed? We will go into the 1980s with a generation of young people who have never known employment. What does the Government think is the social consequence of this? Does it want to see another Guyana situation on our hands in Australia of young people moving to drugs, to suicide and to police courts because of this Government’s economic policy and the short sharp shock, as it started out, is now the long sharp shock. The only people to do well out of the Government’s policy are Australian corporate enterprises, such as Esso Australia Ltd, the Broken Hill Pty Company Ltd and the Utah Development Company- and the people who benefit from the stock valuation adjustment scheme or the investment allowance.

Surely the Government does not put itself up any more as a government that represents the Australian people and as a government which has honoured its promises. Surely it does not do that. When the Government is faced with a legitimate attack upon it in the form of a censure motion in the closing days of the year’s Parliament, the motion is defended by the Treasurer, not the Prime Minister, not the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony), not the Deputy Leader of the Country Party (Mr Sinclair), or the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party but the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil), the poor little honourable member for St George tries to do his best. He will fight valiantly to get marks and finally the Prime Minister may recognise his talent and give him a junior portfolio. The truth is that none of the senior people will come into Parliament and defend this motion because half of them are impotent and unable to stand further public exposure.

For the Treasurer to move in with this kind of cynical amendment trying to turn the attack on the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) does him no credit at all because he is a young man and history will judge him over a long period of time. He has more years ahead of him if he does not lose his seat of Bennelong. He has come in and done this dirty work on behalf of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will be in his office on the phone but with his ear to the intercom, as he always is. The Treasurer is in here defending the Prime Minister with a trite proposition, a shameful and cynical proposition addressed at the Leader of the Opposition. Shame on him for moving it and shame on the government parties for supporting it. I have much pleasure in commending the proposition moved by the Opposition. The Government is a shameful, cynical and corrupt government; a scandal-ridden government that fails to defend itself, a Government that cannot coax its senior ministers to its Parliamentary defence.

Mr NEIL:
St George

-This year, 1978, has been a year of shame for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden). He has behaved disgracefully, disgustingly, demeaningly and dementedly in this House. He has set the trend for the sort of speech we have just heard from the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) who has joined in the same lower reaches of Australian politics that they have dragged this House and this nation into during this year. It started with his very first speech in this House this year as Leader of the Opposition when he made a disgraceful and unwarranted attack on you, Mr

Speaker, during the election of the Speaker. After it was pointed out that he did not know what he was talking about he came into this House a few days later and said:

Thank you for drawing my attention to these facts. I acknowledge them and I apologise.

He should apologise to this nation for that and for his other disgusting activities in this House and throughout Australia in the past 12 months. The Leader of the Opposition is not fit to hold the position of leader. He is not fit to aspire to be the alternative leader of the Australian people. In fact, it is interesting to note what type of support he has from his own members because when he was speaking there were 22 of his so-called supporters, his cronies, in the House. When the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) was speaking there were 29 members of the Opposition present. What happened to the other seven of these faithful cohorts who sneaked out of the room at the time? His conduct continued in a full circle and culminated only yesterday with more disgraceful attacks on the institution of the Speakership.

I speak on this motion more in sorrow than in anger because we have seen this year the reduction of this Parliament to a place where there is no courtesy coming from the other side, where there is no proper decorum and where there has been abuse heaped upon persons on this side and on the Speakership in a way that demeans this House beyond all real value. No one on this side of the House will lend themselves to it. We heard the other night what I think would have been the most shocking thing ever said in a Westminster Parliament in history. The Leader of the Opposition stood there and said to you, Mr Speaker We will do you tomorrow ‘.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I was not the leader’s victim.

Mr NEIL:

– It was Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise. The Leader of the Opposition was insulting the Chair. He attacks the Chair at every opportunity- either Mr Deputy Speaker or you, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition has accused you, Mr Speaker, on occasions of collusion with the Prime Minister and intimidation by the Prime Minister. They are two inconsistent terms because he is entirely irrational on these matters. This man is paranoid. I do not know why. He has been in this House for the last few days exhibiting all symptoms of clinical paranoia. He is up and down one minute and he is getting -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will not use the term ‘paranoid ‘. I ask him to withdraw it.

Mr NEIL:

-I will not use it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will withdraw it.

Mr NEIL:

-I withdraw the remark. What can one say of a man who describes himself as politically numerate? Is that schizophrenic? I presume so. His other scandalous attacks in the past few months have been upon the Deputy Leader of the Country Party, the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson)- that attack was proved completely and utterly baseless and was absolutely scurrilous- and upon the former GovernorGeneral of Australia. Suffice it to say that every Australian who has read during the past few days the statements by the former GovernorGeneral in the newspapers or in his book would agree . with his description of the disgraceful attacks that were made by the Leader of the Opposition earlier this year and which were repeated today by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He also is unfit to hold his office. When we ask what has happened to the support that the Leader of the Opposition is getting from within the Labor Party for his attacks particularly on the Deputy Leader of the Country Party it is perfectly plain that he has been dumped even by his own supporters. It is well known that he had to go around after carrying the can for weeks to find other members of his Caucus who would come in and support him. He was dumped unceremoniously even by the New South Wales Attorney-General, Mr Walker. Both Mr Walker and Mr Finnane said this:

I am resentful that Federal politicians should interfere in our affairs. They have no business poking their noses into what we are doing.

Mr Ruddock:

– Who was this? Who said that?

Mr NEIL:

- Mr Walker, the Labor AttorneyGeneral of New South Wales, said that he was resentful of what the Leader of the Opposition was doing in interfering in these affairs. Of course, as we all know, his action had led to the intense embarrassment of the inspector and the whole of the proceedings. They have been discredited and quite properly the Prime Minister has called for those proceedings to be dropped. Indeed, that would be a very good and sensible course of action. For the whole of this year, the Leader of the Opposition has been obsessed with personal attacks. He has asked 136 questions in this House. How many questions has he asked about unemployment? He has asked five. Tell that to the unemployed of this country. Tell that to the people who live in the suburban areas of Sydney and who cannot get work. Tell that to the rural unemployed. He has asked five questions on unemployment and 59 questions of a scurrilous nature relating to personal attacks on various persons in the Government or outside the Government. His writ knows no bounds at all. He attacks people outside the Government under the privilege of Parliament with no apparent shamefacedness.

Where are the sensible questions? The honourable member for Blaxland said that the Government had been in receipt of sensible questions- as he calls them- from the Opposition. There have been hardly any sensible questions. Out of 136 questions asked, 59 have dealt with scandalous matters and if one looks at the list one will see that the remainder hardly deal with any matters of great moment. Indeed, five questions have been asked in relation to unemployment and four questions have been asked in relation to the Budget. That shows what this man believes about the major issues in Australia. He has been disowned by his own Party on this matter and he has been disowned by the New South Wales Attorney-General. In fact, he is facing, as is his party, an identity crisis. Labor members do not come into this House and talk about the issues of the day. The facts of life are that during 1978 the Labor Party has split down the middle in ways that the Australian community is only just starting properly to understand. The Labor Party has had an extraordinary resurgence of the Left. It is suffering from a serious identity crisis and the Leader of the Opposition is totally incapable of handling the situation. He is under threat from his Deputy Leader for his position. He is under threat from Mr Wran who has made it quite plain that he wants to enter Federal politics. He is still under threat from Mr Hawke and he is under absolute siege in Queensland where the Australian Labor Party is as good as split down the middle.

In relation to fundamental philosophy let us look at what happened in the New South Wales Labor Party and in the federal sphere which binds the Parliamentary Party. The New South Wales conference voted in favour of what it called soft socialism. The Victorian conference voted in favour of soft socialism. The Australian Capital Territory conference remained totally committed to socialism and then in early November the dominant left wing faction in Victoria reversed the policy of soft socialism and went back to what it called hard line socialism. So the Labor Party is absolutely split right throughout the country. If honourable members want further evidence they have only to look at statements made by other members of the Labor Party. For example, the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett) has said in effect that they are only playing quiet, that they have not really changed. He has said: ‘Do not worry about what is happening in New South Wales. We have not become a moderate party. We are making our way. We will get what we want, but we are going to do it by disguise ‘.

There is a Professor Harcourt who advises the Labor Party and who is one of the persons who produced that notorious paper which calls for the nationalisation of the major elements of private industry, recommending that they should be taken into public ownership. He has described Mr Wran as a namby-pamby. He said: ‘Wran is not going to get away with these moderate views in New South Wales. The Labor Party itself is not going to change, particularly at a federal level’. It is determined to continue to push its nationalisation and socialistic programs. Where else is it split? It is split on the issue of human rights. We have heard all sorts of hypocrisy in this House in the last few days. The fact is that in Victoria two motions were moved. The major motion was that the Russian Government was denying the rights and liberties of those of its citizens who wished to exercise their democratic rights of free expression and peaceful dissent. The Victorian ALP left-wing dominated conference rejected the motion by 142 votes to 1 30 and threw out completely the moderate line. That move was led by Bert Nolan and Bill Hartley in doing that. Later in the afternoon, when the numbers had changed slightly, some wishywashy, meaningless motion that these members try to now hide behind, was moved.

Again, I say that the Labor Party is completely and utterly split. It cannot even agree on the fundamental issue of human rights. It cannot even agree to attack the Russians for what they are doing. Twenty-nine of the Federal Labor Party’s 64 parliamentarians and six trade union leaders have signed a letter directed to the ALP National Executive asking the ALP to steer further to the Left. Twenty-nine Federal Labor parliamentarians have signed that letter and that number includes the shadow Treasurer. This letter states that they support Stuart Holland’s socialist challenge. Stuart Holland’s thesis, which they support, calls for the nationalisation of the banks and major business corporations in order to break the control of the establishment. All over again, they want nationalisation. The thesis calls for the substitution of convinced socialists in control of boards and top management. So they are going to seize all business endeavour and put in convinced socialists. Mr Speaker, would you believe that the thesis calls for the large scale featherbedding of industry to solve what it calls the capitalist problems of unemployment.

What sort of economic prescription to save Australia is this? The thesis calls for taxation increases and budget deficits in order to permit the public sector to expand. It calls for taxation increases. Why should it not, when, as a recorded fact, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s most recently appointed staff member is a gentleman who is preparing with great zeal the Labor Party’s policy on wealth tax. Let there be no mistake. The Labor Party is now in a position of supporting capital gains taxes and wealth taxes. In Victoria, its members supported the reintroduction of probate and estate duties. In the Federal Parliament, Labor members at their very best are equivocal on the matter and it is as plain as day that they would reintroduce the imposition of those duties if they could. In the office of Deputy Leader of the Opposition the main economic adviser is preparing a document about wealth tax. The proposed tax will start on wealth above $7,000 and will be at the rate of 4.5 per cent. Using 1970 figures, the gentleman has calculated that a flat rate of 4.5 per cent tax each year on wealth above $7,000 would return as much revenue as personal income tax. Yet Labor members say that 68 per cent of adult Australians would be exempted from payment of the tax. Has anybody ever heard of a more pernicious and a more gross suggestion that anybody in Australia who has wealth of more than $7,000 should be automatically taxed at4½ per cent per year? That is the suggestion of the main economic adviser to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The rate of the proposed tax goes up until it is 5 per cent for wealth over $100,000; then 12.5 per cent for wealth over $ 1 50,000; and 20 per cent for wealth over $250,000.

The Labor Party is split on these issues. What we want to know is which of its members will stand up and equivocably disown the proposals for nationalisation of industry, including the banks, and which of its members will support the proposals the Labor Party is so split that we can never get its members to answer that question. Which of them will support and which of them will disown this tax?

They talk about interest rates. When will the Leader of the Opposition dismiss his shadow Treasurer? Only a few weeks ago the shadow Treasurer said that Australians should be prepared to wear some rise in interest rates. He put out a coherent plan. It is reported in the Sydney

Morning Herald of 3 July under the heading: Put interest rates up- Labor MP’. The report stated:

Australians should be prepared to ‘wear’ some rise in interest rates … the Federal shadow Treasurer, Mr Willis, said-

Are Labor Party members in favour of low interest rates? In fact, they are not. Even the Leader of the Opposition has been equivocal on the issue. He has said that interest rate cuts would at best be illusory for the business sector. The Labor Party is split down the middle. We on this side of the House affirm that one of the major ways of getting the economy going again is to reduce interest rates. We are not split on this issue. We know where we stand and we will ensure that interest rates are reduced. We are not split like the Labor Party. Another example of the way in which the Labor Party is split, as we have seen, is that 13 or more of its members have signed a special attack on the Association of South East Asian Nations. Who will now confirm this attack on the association of South East Asian Nations and who will disown it? The Labor Party is split completely down the middle. It is split on the issue of Soviet influence in our area. When the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) returned from overseas he said that in Vietnam -

Mr Keating:

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I have waited now for 15 minutes for the honourable member to speak to the motion or to the amendment.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable gentleman’s remarks are relevant.

Mr NEIL:

– The Labor Party is split on that matter. It is split on the issue of uranium. We do not know where it stands in relation to that issue, although we now find out that only three days ago the Leader of the Opposition said in a newspaper interview that he was prepared to support the policy of disowning future uranium contracts. This is the man who has knocked the Australian currency for12 months, knocked the Australian economy for 12 months, travelled around South East Asia knocking Australia for 12 months. He has knocked the future of Australia. He calls the 1980s a decade of despair when in fact we know that under the policies of this Government it will be a decade of prosperity and advancement. He seems to be totally incapable of having a good word to say for anybody or anything in his country. In South East Asia he knocks his own country, and as far as the uranium issue is concerned he in now prepared to knock even further Australia’s business reputation, Australia’s trading reputation, Australia’s reputation for honouring its obligations throughout the world, by putting a ban on the export of uranium. It is perfectly plain that the Labor Party is rudderless and leaderless. Even the newspapers have acknowledged that the Leader of the Opposition is unable to handle his role in this Parliament. He is not able to get the support of his own people. He has been described in the newspapers as being totally inept in the House. He has no support at all. Indeed, he was described by Mr Oakes in the Melbourne Sun in April this year in these words:

Mr Hayden is in danger of being seen as a whinger- a politician who complains constantly and rarely has a good word for anything or anyone.

It follows that a political leader who preaches nothing but gloom and doom risks becoming unpopular.

George Negus in the Weekend Australian, and I do not think George Negus has ever had much sympathy for the present Government, said:

As an attacker, Bill Hayden is about as terrifying as a canary brandishing a toothpick and as believable as Bogart minus Bacall.

His supporters on the other side know this. They are waiting to remove him. There is a great temptation for the Government to keep this before his own supporters so that they will remove him. On the other hand, there is a temptation for us to go easy on him so that they will leave him there because he is a wonderful asset for the Government. There is no way in the world that the Australian people are going to accept him as the leader of this country. However, in view of his despicable attacks throughout the year on persons in this House- on you, Mr Speaker- and his actions in demeaning the Parliament, it is important as a matter of national duty that this House carry the amendment with a resounding voice and censure the Leader of the Opposition for what he has been doing.

Indeed, as one goes around the country it is perfectly plain that there is great dissillusionment and concern for the institution of Parliament. School children who come to this place often comment that they cannot understand the way members of the Labor Party continually disrupt the proceedings of the House, the way they go on with false and spurious interjections, the way they continually refuse to abide by the forms of the House. Every time that a proper ruling or motion is brought and the Labor Party loses they complain. They will not abide by the rules. It is demeaning to the House and brings the institution of Parliament into regrettable disrepute. On this side of the House, we reject entirely the approach of the Leader of the Opposition. We reject entirely the motion. It is a deathbed attempt, in the last minutes of 1978, to salvage something from the wreckage. The Leader of the Opposition has done nothing of any substance during the year, and we ask even his own members, in all conscience, to carry the amendment with a resounding voice of censure.

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-Mr Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Hodges) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden)

AYES: 79

NOES: 33

Majority……. 46

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put-

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Howard’s amendment) stand as part of the question.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden)

AYES: 35

NOES: 78

Majority……. 43

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be inserted (Mr Howard’s amendment) be inserted.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden)

AYES: 78

NOES: 35

Majority……. 43

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put-

That the motion (Mr Hayden’s), as amended, be agreed to.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden)

AYES: 78

NOES: 35

Majority……. 43

AYES

NOES

In Division-

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order involved.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 3184

COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · NCP/NP

– Pursuant to section 19 of the Ombudsman Act 1976,I present on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) the report of the Commonwealth Ombudsman for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 3184

AUSTRALIAN MEAT AND LIVESTOCK CORPORATION

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · NCP/NP

– For the information of honourable members I present the interim report of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation for the period 1 December 1977 to 30 June 1978.

page 3184

COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · NCP/NP

– Pursuant to section 14 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, section 14Oof the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and the corresponding provisions of the assessment Acts relating to sales tax, payroll tax, estate duty, gift duty and stevedoring industry charge, and the Export Incentive Grants Act, I present on behalf of my colleague the Treasurer (Mr Howard) the 57th report of the Commissioner of Taxation dated 1 November 1978.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 3185

MR CREIGHTON WALSH

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · NCP/NP

– In accordance with the undertaking I gave the House last night I table the statutory declaration of Creighton William Walsh given on 2 1 November 1 978.

page 3185

AUSTRALIAN SHIPPING COMMISSION

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– Pursuant to section 39 of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Act 1956 1 present the report of the Australian Shipping Commission for the year ended 30 June 1 978.

page 3185

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– Pursuant to section 61 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 1 present the report by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 3185

PATHOLOGY SERVICES

Mr HUNT:
Minister for Health · Gwydir · NCP/NP

For the information of honourable members 1 present the report of the Pathology Services Working Party- Review of 1977 Changes.

page 3185

MODERN TECHNOLOGY IN MEDICAL PRACTICE

Mr HUNT:
Minister for Health · Gwydir · NCP/NP

For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Committee on Applications and Costs of Modern Technology in Medical Practice.

page 3185

PIPELINE AUTHORITY

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for National Development · Bass · LP

– Pursuant to section 45 of the Pipeline Authority Act 1973 I present the report of the Pipeline Authority for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 3185

BUREAU OF MINERAL RESOURCES, GEOLOGY AND GEOPHYSICS

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for National Development · Bass · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Review Committee on the Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics dated April 1978. This report is referred to in the Australian Science and Technology Council’s report on the Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics which was presented to the House of Representatives on 2 1 November 1 978.

page 3185

COCOS (KEELING) ISLANDS

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs · Wentworth · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the report on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands for the period 1 January 1977 to 30 June 1978.

page 3185

BANKRUPTCY ACT

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs · Wentworth · LP

– On behalf of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) and pursuant to section 314 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 I present the report on the operation of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 3185

HOUSING LOANS INSURANCE CORPORATION

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development · Braddon · LP

– Pursuant to section 39 of the Housing Loans Insurance Act 1965 I present the report of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1 978.

page 3185

ACCOMMODATION IN PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence on a matter relating to the accommodation in the building for members.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman wish to make a statement?

Mr MORRIS:

-I wish to make a brief statement in respect of the cramped conditions in the building.

Mr SPEAKER:

-As the honourable gentleman is speaking with my indulgence I ask him to remain short.

Mr MORRIS:

-I shall be short. I sought your assistance earlier, Mr Speaker, in respect of the intolerable accommodation available to members and staff in this building. I advise you that the Opposition Executive has formed a committee to review what we see as the disgracefully cramped conditions available in the building to members and their staff and to present a set of proposals to the Presiding Officers for the improvement of accommodation. We believe that now that the decision to build a new Parliament House has been taken there ought to be a further decision in respect of providing alternative accommodation and certainly improved conditions for members. Mr Speaker, I understand that you have put a proposal for improved accommodation to the Executive arm of the Government. I know that you are well aware of the unsatisfactory conditions in the building. Will you provide members and senators with a copy of the proposals put to the Executive in respect of improving accommodation in the intervening period between now and the construction of the new Parliament House? Will you supply members and senators with the details of the response to those proposals?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have, in association with the President of the Senate, put proposals to the Executive Government for the improvement of accommodation in the House. I believe that because of the time scale for construction of the new permanent Parliament House which will be over nine years it would be inappropriate for the present cramped conditions in this building to continue. Yet, the decision on a new and permanent Parliament House having been taken, there would be a reluctance to spend a great deal of money on this building. That means that there is a necessity to cope with accommodation for the next nine years. I know that the position of the honourable member for Shortland is particularly acute as a member of the front bench of the Opposition yet with relatively short seniority in the House. Many others are in the same position.

There are vacant buildings in the vicinity. There is the Kurrajong Hotel and, of course, West Block. I will be pursuing this matter with the Executive so that we will have the opportunity to move certain people to accommodation outside this building, therefore making more room in this building. I cannot undertake to provide a copy of the submission which I made to the Executive. On the other hand, I will give a description of the proposal that was put. I have not yet had a response from Government but it has had under active consideration the whole question concerning the construction of a new and permanent Parliament House.

page 3186

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr WILLIS:
Mr SPEAKER:

– He may proceed.

Mr WILLIS:

-The honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) during his remarks on the censure debate accused me of having called for higher interest rates. He relied for his source on a newspaper report, I think it was in the Sydney Morning Herald, in early July this year. That newspaper did not correctly report what I said at the Labor economists conference in Brisbane at the end of June or the beginning of July this year. As I recall, the thrust of my remarks was that reductions in interest rates were not the best means of stimulating the economy. Obviously, they were desirable but it was more important to place the emphasis on more stimulatory measures in fiscal and monetary policy, that is increasing the rate of growth of the money supply, rather than reducing interest rates as the foremost thrust of economic policy. I claim that the article relied on by the honourable member for St George incorrectly reported my remarks at that conference. Although I was disturbed by the report I have not raised the matter before because it has not been mentioned in the House until this time.

page 3186

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests:

States Grants (Roads) Amendment Bill 1 978. Primary Industry Bank Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1 978. Loans (Taxation Exemption) Bill 1978. Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Bill (No. 2 ) 1 978. Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1 978. Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill 1 978. Livestock Diseases Bill 1978. Export Expansion Grants Bill 1 978. Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment Bill 1978. Asian Development Fund Bill 1978.

page 3186

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1978-79. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1978-79.

page 3186

COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCE

Mr LUCOCK:
Lyne

-by leave-I present the report of the Australian branch delegation to the 24th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference held in Jamaica in September to October 1978.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr LUCOCK:

– I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Leave granted.

Mr LUCOCK:

– I have great pleasure in making a short statement in relation to the report that I have just presented. I do not intend to cover the matters that have been referred to in my report and the subjects that were discussed at the Conference because I hope that honourable members will read the subject matter of the debates and the report. I believe that this is a very important report and that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is a very important Association. Sometimes we take this Association for granted. I know that there are occasions on which people outside the Parliament look upon the trips which it organises as junkets for members to go away and enjoy themselves. We did enjoy ourselves. It was a most pleasant time and Conference. I believe that these are vital conferences and that they are of vital importance not only to Australia and the Commonwealth but also to the rest of the world. I believe, quite frankly, that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is even more important than the United Nations.

The debates that we had, the discussions that were held, the meetings that we had together and the time that we spent prior to the Conference, in travelling around Jamaica, were important because we in the Australian delegation were able to present Australia’s point of view, we were able to have discussions with representatives of other countries and we were, I believe, able to get a greater understanding and appreciation of other countries. All the members of the Australian delegation, particularly those from this Commonwealth Parliament, contributed to the Conference and to the success of the Conference.

There is one thing that I want to say in regard to the membership and what is said by members at these conferences. I believe, for many reasons- not the least being the fact that they are Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conferences- that representatives go there as members of a government or of an opposition, but, I believe, more importantly as parliamentarians. At the conferences members put their particular and personal point of view. I believe that they are entitled to do that. I believe that that is important. I mentioned another matter last night in the adjournment debate.

One of the ways that we will overcome and solve some of the problems that confront Australia and the world is by being completely and absolutely honest one with another. On this trip, after the Conference I spent some time in Nairobi and Kenya; I spent time in Salisbury in Rhodesia; I also spent time in many other countries. I have a great affection for the people of Kenya and for the people of Sierra Leone- two countries in Africa with which I have had a particularly close association. I believe that these people will respect us when we are honest with them, and when, in putting our point of view, we put it strongly and do not agree with them merely for the sake of agreeing with them. I believe that particularly the people of many of the countries in Africa appreciate you if you do put your point of view, even it if is contrary to theirs. Unless we do this, I think all of these conferences and all of these associations will be just farcical. That is one of the reasons why I believe that our Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is of even greater importance to the world at this particular stage than is the United Nations.

At these conferences there are people with one basic principle. We may have many and varied ideas and many and varied thoughts on subjects, but we have one basic principle- the rights of the individual. As I say, that is important. That is why I have very much pleasure in presenting this report, in making these few remarks in relation to it, and in saying that it was my privilege and pleasure to be the leader of this delegation. I express my personal thanks and appreciation to the members who accompanied me to the Conference. At the Conference there were members of the Opposition as well as members of the Government parties. We did not always agree, but I believe that we had one thing in common, namely, a desire to promote the interests of Parliament and to promote the interests of the standards and ethics of our parliamentary system.

I said at the time that I regretted the fact that we did not have any members from Kenya attending the Conference, unfortunately, due to the passing of Jomo Kenyatta, their President. I acknowledge the contribution that he made to Kenya and to the Commonwealth. I believe that under the presidency of its new leader, President Moi, that country will go forward and will continue to make a contribution not only to Africa but also to the Commonwealth and so to the world. It is my pleasure to present and support this report, and to ask honourable members to give it consideration and also to have a realisation of the value that these conferences have, not only to Australia but also to the rest of the world.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– by leave- I rise to support almost entirely the remarks of the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock), who led the delegation to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference in Jamaica. He was a very worthy leader. It was my fourth Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference. The honourable member for Lyne took a most unusual but praiseworthy attitude towards all the delegates. He is the only delegation leader in the four conferences that I have attended who has told the delegates that they may put forward their own point of view or their party’s point of view on any of the subject matters before the conference. This was not done at the three previous Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conferences that I have attended. I think that those of us who have knowledge of the Commonwealth Parliamentary

Association conferences would agree that most countries put up a united front. There is always the alternative point of view in the Austraiian delegation on matters of great importance. I remember that at the Mauritius conference a few years ago I was accused of rocking the boat somewhat when I put up the alternate policies of the Opposition. I did so with great gentleness, not with the aggressiveness that we use in this House. I put the Labor Party’s policy on a zone of peace in the Indian Ocean, but the leader of the delegation was not happy that there was a disagreement within the Austraiian delegation.

I believe that the Austraiian delegates at the Conference in Jamaica made a worthwhile contribution to the debates and made many friends on behalf of the nation as a whole. There was one exception which I believe should go on the record of the Parliament. The Leader would agree that, whilst I disagreed with one of the Australian delegates, I opened my remarks by saying that I did not intend to attack the Australian delegate personally but I did intend to dissociate myself from his remarks. He was under rather strong personal attack for advocating or expressing favouritism towards the apartheid policies in Rhodesia and South Africa. Whilst it was his right and privilege to put forward his own personal views, I think that certainly was most inappropriate in a country which, I suppose, is 95 per cent brown people. He was well aware that many of their forebears were victims of the slave trade and that they have been fighting for over 100 years for emancipation of their brothers and sisters, particularly in Rhodesia and South Africa. I thought it was most inappropriate. It created such an atmosphere, temporarily in the Conference, that the Austraiian delegate had to have an armed guard to protect him night and day.

It was a tragedy that this did occur, but I believe that the rest of the delegates, particularly under astute leadership of the leader who never allowed himself to become upset or flurried about it, would have preferred it not to have happened. It occurred on the subject of world peace and the current world situation. Only one Australian delegate was supposed to speak that afternoon. The leader very fairly told me that it was between an honourable senator and me. I said: ‘Well, we can easily settle that’. We tossed up and, as usual, I lost the toss.

Mr Young:

– It was not your penny.

Mr JAMES:

-It was not my penny. The honourable senator spoke and to some extent I regret that I lost. I think Mr Fraser would have preferred me to have won, because there were cables flashing from Australia to South Africa, denouncing the statement of the honourable senator and stating clearly- this was headlined in South Africa- the Australian Government’s attitude. There were most interesting debates. I would endorse the leader’s remarks and I would like to see every member of the House read the report. I quote a Zambian delegate who said that the West must not fear that Africa is becoming communist and therefore feel that Rhodesia and South Africa are the bastions of capitalism’. Cuba is not spreading communism in Africa but helping to provide the freedom withheld by the West. This was said by a Zambian delegate in the Commonwealth of Nations. Then the Leader of the Indian delegation said that he deplored the fact that nothing had changed since the great hope for world peace at the end of the Vietnam war. He went on to condemn the South African policies of racism and colonialism and expressed India’s support for Namibian independence.

I received the call late in the afternoon and in trying to remove the cloud that was over the Australian delegation, I went on to point out- using some of the words of the senator in another place- that ‘I had been to South Africa too’ and that whilst he had praised apartheid I condemned it. In the interests of this Parliament I stated that when I was there and saw toilets, hotels and buses displaying ‘whites only’, ‘nonwhites only’ signs, as an Austraiian it made my stomach turn. To hear at first hand that coloured white men and coloured brown men are working in the bowels of the earth in diamond mines and gold mines in South Africa depending on each other to save ones life from hour to hour, with the coloured white man receiving $300 a month and the coloured brown man receiving $100 a month doing the same work makes your stomach turn and makes you wonder how long people will put up with this sort of thing. When you hear little children ask their fathers, ‘Why does the white man treat us so awful?’, with tears welling up in their eyes, it makes you wonder what the delegate had really read.

Had he not heard of Steve Biko who was murdered, as many others have been, at the hands of the tyrannical fascist police force? Before he went to South Africa had he not read that there was a Roman Catholic Mother Superior arrested recently in Rhodesia for giving food and shelter to some of the anti-government forces? Is he not aware that Hitler also-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! Before the honourable member proceeds

I would remind him that he has leave of the House to speak to the report.

Mr JAMES:

– I am speaking to the report and particularly in connection with the Austraiian delegate. I want to clear Australia’s name because the records of this Parliament go out to the world, to our embassies and people in other countries. It is not that I want to get on the stage. I have not spoken in this House for weeks, and you are well aware of that. Sir.

Mr Goodluck:

– You are doing a pretty good job.

Mr JAMES:

– I am glad I have your attention because there are times in this House when we should have sincerity and truthfulness. If it is hurting you, I am sorry.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Hunter will proceed.

Mr JAMES:

-When the Roman Catholic nun was gaoled, the senator apparently forgot that Hitler gaoled his people during World War II for giving shelter to Jews. Laws similar to those that exist in South Africa were upheld by an Australian delegate in Jamaica. Although I still have friendship with him and respect for him, but bitterly disagree, it was most inappropriate for the senator to say what he did say on South Africa at the conference. He is well aware that there are morality laws in South Africa which state that if a coloured brown boy falls in love with a coloured white girl they can be gaoled under the Morality Act. We know Australians cannot uphold that. We are also aware that under the National Security Act one can be gaoled for 90 days without trial, without charges, then released for one day and gaoled again. No Australian can support that. We have to fight and support those people in South Africa who want equality.

The people of Jamaica have great economic problems and I would like to see the Commonwealth and Australian Government do something for them, if possible, otherwise one cannot expect them to try to play along with people’s democracies as we see them. One wonders what is going to happen in Rhodesia and South Africa if prominent Australians are going to uphold the attitudes of the governments there. There is a time in the lives of all people when the cup of endurance runs over and men are no longer willing to be plunged into war and an abyss of injustice that they experience by the blackness of corroding despair. I hope this house can understand the legitimate and unavoidable impatience of the majority of dark people in Rhodesia and South Africa. But it is a pity that the Australian delegation was marred by the statements of the senator. I believe he regrets that he said what he did say. He failed to understand- as many people fail to understand- the unavoidable impatience of the brown brothers of Rhodesia and South Africa who are fighting against the relics of a colonial system.

  1. D. Morel wrote in the 1 850s that Rhodesia and South Africa would eventually blow up because of the barbaric treatment that was being exercised by the Belgian colonialists down there when they were pushing inferior ivory down the throats of the black people. I hope there will never be a recurrence of an Australian member of parliament, State or Federal, making statements at an international conference- such as the subject of the report before the House- that will bring Australians to the point where they have to dissociate themselves from a worthy colleague’s remarks. Racism should be outlawed and overcome as soon as possible because it is an injustice and is barbaric. It can be overcome only in the same way as removing a bandage from a boil, exposing it to air and light, the air and light of the world. A medical officer should know that the ugliness of racism, like the boil, can be cured only by exposing it to the human conscience of the world before it.

Long have there been many pent up resentments and latent frustrations felt by the brown people of the world and Africa. We have to bear the brunt now in the latter part of the twentieth century of the evilness of our forebears. I hope the Parliament will uphold the fact, that 95 per cent of Australian people are bitterly opposed to apartheid as it exists in South Africa and Rhodesia. I claimed over there in Jamaica at the Commonwealth Conference last September, that Australians wanted to see racism not only eliminated in South Africa and Rhodesia but eliminated from the face of the earth so that justice might flow down like a mountain stream until the injustice that has existed too long is over. In conclusion, I thank you for your forebearance. I had to make this contribution to put on the records of Parliament the only occurrence at the conference where, under our leader, Mr Lucock, we tried to overcome this problem. I believe Austraiian delegates left Jamaica having won many friends, particularly Mr Dunsford, whose personality was winning friends all the time until we left that friendly island and its great people.

page 3190

DEVELOPMENT OF ARMY SITE STAGE 1, BONEGILLA, VICTORIA

Report of Public Works Committee

Mr BUNGEY:
Canning

– In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, 1 present the report relating to the following proposed work:

Development of army site stage 1, Bonegilla, Victoria.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr BUNGEY:

– by leave-In tabling the report of the Public Works Committee regarding the development of the army site stage 1, Bonegilla, Victoria, I wish to draw attention to three matters mentioned in the report. The proposal as presented to the Committee included a SO metre, nine lane, unheated swimming pool, which is the entitlement for a military installation with more than 1,000 personnel, at an estimated cost of $400,000. However, the Committee has recommended provision of a 50 metre, nine lane, covered, heated swimming pool with some space for spectator seating at an estimated additional cost of $330,000. In reaching its decision, the Committee noted that, due to climatic conditions, the local unheated pool at Wodonga is closed for almost half the year. During the remaining months of the year when an unheated pool is suitable for use in the Albury-Wodonga area, the use of the swimming pool at Bonegilla would be restricted from November to January owing to final examinations of apprentices, graduation parades and the December-January vacation period.

The Committee was very conscious of the fact that the Bonegilla military complex will have some 700 trainees, mainly apprentices aged 15 to 1 8 years, and feels that such trainees should have adequate recreational facilities all year round. The Committee believes that it would not be economically efficient to spend $400,000 on a facility which can be used for only approximately four months of the year and which the Army assures the Committee can be fully used for training, sport and recreational needs throughout the year. The pool would be available for the use of the 1300 staff and students proposed for the Bonegilla development and a further 1,300 military personnel currently at Bandiana, approximately eight kilometres from Bonegilla. I draw attention to the document entitled ‘Services, Scales and Standards of Accommodation’ published by the Department of Defence and which states, among other things, in paragraph 2 1 (E) regarding swimming pools: one pool on any military installation may be heated and covered if training requirements and/or location justify it subject to prior approval by the Departments of Defence and Treasury.

It is also worth noting that there is an enclosed heated pool at the Kapooka military camp near Wagga, only some 140 kilometres north of Bonegilla. The Committee also understands that an enclosed heated pool- admittedly smaller- is under construction at the Clyde Cameron Trade Union Training College at Wodonga. The Committee appreciates the concern expressed at the public hearing by the representatives of the Mornington Shire at the removal of the Army Apprentices School from its present location at Balcombe in that Shire. The Committee wishes to acknowledge the excellent relationship that has been built up over the years between the staff and students of the Army Apprentices School and the local community. However, having considered all the evidence, the Committee is satisfied that there are significant advantages in relocating the Army Apprentices School at Bonegilla.

Lastly, I would like to draw attention to paragraphs 129 to 132 of the report dealing with the submission to the Committee of Civil and Civic Pty Ltd regarding project management which was seen by Civil and Civic as an alternative fundamental approach to implementing the design and construction of major public works. The Committee believes that this proposal should be thoroughly studied by the Department of Construction. However on the evidence before it the Committee is unable to recommend that for this reference there should be any departure from the normal procedures of the Department of Construction. All papers and evidence on this point will be referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure as a possible area of investigation for that Committee. The charter of the Public Works Committee does not permit it to investigate such matters divorced from a special reference by one of the Houses of the Parliament.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-by leave-I rise in support of the honourable member for Canning (Mr Bungey) who is the Chairman of the Public Works Committee and to indicate to this House that there is complete and utter unanimity on the part of members of that Committee in urging the expenditure of a further $330,000 to provide a heated, covered swimming pool for the use of the personnel at Bonegilla military establishment. In no way can this be seen as a luxury item in that location. The pool will be every bit as much a pan of the training of the young men and women who are in camp there as is any other facility there. All the Committee did-I think it took an extraordinarily wise decision on this occasion- was to make sure that a facility is provided that can be used all year round. The Committee’s line of thinking was that, rather than spend $400,000 on a pool that could be used in reality for only two or three months of the year, it was a lot wiser to spend another $330,000 to provide a pool that could be used year round. In practice it will be used for about 10 to11 months of the year.

I think the Committee acted wisely. The pool will not be for people to swim in just at their leisure; the recruits are required to be trained in swimming in water out of their depth with full pack on. Most people would be surprised at the number of people in Australia today who cannot swim. The recruits are required to be taught to swim under extraordinary conditions such as with full pack in water out of their depth. The pool will also be part of the organised sporting program in the area every bit as much as the football fields, and in the same way as the football fields it will provide the opportunity for competitive sports. I repeat that I simply wanted to make those points to urge the House to take the item seriously and to indicate that there was complete and utter unanimity on the part of the Committee when this matter was decided.

page 3191

INTERNATIONAL AIR FARES

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

-Mr Speaker has received letters from the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris), the honourable member for Indi (Mr Ewen Cameron) and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by Standing Order 107, Mr Speaker has selected one matter; that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Shortland, namely:

The Government’s failure to introduce lower international airfares.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places-

Motion (by Mr Macphee) proposed:

That business of the day be called on.

Mr Morris:

– What a disgraceful exercise. I have not yet commenced to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr Morris:

– Are there not to be some discussions of matters of public importance in this Parliament? What is the matter with this Parliament?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Shortland will resume his seat. If he wishes to speak, he may do so later. The question is:

That the business of the day be called on.

Dr Klugman:

– My Deputy Speaker, does this motion not suggest a lack of confidence in Mr Speaker on the part of the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee)? Mr Speaker had decided that we should proceed with this motion of public importance and yet the Minister apparently holds the Speaker in utter contempt.

Mr Morris:

– I raise a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) has given repeated undertakings to the people of this country about the introduction of lower air fares. Not only is he not in the House to debate the issue; he also will not allow it to be debated. Must the people of this country be treated with such contempt by this Government?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-That is not a point of order.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3191

NEW SOUTH WALES GRANT (CHRYSOTILE CORPORATION) BILL 1978

Bill presented by Mr Eric Robinson, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to permit the provision of assistance to New South Wales for the 15 months to the end of 1979 in respect of the continued operation of the Chrysotile Corporation of Australia Pty Ltd asbestos mine at Barraba in New South Wales. Since the Government first gave consideration to the report of the industries Assistance Commission on short-term assistance for the asbestos mining industry, and to assistance proposals made by the New South Wales Government, it has emerged in further detailed discussions that the company’s bank, the Commercial Bank of Australia, is also willing to make a contribution. After further consideration in the light of this situation, the Government announced it would offer assistance by way of an interest-bearing loan of up to $ 1 .4m in relation to the company’s operations. This assistance is intended to be provided by means of a repayable grant to New South Wales under section 96 of the Constitution. It would be provided progressively over the 1 5 months to the end of 1 979.

The Commercial Bank has indicated willingness to accrue interest on loans to the company over this period while the State Government has stated it is prepared to provide certain funds to assist Chrysotile Corporation and also to waive royalties during the period concerned. On the basis of the bank accruing interest, it appears that the Commonwealth’s offer to provide $ 1.4m to the State for on-lending, matched by funds of at least that amount from the State together with the waiving of royalties, would enable the company to continue in operation.

It was in the light of the willingness of the Bank and the State to assist the company that the Commonwealth made its offer of assistance. The Government was mindful of the effect the mine’s closure would have on employment opportunities in the region surrounding Barraba, as well as the degree of assistance by the State and the Bank, in reaching a decision to contribute to the total assistance package. The proposed assistance is intended to tide the company over until it resumes a positive cash flow. In particular, the proposals will facilitate the company’s plans to introduce new recovery equipment during 1979, which is expected to add substantially to its revenue.

Detailed agreements between the Commonwealth and New South Wales, and between the State, the company and the Bank, are to be drawn up to give effect to arrangements on the basis agreed between the various parties. The agreements are to include provisions to ensure that Commonwealth interests are properly protected.

Detailed requirements will be set out to cover such matters as limits on amounts to be paid, means of minimising cash deficits, comprehensive auditing procedures, and maintenance of employment levels. There will also be provision for the amounts paid by way of assistance to be repaid with interest out of future cash flows if the prospects for recovery of the viability of the company’s operations are realised. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Keating) adjourned.

page 3192

QUESTION

NEW AND PERMANENT PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Ministerial Statement

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– by leave- Mr Speaker, for the first 27 years of its existence, the Commonwealth Parliament operated in borrowed premises. In 1913 an international competition was announced for the design of a permanent Parliament House in the new national capital. This was first deferred and then cancelled due to the world war. Since coming to Canberra in 1927 the Parliament has operated in a House that was intended to accommodate it for a temporary period. Now that we approach the bicentenary of Australia’s settlement by Europeans, the Government has decided that funds ought to be provided for the design and construction of a permanent Parliament House. The permanent Parliament House will be the focal point of the bicentenary celebrations in 1988 and will largely complete the capital’s principal national constructions. From 19SS to the present day successive parliaments and successive governments have considered the question of a new Parliament House.

In 1965, a joint select committee was appointed. Its main recommendation was to proceed with the new and permanent Parliament House. To facilitate this it recommended the establishment of a ‘client’ committee which in due course resulted in the setting up of a Joint Standing Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House. For a considerable time a decision could not be reached on a site for that new building. This difficulty was resolved in 1974 with the passage of the Parliament Act which declared that the new and permanent Parliament House will be on Capital Hill. Since 1975, successive parliaments have appointed the Joint Standing Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House, and the Committee has undertaken the detailed enquiries which have led to the decision I am now announcing. On behalf of the Government, I pay tribute to the Committee and to the Presiding Officers for their detailed and painstaking work over recent years. All honourable members are indebted to the Committee for the way in which it has advanced this matter.

The Government has given thought to the managerial arrangements needed to ensure that the project goes ahead efficiently, and that all parties involved are fully consulted at each relevant stage. I take this opportunity to outline to the House the proposals which will be given legislative form early next year. First, we intend that, at each major stage in the design and construction of the new building, the Parliament itself will be the authority to approve the next step to be taken. It is essential that the Parliament itself take the important threshold decisions and we will make sure this happens. Second, we believe special and flexible administrative arrangements will be needed to facilitate the work over the next 10 years. Therefore we have decided to create a statutory authority- to be known as the New Parliament House Construction Authority- to control the design and construction of the new Parliament House. It will do so in close association with the National Capital Development Commission and will be responsible to the Minister for the Capital Territory. It will have a chairman and four members, one of whom will be the Commissioner of the NCDC. The Authority will have available the services of an operations unit, of skilled professional people located within the NCDC, drawn from the NCDC, the Department of Construction and elsewhere and available to carry out the day to day directions of the Authority.

Third, we propose that the Joint Standing Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House should be seen as the advisory authority on behalf of the Parliament. It will be available to advise the Authority on any relevant matter and to report to Parliament if it wishes. In effect it will be a watchdog on behalf of the Parliament. Some consequential revision of the Joint Standing Committee’s terms of appointment may be appropriate, and proposals will be submitted to the Parliament early next year. The Committee will continue in operation because an immediate problem will be the design competition and the advice of the Committee on this will clearly be needed.

The arrangements I have outlined are designed to make sure that all the talents needed to advance this great project will be available in a sensible and co-ordinated way. The interests and requirements of the Parliament remain preeminent and our proposals are designed to that end. A procedure for selection of an architect was proposed in the Joint Standing Committee’s third report. In general the Government believes the procedures set out there are appropriate, but we feel that the new Authority should also be involved immediately it is established.

I take this opportunity to foreshadow the intention that a design competition will be conducted, broadly along the lines of the recommendations in the third report. In brief, these were as follows: Invitation to architects registered in

Australia to enter a design competition- I think that is a marked difference to the original competition that was to be held before the World War which was to be an international competition but appropriately, this will be an Australian competition: selection of a few of the best entrants for development of their ideas to a second stage; selection of the winning architect and development of that architect’s design. The total project cost has been estimated at $ 15 lm in May 1978 prices, and funds will be progressively required over the next 10 years. Significant expenditure will not be incurred for some years yet, with the larger annual costs falling in the years 1983-87. Over the last 10 years, in 1977-78 prices, an average of $165m a year has been spent by the Government on capital works in Canberra under NCDC programs.

The Government believes that it can encompass the construction of Parliament House within the same order of annual expenditure on capital programs for Canberra over the next 10 years, and the expenditure in relation to the new Parliament House will be taken into account when decisions are made on other public buildings. When this Parliament House was constructed in 1927, it was built as provisional accommodation, with facilities and services of a corresponding standard. Over the years, piecemeal extensions and alterations have been made to the building. The total area is now about two and a half times that of the original building. All honourable members know that this accommodation, having grown haphazardly over the years, is not best suited to the needs of a modern Parliament. The simple fact is that the Parliament is hampered in the performance of its works in this building. It would clearly be extraordinarily difficult to renovate or modify this building to provide necessary services and facilities for the years ahead. I should also say that if a new Parliament House is not built in the near future, it will be necessary to proceed immediately with substantial extensions to the present building, extensions which could not be more than a short-term stop-gap.

We believe that expenditure of funds on the present building other than those for essential maintenance would not be responsible. As a corollary of the decision to proceed with the new Parliament House, it will need to be accepted that there will have to be maximum restraint in respect of additional expenditure on this building. That will mean that senators and members, including Ministers will have to accept basically the present facilities in the period until the new building becomes available. The Government recognises that this decision not to proceed with short-term expedients will impose upon all those who work in Parliament House a further measure of inconvenience. Nonetheless, we believe this inconvenience is justified in the interests of finding a permanent solution to the problem of adequately housing the Parliament.

The design of Parliament House will give an unparalleled opportunity for the architectural design and building skills of Australians. Here in the Parliamentary triangle, we have our great National Library and the new National Gallery and High Court are already under construction. The new Parliament House which is now to be built will take its place amongst the other great buildings which symbolise our culture, learning and system of justice. It will be the centrepoint of modern Canberra, the peak of the Parliamentary triangle, the hub of the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, a place in which the affairs of the nation can be conducted in a more efficient way. Australians justifiably take pride in this city, which is the symbol of our nationhood. The new Parliament House will greatly enhance the national capital, and it will also be a focal point for the ever-increasing number of Australians and visitors from overseas who wish to see at first hand the centre of Australian democracy.

The symbolic importance of the new Parliament House is made even more important by our anticipation that the opening of the building will take place in 1988, the bicentennial of the first European settlement in Australia. Since that settlement, Australians by working together as a people sharing common ideals and a common purpose, have achieved great things. The decision to proceed now with the design and building of Parliament House reflects a confidence in the future, in which the people of this nation can justifiably share.The 1980s, the decade of our bicentennial, will be a period of optimism and excitement, a period of growth and development. I am certain that in this decade by working together with determination, with common purpose and the sense of national unity which the new Parliament House itself will symbolise we can make Australia the great country we know it can be. I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition has written to inform me that the unanimous view of the executive of the Parliamentary Labor Party is in favour of proceeding with a new and permanent Parliament House. It is fitting that both Government and Opposition should concur in their views on the construction of a House which symbolises our unity as a nation and as a people and which is an expression of our joint pride, faith and confidence in Australia. I present the following paper:

New and Permanent Parliament House- Ministerial Statement, 22 November 1978

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– The Opposition welcomes the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). We support the views he has expressed and we endorse the commitment he has given. The building of a new national Parliament House is an important undertaking. This building, which has been a temporary building for too long, is totally unsuited for the functions it is supposed to serve, but more importantly, it does not offer any prospects of enduring to serve future generations of this nation. The building about which we are talking is not one that is to serve a generation or a few generations but one that is to serve this nation for centuries and accordingly we must view its construction as an important undertaking. It will be an important building to fulfil an important function, that is the housing of the national Parliament.

Some people have sought to argue in support of this commitment on the basis that it will relieve unemployment- and that it will do- but there are other ways in which this could be done. They have argued that it will maintain the capital works program in Canberra- and that it will do- but there are other ways in which this could be done too. I, however, think that there are more important arguments in support of the construction of a new building to house the national Parliament. What we require in this nation is a building that will reflect the aspirations of this young, confident and successful nation, something that will endure and be an inspiration to future generations, reflecting the cultural aspirations of people of this generation. What we are seeking is not something that will be domineering but something that will symbolise the function of a national Parliament, that is, service to the community but, one would rather hope, reflecting a degree of taste and a style that would be appropriate for a national parliament.

In relation to the cost of the building the Prime Minister has pointed out that a total outlay of the order of $ 151m is expected to be involved. I thought it would be helpful therefore to mention to the House some comparative costs of other buildings which are either under way or about to be commenced in various parts of Australia. I note, for instance, that the Trade Centre in Melbourne will involve an outlay of $ 1 30m; the Arts Centre in Melbourne will involve an outlay of about $125m; the Westmead Hospital will involve an outlay of $ 172m; and the Sydney Opera House- I recognise that this is not always the best comparison to make but nonetheless it is ohe of some validity- will involve an outlay of $161m. On that basis, if we are looking at a building which will not only functionally serve the community as a national Parliament but also something which in important ways will be an emblem of the aesthetic qualities that our generation is to contribute, the outlay involved is not extravagant in any way at all. We are pleased to hear from the Prime Minister that appropriate measures will be applied to ensure that there will be no extravagances. On the other hand it would be a shame if there were to be any meanness which, in later years, would be reflected in growing inadequacies developing in the functioning of the building.

Some people have argued that this building should continue to serve the parliamentary needs of the nation. That is a proposition which I reject completely. You, Mr Speaker, have pointed out to this House that this building is a serious fire hazard. If I recall correctly, you pointed out that the fire authorities reported to you that it is not possible to repair the deficiencies in this respect in this building and that furthermore if this building were to serve the private sector of the community in this city it would be condemned, and properly so. There alone is sufficient evidence that it is just not practical to continue in the medium to longer term with the services of this building. There is another practical aspect that has to be weighed up and that is in relation to the services of a parliamentary building for this nation. We are at a point of critical decision making. On the one hand the Parliament could have made a decision to persevere with the existing building. That is a decision which would have to be made fairly early. It cannot be deferred much longer for a number of reasons, not the least of which relate to the rather critical accommodation needs. If the Parliament were to make that decision, it would mean quite substantial outlays- I would expect in the order of tens of millions of dollars- which would be designed to renovate in a fruitless exercise the existing part of the building and to eliminate to some degree the fire hazards which I mentioned earlier and which you reported to us, Mr Speaker, and furthermore to provide extensions to the building so that it could more adequately service the needs of this Parliament. It is a grossly overcrowded institution.

That, in any economic assessment, would be a wasteful investment. If one considered the sort of return for services provided for the community and the degree to which efficiency could be enhanced as a result of the satisfaction derived, one would find, to the extent that these intangibles can be calculated- rough calculations are attempted, rather bravely, by economists from time to time- that in weighing up the sorts of benefits to be derived from an investment in a new building, the new building wins hands down as the better choice. The Opposition as a whole and I personally are extremely pleased that the Government has decided to commit itself to the undertaking of constructing a new Parliament House. It will be a fitting symbol for the bicentenary year of this young, confident country which has achieved so much.

Government members- Hear, hear!

Mr HAYDEN:

-We hope that in the meantime the confidence of the country will have been enhanced enormously by a change of government. I am incited to interpolate that by the feverish response of Government members to my earlier comment. I do not want them to be misguided in any way about my motivation in making that comment.

Mr Young:

– It will celebrate your eighth year as Prime Minister.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I hope that Hansard records that. Let me conclude by saying that I expect, as I assume the Prime Minister expects, that the new Parliament House, the new parliamentary building, will be a building which will give great national pride to this country, not just for some future generations but for centuries ahead.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3195

ATOMIC ENERGY AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 November, on motion by Mr Anthony:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Productivity · Balaclava · LP

– May I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation? Before the debate is resumed on the Bill, I would like to suggest that it might suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the motions to take note of the papers and ministerial statements on the Ranger uranium project agreement between the

Commonwealth and the Northern Land Council and the Kakadu National Park Agreement and the memoranda of leases, as they are associated measures. Separate questions will of course be put on the Bill and each motion to take note of the paper at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of the Bill and the two ministerial statements and papers to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman:

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the three measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-The Opposition sought to break the debate into two- a debate on the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill and a debate on the Ranger statement and the statement on the Kakadu National Park agreement and memoranda. Apparently this was put to the Government by the Manager of Opposition Business and the Government declined. We therefore agreed to a cognate debate but we would have preferred the other course. I think it is discourteous of the Government not to have a separate debate on the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill, which is separate and distinct from the other two matters. The Opposition opposes the legislation, but it does not do so in any bloody-minded way. It does it for a number of clear reasons, the main one relating to what the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) said in his second reading speech. He said:

The main purpose of the Bill is to enable the Act to be amended so that a mining authority to be issued under section 41 of the Act for mining at Ranger affords the persons on whom the authority has been conferred security of tenure . . .

That is the main purpose of the legislation, and whilst one can understand that the Peko-EZ consortium is not prepared to make investments on the basis only of the memorandum of understanding or upon the whim and caprice of the incumbent Minister and that it seeks further security of tenure, it all points to the fact that the Atomic Energy Act is the wrong legislation for the Government to have used for the development of the Ranger project and the Northern Territory uranium province. That is obvious from the Minister’s own statement, and I quote him again:

The Ranger joint ventures have pointed out that section 41 of the Atomic Energy Act, as it presently stands, does not provide them with adequate security of tenure.

The Minister went on to say:

While the Act was designed to allow mining, detailed provisions to cover mining on a commercial basis were never included.

Those are both admissions that the Atomic Energy Act is inappropriate for uranium mining, even given the Government’s policy of moving ahead with uranium mining. Essentially, the Atomic Energy Act is a defence-oriented research Act and, because of that, it contains security measures which are not appropriate for a commercial mining operation. As well as that, the Fox Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry was quite specific in its recommendations to the Government not to use the Atomic Energy Act for the purposes of the civil mining project. So we are led inexorably to the conclusion that the Government should have undertaken its mining policy in the Northern Territory on the basis of a civil mining Act, whether it be the mining ordinances of the Northern Territory or a new piece of legislation enacted to give effect to the Government’s policy. That has not been done, and we are trying now to amend the Atomic Energy Act- I think there have already been a couple of amendments to date and now this one has been brought forward- to make it a more suitable vehicle for the development of the Ranger project. Obviously, as the agreement goes on and discussions between the parties- the Government, Peko-EZ and the Northern Land Council- continue, there will be other reasons for amending the legislation. The Government will find that the Bill is again inadequate. The whole concept of using the Atomic Energy Act should have been scrapped and we should have left it alone as a research Act, an Act governing a research institution, and established a commercial mining Act so that at least the work force and the people involved with uranium mining were not subject to the kinds of penal provisions and draconian security measures incorporated in the present Atomic Energy Act

The most important feature of this legislation in respect of uranium is the fact that the Government cannot terminate mining arrangements or mining activity at Ranger. At this point of time, this amendment applies only to Ranger, although some of its provisions are more general in application. We think that that is a serious omission by the Government and another breach of its commitment to stand by the recommendations of the Fox inquiry. The inquiry stated:

A decision to mine and sell uranium should not be made unless the Commonwealth Government ensures that the Commonwealth can at any time, on the basis of considerations of the nature discussed in this Report, immediately terminate those activities, permanently, indefinitely or for a specified period.

On 25 August 1977 the Minister said when making the statement on the Government’s uranium policy:

The Government will, therefore, always be in a position to move immediately to terminate uranium development, permanently, indefinitely or for a specified period as recommended by the Ranger Inquiry.

This legislation is a clear abrogation of that commitment to Parliament because under this legislation the Minister cannot terminate mining activities at Ranger. Rather, he could, but it would require a further amendment to the Act, and that is in contradistinction to the Fox recommendation. Whilst the Minister may argue that the Government can stop export through the export controls, and I accept that point, even given the fact that the Government exercised its export control powers and prohibited exports, the company could still mine and stockpile uranium and the Government could do nothing about it. Control over termination procedures really rests with the company concerned. A termination can take place only at the application of the authority holder, which in this case would be the Ranger consortium. Of course, the consortium is not going to apply for termination of its business activities. Even if it did, there are provisions in the Bill which deal with that situation. If the Minister terminated the mining at Ranger because of some breach of the provisions of the legislation or the agreement, he would have to give notice to the company and the consortium could attend to the breach and have the termination lifted so that it could continue mining. In other words, the Minister cannot terminate mining activities at Ranger under this agreement as it presently stands.

Mr Baume:

– Without reference to Parliament?

Mr KEATING:

– Without any reference. He just cannot do it.

Mr Baume:

– But under your system he would not have to refer it to the Parliament.

Mr KEATING:

– The point the honourable member is trying to make is that this is the normal thing under State rnining Acts, and that is so. Companies want security of tenure. They do not want to be there at the whim and caprice of a government Minister. But this is not a State rnining Act. This is not a normal commodity. This is not copper or bauxite or tin. This is uranium and it is special. It is a strategic material. Because it is a strategic material we have had a national inquiry about it and the national inquiry has recommended that the Minister should be able to terminate. I have already quoted the Minister when he said that he would terminate and that the provisions of the legislation would ensure that he could terminate. That is a clear abrogation of that commitment. In fact, the

Government has given only cynical lip service to -

Mr Anthony:

– They want it made easy for them, if they come in.

Mr KEATING:

– The Minister interjects. Let me say this -

Mr Anthony- I was not interjecting; I was talking to an honourable member over here.

Mr KEATING:

– It is much the same thing; the Minister was mumbling away. If I were in his place as the responsible Minister, it would not be beyond my wit or beyond the wit of my Government to find some way to terminate the mining of uranium if the decision were made to terminate it. Nevertheless, it is the Minister’s responsibility to own up to his commitments. The legislation should contain a termination provision at the Minister’s behest, but it does not. It is as simple as that.

The Minister said that the legislation is only for Ranger, but sections 4 and S have general application. Whilst the Minister is not on record as saying that Pancontinental Mining Ltd, Queensland Mines Ltd or Noranda Australia Ltd will be subject to the Atomic Energy Act, nevertheless, if what the Minister euphemistically calls his ‘sequence’ takes place and another rnining venture is given the right to mine under the Atomic Energy Act, what could happen is that not only would Ranger come under the provisions of this Act, but also Queensland Mines, Noranda and others could come under its provisions. So, whilst the Atomic Energy Act now remains only applicable to Ranger, it could be the vehicle for the development of the Northern Territory uranium province- and a very inadequate and inappropriate vehicle it is.

The Bill contains some very reaonable provisions in the areas in which it protects the rights of the Aboriginal land councils and reflects some of the provisions of the agreement with the Northern Land Council on Ranger. Reasonable, commendable indeed as that is, nevertheless, in the broad, the use of the Atomic Energy Act is inappropriate for this kind of mining operation. I really cannot see why the Government wants to persist with that Act. I am sure that the Minister will reply that it was in the memorandum of understanding concocted between Peko Mines Ltd, Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australasia Ltd and the Labor Government. Indeed it was. But we have traversed long since then and now there is not the kind of stupid opposition which we had in this Parliament in those days, when the then Minister for Minerals and Energy made his statement in a committee room downstairs because the Parliament would not give him leave to make it in the chamber. That was the kind of atmosphere we had in those days. The use of the Atomic Energy Act was a fall-back position. We have since had a national commission of inquiry recommend against the use of that Act.

Mr Anthony:

– You know why we would not give leave. You would not show us the statement, which is quite normal practice.

Mr KEATING:

– I doubt that.

Mr Anthony:

– I was the one who was handling it for the Opposition. I remember quite clearly.

Mr KEATING:

– If that was the case, you should have been shown the statement. I would not defend such an action. Of course you should have been shown the statement. Nevertheless, that was the kind of atmosphere which the Parliament was in and it is now quite trite for the Minister to say that, because Labor used the Atomic Energy Act, we have to continue with it. The Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquirythe Fox Inquiry- recommended against the use of that Act. I really do not know how any commercial company contemplating investments in uranuium mining can do so on the basis of the use of that Act because the Act will require constant amendment. This will not be the last time when we will have this sort of debate; it will go on and on and on. The amendments will keep coming in. The Minister ought to wake up to himself, get a decent piece of legislation and forget the Atomic Energy Act. But apparently he is not prone to doing that.

The Opposition opposes this Bill because the Opposition is opposed to the Government’s uranium mining policy. The Opposition is opposed to the use of the Atomic Energy Act to implement that policy, as was recommended by the Fox Commission. Whilst we support many of the provisions contained in the Bill in relation to the Aboriginal interest and, indeed, some of the other commercial interests, nevertheless, the Bill is inappropriate for the development of a new industry, an industry in a Commonwealth Territory, an industry for which an Act could have been passed by a government with a majority in both Houses of the Parliament. It ill behoves the Government to bring in this kind of legislation and to fly right in the face of the recommendations which were so clearly enunciated by the Fox Commission.

Sitting suspended from 5.S9 to 8 p.m.

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

– I believe that the House should congratulate the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) and the Northern Land Council, particularly Mr Yunupingu, on the successful completion of the negotiations that have resulted in the introduction of the three matters that we are presently discussing. Despite the imposition of external pressures on the negotiations, particularly on the Aborigines, by people who were pushing their own barrow and who had no interest whatsoever in the welfare of Aborigines but only in their own hysterical opposition to uranium mining, I think it certainly says a great deal for all sides that the negotiations were successfully completed.

However, I find it curious that the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) should have indicated that the Labor Party intends to oppose the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the two ministerial statements we are discussing. It is extraordinary that the Labor Party, in opposing an agreement that it signed itself with Peko- Wallsend Ltd, in fact will be opposing the use of the Atomic Energy Act which it imposed upon the parties to that agreement and under which the agreement was signed. The fact that one year the Labor Party regards one particular course of action as effective and correct and shortly after, when its Caucus is dominated by left wingers rather than moderates of the previous period, it changes its mind in a particularly disgraceful way indicates something of its consistency and its depth of knowledge on the matter. That change of mind is aimed at seeking electoral advantage rather than at looking after the best interests of Australia.

It struck me as being curious that the honourable member for Blaxland complained that the Act does not allow the Executive to terminate the powers of the company to mine. Goodness me, that is an extraordinary proposition. This agreement was made under the Act and, as I said, the Labor Party required that at the time. The fact clearly is that such a serious step as cancellation of this agreement should surely be referred to this Parliament and not left to executive fiat. It is indicative of the style of government of the Labor Party that it would much rather keep these powers to itself than to do the Parliament the honour of allowing it to investigate and to debate fully such a matter. In any event, the honorable member for Blaxland is well aware of the fact that if under the export control arrangements something totally disastrous occurs, obviously, there can be a restraint in terms of export controls. As the honourable member for Blaxland knows also, such restraints exist at the present time. Further to the point of whether such mining regulations should be applied under the Atomic Energy Act, I can do no better than quote from the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on uranium. He said:

With respect to the Ranger project itself, the Government is most conscious that the Memorandum of Understanding between the Commonwealth and the Ranger partners entered into in October 197S more than three months after the Ranger Inquiry had been established, would not have been the Government’s preferred approach to mineral development. However, the Government would not wish to disturb arrangements entered into in good faith by the companies with the previous Government. We believe, as a matter of principle, that the repudiation by one Government of contracts entered into by a previous Government would be quite wrong.

As a result of the Labor Party’s decision to use the Atomic Energy Act, those undertakings have been honoured. It is extraordinary, to my mind, that there is this level of attack by the Labor Party. It is even more disturbing to see the manner in which people are waving an anti-uranium banner, whether they are doing so for mischievous or honourable reasons. I concede that many people who adopt an anti-uranium stance do so ibr honourable reasons, just as many people who take an anti-uranium stance do so for quite mischievous reasons which bring benefits to the providers of other energy sources and which, of course, assist the Russian bloc, which is a great user of atomic power, to the disadvantage of the Western bloc countries- the free nations of the world- which seek to use our uranium.

It strikes me as extraordinary that people who profess to be people of goodwill should have set out to use the Aboriginal people as a weapon, as an implement, in attacking this agreement and this kind of legislation. It should be forever on the conscience of many of the so-called good people of this community, who are so obsessed with their own self-righteousness that they are incapable of recognising the difference between right and wrong, that they have set out on a shameful and wrong course of action. They set out to confuse and to mislead the Aboriginal people. They set out to use the Aboriginal people simply by forcing them to be Australia’s conscience. I do not agree that such an action would result in Australia’s conscience speaking. But in their view, they felt justified in endeavouring to force the Aboriginal people into a situation in which they would lose immense amounts of revenue and in which they would not get the benefits- let us remember that there are benefits involved for the Aboriginal people- of uranium development. These people were prepared to sacrifice the benefits to the Aboriginal people of uranium mining in order to try to prevent that development It is not a matter, I believe, that this Parliament should look at lightly. I believe that the Austraiian people should recognise this disgraceful behaviour.

I agree with the honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham) who recognised and who stated in this House, albeit indirectly, that many people who were interfering in the Aboriginal negotiations had no basic interest whatsoever in the welfare of the Aboriginal people and were involved in this matter simply to further their own particular cause. I suggest that it is a selfish cause and a self-centred and self-interested cause for another reason, and that is that the rest of the world needs our uranium; the rest of the world and not Australia is the market for our uranium; the rest of the world can get uranium from anywhere else at a price. Uranium exists everywhere. It is in the sea water; it is simply the cost of extraction which makes it not viable. The simple reality is that had the antiuranium movement in Australia been successful in this instance, it would have served only to increase the price of uranium being paid by our friends in the world. It interests me that the motives, no matter how good, of many antiuranium people should have prompted them into endeavouring to abuse their relationship with the Aboriginal people to this purpose.

I agree wholeheartedly with the proposition that there is a definite need to amend the Atomic Energy Act because, certainly, the tenure situation in respect of the ability of Peko- Wallsend Ltd to mine there was totally unsatisfactory. I submit- I agree with the honourable member for Blaxland on this point-that the Atomic Energy Act has not yet been effectively amended to provide that mining companies get a fair go. I point out that in proposed section 41C which appears at page S of the Atomic Energy Amendment (No. 2) Bill 1 978 the parties are required to enter into negotiations for renewal of the mining licence only before the expiration of the 21 -year mining period- between six and four years short of that period. The fact is that this amendment to the Act does not require the parties to come to an agreement. The ludicrous situation could well emerge where in fact no agreement was reached. The company would then be forced to cover up its mining activities under the five-year rehabilitation program and then to apply under the legislation for a new mining lease which would be granted, after agreement with the Aboriginal people. Upon the granting of the mining lease, all the uncovering work would have to start again. There is no doubt that further improvements to the Act are required.

I am particularly concerned that the lack of a requirement for people to be obliged to come to an agreement after the negotiating period allows the exercise of strong blackmail tactics against the holder of the mining licence. I believe that that situation should be corrected. I hope that the use of the Atomic Energy Act will be limited to this situation. There is no doubt, as the honourable member for Blaxland has said, that it is inappropriate to this rnining venture. Nonetheless, there is a requirement that it be used because of the agreement entered into by the Labor Government of the time with the people involved in the Ranger project. I urge the Government to find a different medium, preferably the Northern Territory rnining ordinances, which do not place an unfair burden on a mining company, particularly in relation to the renewal of mining leases.

Many other matters relating to mining in the Northern Territory need to be corrected in the future. I am concerned that there has been a decline in milling activity and exploration in the Northern Territory since the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act came into force. I hope that a greater level of understanding by the mining industry and the Government can bring about an improvement in relations between both sides to ensure a continuation of the development of the major, massive resources of this area to the benefit both of the Aboriginal people and the people of the whole of Australia. We should congratulate the Government and the Northern Land Council on what has been achieved so far in the signing of this agreement. But I believe that a great deal more has to be done to maintain the development and dynamics of this area. I hope that the Government and the Aboriginal people will be able to come together in the future to bring that about

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

-I wish to make a personal explanation on the ground that I have been misrepresented.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

-The honourable member has the indulgence of the Chair.

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume) quoted me as saying that many people were intervening in Aboriginal matters for their own selfish interests. This is the fourth time that I have made a personal explanation to emphasise the fact that the people who are mostly interfering are the very people who are espousing the course that the honourable member himself is espousing, namely those who want to facilitate and accelerate rnining and to influence Aborigines in that direction.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Capricornia is obliged to come quickly to the point on which he was specifically and personally misrepresented.

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– I was misrepresented because the honourable member implied that it is the people opposed to milling who are interfering with Aborigines. In my view, the people who are interfering with Aborigines are those on the other side of the argument.

Mr UREN:
Reid

-At the outset I protest against a cognate debate involving the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill (No. 2), the statement by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) on the Ranger agreement and also the statement on the Kakadu National Park by the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Groom). The restriction of the debate on these matters shows the real hypocrisy of the Government. The enforcement of a cognate debate on this occasion is a further restriction on our freedom. Each matter in itself is very important. The Government has always restricted debate on these important issues.

The latest amendment to the Atomic Energy Act reveals more clearly than ever before that the Government’s single-minded strategy to lock Australia into the international nuclear fuel cycle and to repress the opposition of any citizen who threatens that strategy. It demonstrates more clearly that the Fraser Government does not care a damn about the very serious hazards associated with uranium mining, the lifestyle of the Aboriginal people in Arnhem Land or the delicate environment of the Alligator Rivers region. Most significantly, it demonstrates that the Government’s strategy is failing and that prospective buyers of uranium are worried about the policy of the Labor Party and the very deepseated opposition to uranium development in the Australian community. They know that Labor will be in government by 1 980. That is the whole basis of their fear. The Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) in his second reading speech was blatant in his admission that the Atomic Energy Act is totally inappropriate for the commencement of mining. He said:

While the Act was designed to allow rnining, detailed provisions to cover rnining on a commercial basis were never included.

I ask members of the Government and Government supporters to read pages 248 to 252 of the second Fox report. That report clearly sets out the Ranger commissioners’ opposition to the use of the Atomic Energy Act. The Government is quick to intrude and to introduce amendments in response to the wishes of rnining interests. We can only ask how many more amendments to this Bill we can expect. The Government shows no sign of amending the repressive, Cold War provisions of Part IV of the Atomic Energy Act. The inescapable conclusion is that the Government intends to use these repressive powers. It intends to intimidate people opposed to uranium mining. It intends to deny basic civil rights and hard won industrial rights to meet the interests of the corporate rnining sector. That is the reason for patching up the Atomic Energy Act to apply to mining at Ranger.

The honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) said that it has to be clearly understood that the mining of uranium is different from any other aspect of mining. The Labor Party opposes this Bill. We oppose it because it is a vehicle to mine uranium. We will continue to oppose uranium mining while the serious economic, social, biological, genetic, environmental and technical problems associated with the development of nuclear power remain unresolved. We oppose this Bill because the Atomic Energy Act, as the Fox report pointed out, is totally inappropriate for this purpose. This Bill denies free speech. It denies the right to strike. It makes an outlaw of any worker, union or Australian citizen who does not fully comply with the mining and export of uranium. We oppose this Bill because it strengthens the hand of the developer to resist environmental regulations. Clauses 4 and S of the Bill weaken the ability of the Government to introduce more restrictive controls if unacceptable environmental damage occurs.

The Ranger inquiry specifically recommended that environmental controls be regularly reviewed and strengthened if necessary. The Government has rejected that recommendation. It has sold out to the mining interests. We are opposed to this Bill because it is another desperate attempt to lock Australia into the international nuclear fuel cycle which is controlled by the largest transnational corporations in this universe. It is an attempt to sell Austraiian sovereignty and to take the basic decisions out of the hands of the Austraiian people and the Australian Government. Clauses 4 and S of the Bill are an attempt to prevent a future Labor Government from revoking the authority to mine at Ranger. I remind the House of recommendation 6 of the first Ranger report. Might

I say that at that time the Government committed itself to that recommendation. This is what recommendation 6 says:

A decision to mine and sell uranium should not be made unless the Commonwealth Government ensures that the Commonwealth can at any time, on the basis of considerations of the nature discussed in the Report, immediately terminate those activities, permanently, indefinitely or for a specified period.

The Labor Party endorses that recommendation. The Labor Party will act in accordance with that recommendation when elected to power in 1980 and will repudiate any uranium contracts entered into by the Fraser Government, unless all the unsolved problems have been solved. All of us in this House know that these problems are so serious that they cannot be solved. How can one solve the problem of the threat of the spread of nuclear weapons? To those people who want to make a fast buck, I again give the answer Recommendation 3 of the first Ranger report. What did it say? It said:

The nuclear power industry is unintentionally contributing to an increased risk of nuclear war. This is the most serious hazard associated with the industry.

This phoney Government really wants to make a fast buck, and it does not care about the spread of nuclear weapons or about the future of the human race. I remind the Deputy Prime Minister- the Minister responsible for this legislation- of his statement on 25 August 1977. He said:

The Government will therefore always be in a position to move immediately to terminate uranium development permanently, indefinitely, or for a specific period as recommended by the Ranger inquiry.

That was the Leader of the National Country Party, the Deputy Prime Minister. Does he now renege on or disagree with that statement of 25 August 1977? Let there be no doubt that the Labor Party’s policy is firm. It is a grass roots policy. That is its real strength. We will not and cannot be frustrated by legal trickery of the Fraser Government or the mining companies.

These amendments to the Atomic Energy Act do not prevent a Labor government from implementing Labor’s policy. Furthermore, it will not be legally possible for the Fraser Government to achieve this end. A Labor government when elected in 1980 will have a range of powers available, including the export powers and also the strength of the people- the electors who will elect us to government. We will use those powers to implement our policy. It is a popular policy amongst the people of Australia. We will seek popular support for implementing that policy. We have given warning not only to themining companies but also to the financial institutions throughout the world. Our policy is directed at the jugular vein of the financial institutions, and they know it. It is not only me stating that this is the situation; it has been stated by men such as the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) and other leading members of the Labor Party. It is our policy. We are united behind that policy and we stand firmly by it.

The Government’s panic changes to the Atomic Energy Act are a response to the concern of the potential uranium investors. It is not only Labor’s policy and the imminence of a Labor government which have worried them. They are worried a great deal by this situation. They know that their dream of a uranium bonanza is rapidly fading as people all over the world are questioning the unsolved problems and saying no to nuclear power. They know that the nuclear industry is being forced to account for the hidden and sometimes unknown costs of uranium enrichment, waste disposal and the decommissioning of nuclear reactors. They know that the nuclear industry will not pay those costs.

Let us look at the bonanza predictions which have been made for Australian uranium. A few years ago we were told in a blaze of publicityand I stress this- that Japan would invade Australia if we did not supply uranium. The Deputy Prime Minister said that unless we made our uranium available to Japan it would invade us to get it. What is the real situation? Japan has revised its nuclear capacity for1985 from 60 gigawatts to 49 gigawatts and then to 35 gigawatts. We know now that it will be down to something like 23 gigawatts by 1985. That is 8 per cent of Japan’s estimated energy requirements at that time. It almost had enough uranium already contracted to supply 60 gigawatts. Japan will not be needing significant amounts of new Australian uranium until the late 1980s, if at all. The trend in Japan is against nuclear power.

The West Germans delivered the same message when President Scheel was here several weeks ago. The leader of the trade union movement in West Germany told the leader of the trade union movement in Australia, Mr Bob Hawke, that the trade union movement in West Germany was reassessing its attitude to nuclear energy. We are also treated to great predictions of uranium sales to Iran. Of course, the main reason the Shah wanted it was for his nuclear weapons program, not for nuclear energy. Now the Iranian people are demanding a greater share of the country’s wealth. The last government was forced to cut back drastically on its nuclear energy plans.

Even the Australian Mining Industry Council is starting to admit that there will be no uranium bonanza in this country or elsewhere. In a recent report it said:

At this stage the probabilities are that:

  1. 1 ) Both capital and operating costs of the mines are likely to be at least double those projected by Fox-

That means the Fox report-

  1. the sharp decline in world demand, coupled with a large number of major uranium discoveries abroad, have resulted in a serious over-estimation of both the volume of export sales and the price.

The Government’s argument that the world desperately needs our uranium has been totally discredited by Herman Kahn, a natural, normal ally of this Government. Last week he told a parliamentary group of which I was a member that there is no world energy crisis; that the world has extensive natural gas reserves. That answers the question put forward by the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume).

The trend throughout the world is away from nuclear power. This was starkly demonstrated in Austria recently when the majority of people voted against future nuclear energy. We have to keep in mind that when they voted against it they had an investment in a nuclear power station of over $500m. Yet in a referendum the people of Austria rejected nuclear power because they did not know the unknown, the problem of how to store nuclear waste and other nuclear material in the world. The Labor Party’s policy recognises the problems that people throughout the world are raising. Labor in government in 1980 will close down any new uranium mine that may have been commenced, unless the unsolved problems have been solved. We reject this Bill and we reject the Government’s efforts to force its uranium policy on the Australian people.

I turn now to the gimmickry, the skulduggery, the sleight of hand and the oppression of this Government in negotiating the Ranger agreement. The Labor Party does not accept this new Ranger agreement. It is opposed to Labor policy, and we argue also that it is opposed to an Act of this Parliament. It does not accept that the Aboriginal interests have been met. We believe that the agreement was produced in violation of section 23(3) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. We believe that the agreement flies in the face of traditional Aboriginal laws. I remind the House of the words of Dr H. C. Coombs when he said:

Decisions in Aboriginal society in matters outside those clearly provided for by Aboriginal law and tradition are normally made by consensus following protracted discussions within and between families, clans and other groups concerned. In the absence of such consensus, authority to make commitments on behalf of the group or groups concerned is not, indeed cannot, be given. If any person or organisation purports to make such a commitment no individual member of the group will feel any moral obligation to abide by it or to act in conformity with it. If therefore the Government proceeds to act on the basis of an agreement made under duress, by the Northern Land Council or by an arbitrator, without it being subjected to the processes required to develop a consensus, the Government and its partners in the ventures are likely to encounter situations in which individual Aborigines or groups of Aborigines who feel their rights are being infringed will, in all good conscience, act in conflict with the terms of that agreement Such situations can be productive of grievance, hostility, and, potentially, violence and will damage further the already eroded confidence of Aborigines and their friends among white Australians in the Government’s expressed concern for Aboriginal welfare and undertakings to protect their interests.

But the Government in its rush to meet the greedy wishes of the mining companies was too impatient to wait for traditional Aboriginal consensus decision making. Let there be no doubt that the Government used trickery, bullying and outright dishonesty to get a few signatures at the bottom of the agreement. The Minister said that a full meeting of the Northern Land Council agreed to accept the Ranger agreement and sign the documents if traditional owners gave their consent. However, Mr Leo Finlay who was at the Bamyili meeting and who is a respected and senior member of the Northern Land Council, said that the Council decided to accept the agreement if there was consultation with the communities as had been previously determined. Mr Finlay made it quite clear that NLC members voted on the basis that consultation would proceed, that lawyers would go to the communities to explain what is in a complex agreement.

The Council was tricked, and I stress those words. The Minister also said that at the Oenpelli meeting the following day the traditional owners gave their consent before the agreement was signed. Mr Leo Finlay has said that the agreement was not discussed, that those traditional owners who were present were never asked if they agreed to sign the agreement. Neither the Minister nor the Government has replied to Mr Finlay’s statement. It should be clearly understood in this House that there has been trickery, connivance and pressure by this Government on the Aboriginal people.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

– I join with the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr

Baume) in congratulating the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) on his successful negotiations in arrangements with the Northern Land Council. I think this is a great achievement and will do much for the eventual marketing of uranium. Further, I would join with the member for Macarthur in condemning the members of the Opposition for their stirring of the Aborigines in the Northern Territory against the mining of uranium. The member for Reid (Mr Uren) nas criticised the fact that we are dealing with three individual items tonight in the cognate debate. However, I would remind the House that to my memory, the honourable member for Reid has spoken on uranium here in this House in respect of various facets of legislation at least eight or nine times. He is always opposed to the mining, milling and marketing of uranium. We are in the nuclear age, whether we like it or not. If this country does not take advantage of its huge deposits of uranium it will be of great detriment to the nation. The mining of uranium will be a tremendous benefit to the economy of Australia in the long run and I hope in the near future.

I will direct most of my remarks to the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill (No. 2) which is included in the cognate debate. The main purpose of the Bill is to enable the Act to be amended so that under section 41 a mining authority can be issued for rnining at Ranger which affords the persons on whom the authority has been conferred security of tenure- which is most important- similar to that enjoyed by the holders of a mining lease in force in the Northern Territory and most of the States, while at the same time assuring that it is subject to appropriate controls. The Ranger project has been on the drawing boards for a long time and at last provisions are being enacted for the mining of uranium ore to commence a development so important to the future economy of Australia. As mentioned by the Minister in his second reading speech, the Government announced its policy on 25 August 1977 to develop uranium ore deposits in the Ranger project area on the basis of the memorandum of understanding of October 1975, which provided for mining to be undertaken under the Atomic Energy Act by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, Peko Mines Ltd and the Electrolytic Zinc Co. of Australasia Ltd as joint venturers.

In June of this year the Atomic Energy Act was amended to authorise the participation of the Commission in the Ranger project for the purpose of ensuring the supply of uranium. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said on 25 August 1977 that it should not be thought that the Commonwealth’s participation in the memorandum of understanding would give Ranger an advantage over other mining companies. The Government believes that the holders of an authority under the Atomic Energy Act should not be disadvantaged in respect of such an important matter as security of tenure in comparison with prospective competitors. It is good to see at last an agreement under section 44 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Northern Land Council, which is being debated here tonight along with other measures. It is important that Australia should get on with the very important job of mining, milling and marketing of uranium ore. Twenty-five per cent of the world’s known uranium deposits are situated in this country, and I venture to say that there are many more uranium fields in Australia that have yet to be discovered. There have been too many holdups and too many red herrings drawn across the trail. The environmentalists, the Friends of the Earth, the Aborigines and the Austraiian Labor Party have conducted a vendetta against the mining of uranium in Australia.

There is a shortage of energy throughout the world and a demand for uranium. We are a fortunate country in that we have considerable reserves of fossil fuel to cater for our own power requirements. However, we have a problem with liquid fuels. At present we produce 70 per cent of the liquid fuels used in this country and 30 per cent is imported from overseas- from the Persian Gulf, Iraq, Iran, Qatar and from other fields. Petroleum supplies are being diminished at the rate of 10 per cent a year. By 1984 we will be forced to import huge quantities of liquid petroleum from these areas and we will be faced with a very serious balance of trade position. We estimate that by 1984 our balance of trade could be so seriously affected by the necessity to import these liquid fuels that we could be up for $4’A billion a year. Having regard to this situation, it is important that we are prepared to get stuck into producing uranium yellowcake.

There is no danger in rnining yellowcake. There has not been one loss of life in this operation in this country or indeed in any part of the world. Compare this with the coal mining industry where there are many accidents and many deaths. We can sell yellowcake to Canada, United States of America, Japan and Germany. We should be getting down to the job of doing this. Our Prime Minister has said that we can place safeguards on the export of our uranium to these countries so that it is used for power production purposes and not for nuclear warheads.

The honourable member for Reid mentioned nuclear warheads in other countries. Every nation of any standing has access to nuclear power and nuclear warheads and missiles. Of course the Austraiian Labor Party says that the mining of uranium is dangerous. This is not so. However, when yellowcake is activated in a reactor the residue and the tailings become dangerous and need careful handling. The situation is like that which applied when electricity was introduced. When gas lamps were replaced with electric lamps people in Australia said: ‘We will be electrocuted’. Of course you will be electrocuted if you stick your finger on a live wire! The position is the same with uranium; if the people are stupid enough not to handle it carefully, of course there can be problems. Safeguards have to be maintained and residue stored away in steel or glass containers.

Everywhere in the world where these tailings are stored, they are carefully monitored. To my knowledge there has not been one accident or leakage from these tailings in store. Indeed, today science is finding a way of creating a fertiliser and chemicals out of these tailings. I have no doubt that in the immediate future there will be no danger whatsoever. I have mentioned before that we are in the atomic age- whether we like it or not and if we do not mine, mill and market our uranium we will be left far behind. The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume) mentioned that the Japanese are experimenting scientifically to produce yellowcake from sea water. It is an expensive operation at present. I understand that it costs $80 or $90 to produce a kilogram. But with experimentation the cost could be reduced and the operation made economic. And here we are in Australia with what is at present a valuable commodity but we could be left high and dry. There is no reason -

Mr Bradfield:

– They are getting the cost down now.

Mr O’KEEFE:

– That is right. The Japanese will reduce the price. And here the Opposition is placing every obstacle in the way of us producing uranium. The Opposition is doing a disservice to Australia economically and in many other ways. The honourable member for Reid talked about the generation of power overseas. In Great Britain nuclear power provides 15 to 20 per cent of the power generated. I have been there. I have seen the operation. In the United States of America, 15 to 20 per cent of power in the various States is generated from nuclear power from uranium and there have been very few accidents. As a matter of fact, from my research I have not been able to find an instance of any accident in

America from nuclear power generation. The United States Navy has operated vessels on nuclear power for 21 years without any damage or accident at all. This surely should assure people who are putting obstacles in the way that under proper, careful administration, this fuel is the best, cleanest and most economic in the world.

MrHolding-Rubbish.

Mr O’KEEFE:

– It is not rubbish; it is fact. We in Australia should be doing all we can to mine. We have 25 per cent of the world’s known uranium fields, and indeed we could have more. Uranium mining will employ additional labour in this country and would open up mines in areas where there is little agriculture or industry. It will improve our countryside in the far areas- in the Northern Territory, in Western Australia and wherever this valuable mineral ore is located. I give full support to the three Bills being debated cognately tonight. I rcommend that the Australian Government immediately and with all its power and resources gets stuck into marketing of this valuable commodity.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– The introduction of this Bill, the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill (No. 2), marks a further retreat by this Government from a responsible uranium policy. It marks a further rejection by the Government of the findings of the Ranger Inquiry. Indeed, it is the most explicit step the Government has taken to defy one of the central recommendations made in the Inquiry’s first report. It was proposed, in recommendation 6 of that report, that:

A decision to mine and sell uranium should not be made unless the Commonwealth government ensures that the Commonwealth can at any time on the basis of considerations of the nature discussed in this report, immediately terminate those activities, permanently, indefinitely or for a specified period.

It ought to be noted specifically that the Inquiry was determined that mining operations should be subject to permanent, temporary or limited cessation if certain problems arose. And those problems included the possible misuse of plutonium and a failure to implement satisfactorily nuclear waste disposal techniques. Quite clearly, this Bill rejects that requirement recommended by the Inquiry. Breaches of nuclear safeguards arrangements, because they are quite separate from the authority to mine, cannot cause the interruption of mining. Similarly, the lack of high level reactor waste disposal methods, because they are not mentioned in the authority to mine, cannot cause the interruption of mining. But it is not just the Ranger Inquiry’s recommendations which this legislation seeks to defy. On August 25 last year, the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) in his contribution to the Government’s uranium announcement stated:

The Government will therefore always be in a position to move immediately to terminate uranium development, permanently, indefinitely or for a specified period as recommended by the Ranger Inquiry.

That promise, like so many of the Government’s promises, is now inoperative. We need to ask why the Government continues to back down over its uranium policy announcements. Why, in particular, has it been forced to introduce this piece of legislation? The fact is that even the inadequate and defective draft safeguards agreement being hawked from nation to nation by the Government has to date attracted only two signatories- after a year of effort. Those signatories- the Philippines and Finland- could hardly produce contracts sufficient to sustain one small uranium development. No new contracts for Australian uranium have yet been announced. So the pressure has been applied; the screws have been tightened.

The mining companies seek the permanency of tenure this Bill would give them in order to reassure potential customers and investors that they will be able to deliver both uranium and profits continuously into the future. No doubt they expect this legislation to provide that certainty. No doubt they believe they can now pass on that assurance, despite the cost- an abrogation of responsibility, and an addition by this Government to its growing record of perfidy.

The Minister for Trade and Resources, in his second reading speech, spoke of the need to provide for prospective uranium miners a ‘security of tenure similar to that enjoyed by the holders of a mining lease under laws in force in the Northern Territory and most of the States’. The Minister suggested that an authority to mine issued under section 4 1 of the Atomic Energy Act failed to afford this security of tenure. Such a claim is irrelevant.

It is fundamental to any consideration of the terms and conditions of uranium mining operations that, to quote the first Fox report, uranium is a very special metal’. No better illustration exists of the Government’s failure to grasp this fact than the Minister’s speech. If uranium were not regarded as unique, why is its mining the subject of a special piece of legislation? Why is there a need for safeguards against its misuse? Why are stringent environmental and health restrictions placed on its development? Why has its exploitation aroused such concern? The Government cannot, will not concede the simple truth about uranium. It must be treated differently

We have repeatedly witnessed the Government’s retreat from a position of responsibility over the exploitation of uranium. We still await, for example, the appointment of an independent uranium advisory council, first promised in August 1977, to provide advice to the Government on the overall problems and impacts of the uranium industry. Yet a draft bilateral nuclear safeguards agreement is already in international, though not national, circulation, and final versions have been adopted with two countries. As well, negotiations have been completed with the Northern Land Council and an agreement on the Ranger project signed as provided for under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. The failure of the Government to establish the advisory council has meant that these activities have had no independent oversight. It is little wonder that the Opposition does not trust the Government’s safeguards and land rights negotiations, and is dissatisfied with their results.

Second, the Government has backed down on its promise of IS months ago to establish a uranium marketing authority. Apparently the Australian Uranium Export Authority announced on 1 June has now become the Australian Uranium Export Office. Whether this Office operates with terms of reference and powers proposed by the Ranger inquiry is an open question. Like the other decisions made by this Government on uranium, the establishment of the Export Office is shrouded in secrecy. But what is clear is that in marketing policy, too, the Government has moved towards treating uranium as just another mineral.

On close examination of this legislation, it becomes clear that the present Government seeks to bind future governments to detailed authorities to mine uranium, issued under section 41 of the Atomic Energy Act, regardless of any changes which take place in the nuclear industry. If, for example, it becomes clear in the future that the environmental restrictions imposed on the Ranger operation by virtue of its authority to mine are too weak, then this legislation would prevent the Government of the day from updating the conditions attached to rnining, despite that newly acquired knowledge. In other words, if the Northern Territory environment is damaged to an unexpected extent or in an unforseen way by uranium mining at Ranger then the Commonwealth would be powerless to improve the relevant environment protection conditions laid down in association with the authority to mine. Whether improved technology or more detailed, more comprehensive knowledge became available would not matter. The companies could successfully resist improvements to these environmental protection conditions.

With this legislation, the Government seeks to retain the status quo which prevailed at the time the authority to mine was granted. This aspect of the Bill demonstrates a scandalous disregard for the local environment. All parties to the proposed Ranger and possible Pancontinental Mining Ltd mining operations, for example, acknowledge that comprehensive baseline environmental data has still not been collected. It is bad enough that the Government is prepared to permit- indeed encourage and participate inuranium mining under these circumstances. But it is irresponsible that regardless of the findings of scientific studies of the consequences of mining on the environment of the uranium province no stricter safety measures could be imposed under the Atomic Energy Act as amended by the Bill before the House.

One has only to recall the disaster that was Rum Jungle to recognise that environmental standards change. What was acceptable, or at least ignored, at that site during and after mining operations 20 years ago is now universally condemned. If this Government has its way and the Bill is passed by the Parliament, we- or at least our children or grandchildren- could witness repeat performances of the Rum Jungle episode. All that would be required would be the development of environmental problems unrecognised or ignored at the time of granting an authority to mine, or, alternatively, the development of a greater environmental awareness than existed at that time. Both occur frequently

The Bill also prevents the addition of new environmental safeguards to the authority to mine unless current conditions are not adhered to. Of course, the most troublesome environmental problem associated with uranium is the need to dispose safely and securely of the large quantities of radioactive waste generated by the use of uranium in nuclear reactors. The effect of this legislation is that environmental conditions placed on uranium which would take this problem into account, conditions which would place some of the responsibility for this problem and its pollution on the beneficiaries of mining, conditions which could be used to influence the use or choice of particular waste disposal technologies, could not be added by a future government without further amendment to the legislation.

The Opposition realises that the Government treats this as someone else’s problem. The Government’s attitude in proposing this Bill is consistent with its record of either making the false claim that the problem has been solved or of reverting to a position based on faith that it will be solved- soon enough and to the satisfaction of all responsible authorities so that Australian nuclear waste will never cause the slightest harm. It is the unacceptable intention of this legislation to foist this entirely unsatisfactory belief onto future governments.

The Opposition has already recorded its view that the Atomic Energy Act is entirely inappropriate as a means of regulating and controlling commercial uranium mining operations. This view is confirmed by the fact that the Government has found it necessary to introduce a second Bill to amend the Act within 8 months. Indeed in the words of the Minister, ‘While the Act was designed to allow mining, detailed provisions to cover rnining on a commercial basis were never included’. Obviously the Government has found that, as its discussions with mining companies proceed, it is under constant pressure to amend the legislation to provide the maximum possible support for their intended operations. That is not surprising. The uranium market does not look promising from the companies’ perspective. There is no urgency to develop Australia ‘s resources.

Uranium demand has not lived up to expectations. The most recent joint International Atomic Energy Agency-Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development working party Report entitled ‘Uranium Resources, Production and Demand’ revised downward its nuclear power growth forecasts by up to SO per cent for the year 2000. The number and capacity of reactors ordered in OECD countries has fallen dramatically over the past 5 years. The reasons include the failure of nuclear electricity to demonstrate the economic advantages claimed on its behalf, and future cost uncertainties. In February this year Georg Woite of the International Atomic Energy Agency described the situation as follows:

Soaring costs of nuclear power projects far beyond the originally estimated limit have led to great difficulties, to disappoinment, controversies, and even to the cancellation of projects. This has happened also among countries and companies with some experience in nuclear technology. It appears to be even more difficult for inexperienced countries and companies to control the costs of a nuclear project unless they buy a standard nuclear unit from an experienced supplier which means little participation of the local manufacturing and engineering capacity.

In the same month, the Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Sub-committee of the United States Congress published its findings on the costs of nuclear power. I shall quote three of them. The first is:

Neither the Federal Government nor the nuclear industry has prepared reliable cost estimates for the ultimate disposal and perpetual care of radioactive wastes and spent nuclear fuel.

The second is:

After 30 years of nuclear power development, technology to dismantle a large commercial reactor has not yet been demonstrated, and the costs of dismantling such a reactor are still unknown.

Finally it stated:

Capital construction costs of nuclear plants, as well as fuel costs have risen dramatically. Construction costs have risen 10 times faster than the consumer price index and more than twice that of coal fired plants.

These financial problems reflect the sorts of unsolved technical and institutional problems which are basic to the Labor Party’s opposition to the exploitation of uranium. While these problems remain, the Labor Party’s current attitude to uranium mining and export will prevail. Labor in Government will not be constrained by this Government’s permissive uranium policy. We give fair warning to the companies, their financiers and potential customers that Labor will treat uranium responsibly. We will implement our policy of preventing the exploitation of Australian uranium while its use poses unsolved threats to the environment, human health and welfare and to international security.

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

-The fact that this Atomic Energy Amendment Bill is being opposed by the Opposition has already been highlighted by Opposition spokesmen but there are a number of points that I desire to make because I think it is time they were raised in this debate. This Bill, apart from the technical factors involved, is essentially a dishonest Bill. It is dishonest for this reason: The Government, while stating its attitude towards uranium and uranium development, has consistently said to the people of Australia: ‘We support the recommendations of the Fox inquiry’. The statements made about Mr Justice Fox and the eminent position to which he has been appointed as a roving ambassador on these general problems on behalf of the Austraiian Government, would lend support to that proposition. But when we look at the recommendations of the Fox inquiry on the very point that is covered in this legislation, the duplicity and mendacity of the Government is obvious. If one looks at pages 248 and 249 of the second report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry one will see that there can be no stronger recommendations made to a government than that recommendation. I will quote from that report because it seems to me that it has been forgotten by spokesmen for the Government.

Right throughout this debate there has been the presumption that somehow or other the Government is inherently doing the right thing and that the onus is on members of the Opposition to justify their position. I put it to the House that when we are in a situation as a community and as a Parliament where considerable resources have been expended, we have set up an inquiry and that inquiry has made recommendations of a very positive kind. Where those recommendations are being specifically rejected, surely the onus of proof must rest upon the Minister and upon the government of the day. They are not bound to accept every recommendation but where a recommendation is so strong, so succinct and so logically consistent as the recommendations on this very point, it seems to me that there is a very clear onus on the government or the Minister in this debate to say: ‘We examined that recommendation and we have rejected it for a variety of reasons which are as follows’. There is no way that one can look at the second reading speech of the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) and say that such an exercise took place. There is no way that one can listen to the spokesmen for the Government and say: ‘At least in the course of the debate the issue was joined and we were told why those recommendations were rejected’. Can there be stronger, more succinct recommendations than those made by Mr Justice Fox on this very point? The report states at page 248:

We strongly recommend against the use of that Act -

That is the Atomic Energy Act- for the grant of an authority to Ranger to mine uranium. There are a number of different reasons for our recommendation.

The report then goes into those reasons. I do not want to take up all the time available to me but I will summarise them as quickly as I can. The report goes on to say:

Although the Commonwealth is a participant, the project is … as we understand, an ordinary commercial one.

It further states:

Section 13a was enacted in order to make more clear and certain the powers already existing under the 1946 Act . . .

This is what it says about section 41 of the Act, the very section that is now being amended:

It seems to us that s.41 is a special power which was enacted at a time when the need to secure Australian uranium for use by Great Britain and the United States of

America in nuclear weapons was uppermost in the minds of those concerned. If its use is to be continued in a situation where peaceful uses only are in mind and commercial profit is intended, the changed rationale should be recognised. The power, if it can be applied in the circumstances, should not be used simply because it exists and may appear convenient.

In our First Report we explained the very special nature of uranium, and described it as being a highly strategic material. It is therefore necessary for there to be close government controls.

The report continued: . . still less that the local environmental controls be determined or supervised under the Atomic Energy Act.

What can be clearer or more specific than the following:

The purpose of s.41 is to put aside the ordinary law of the land respecting mining. This law has a long and special history in this country, and is designed to secure a balance between the public interest and the interest of the individual, while ensuring public procedures and allowing public scrutiny.

It then goes on to crticise the general role of the Atomic Energy Commission. Has any government, when considering a piece of legislation, had before it a recommendation as strong as that? Has a second reading speech ever been produced to this House in which the Government as a matter of general principle to the people of Australia has said: ‘We support the recommendations of the Fox inquiry. You can trust us.”? We get a second reading speech which indicates, if one relies on the utterances of the Minister, that these recommendations need never have been made. What did the Minister say? If ever there has been an insult to the Parliament and the people of Australia it surely must be contained in these pitiable utterances. There was the recommendation. The onus of proof is not upon the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) or the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). Surely if an onus of proof has to be discharged it ought to be discharged by the Minister, who is tearing up that recommendation and throwing it in the face of the Austraiian people. What were the glib utterances of the Minister in the second reading speech so carefully prepared for him by his advisers? I will say for his advisers that they showed some skill and some capacity because what they did with the recommendations was simply to ignore them. This is how the matter was dealt with:

The Ranger joint venturers have pointed out that section 14 of the Atomic Energy Act, as it presently stands, does not provide them with adequate security of tenure.

That is true. Of course, as Fox pointed out, it was never designed to do that. The Minister continued:

While the Act was designed to allow mining, detailed provisions to cover mining on a commercial basis were never included.

That is a backhanded way of saying that that is the very point Fox made. The point Fox made was that the Act should not be used for commercial purposes, but what do the Minister and his advisers bring into the House? They bring in a second reading speech which says: ‘Of course, the Bill is not designed for that purpose so now we are going to fix it up so that it is’. Has there ever been such frenzied sleight of hand? Has there ever been such palpable political dishonesty? Has there ever been such double dealing with a commodity which threatens the very existence of mankind? With all the talk that comes from honourable gentlemen opposite, they still have not produced one substantial scientific paper which they can assert with any confidence to the people of Australia that the problems of nuclear proliferation have been solved. If they can produce it here, of course the Opposition will have to review its position.

Is there one single scientific document they can produce which says that the problems of nuclear proliferation have been solved? Of course not, and that is known by those who are involved in the science and technology of nuclear proliferation, in the problems that bedevil the Carter Administration as it endeavours desperately to fight off the demands of the nuclear power industry and contain the problems. The problems that have faced the Carter Administration over the last 18 months indicate that situation very clearly. Of course, the honourable member for Reid reminds me that that in itself was a very specific finding of the Fox inquiry, which pointed out:

The nuclear power industry is unintentionally contributing to the increased risk of nuclear war. This is a most serious hazard associated with the industry.

Has one single document been produced in this House by this Minister, by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), by the playboy, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock), who I am told kicks his heels very high in Melbourne discotheques these days, but no doubt the exercise will do him good? Has one single piece of evidence been produced by which the Prime Minister or any of his colleagues can say: ‘I am pleased to announce to the House that we have now got agreements which indicate that the problems of nuclear proliferation no longer exist*?

There is still the problem of nuclear waste disposal. It is still with us. It was fascinating to see how research done in Canberra by Professor Ringwood received such attention because he believed that he had found a new method of approaching the problem. At least Professor Ringwood was honest enough and candid enough to say that there were factors involved which had to be the subject of scientific tests. One point he made was that all the nonsense and all the specious arguments that have been produced in this House by the Government in terms of nuclear waste disposal are scientific nonsense. The problem has not been solved, and I refer to the quotations dealt with by the Leader of the Opposition on the most recent findings of a congressional committee in the United States of America. Those two problems are still with us. For those reasons one is entitled to say to the Minister. ‘Here is a situation where you have not solved the problem. Here are very specific recommendations from the Fox inquiry. If you want this House to support amendments to legislation which Fox says should not be used in any circumstances to support a commercial venture, then the onus of proof is not on us, it is on the Government. ‘ Where is the speech? Where is the evidence? Where are the facts which justify the Government’s action. The Minister told us in his speech: . . the Act does not address these issues.

That is perfectly true. He continued: . . amendments to deal with them have now become necessary. This does not indicate, however, that the Government has in mind using the Act for other mining projects.

That is a fascinating sentence. Let me repeat it, because it lies easily in the mind:

This does not indicate, however, that the Government has in mind using the Act for other mining projects.

What does that mean? This legislation is really being grafted on to an Act which was essentially related to the defence powers of Australia and extending its use to a commercial mining venture -

Mr Uren:

-In the Cold War era.

Mr HOLDING:

– In the Cold War era. Are we being told that this is now going to be a one-off operation? That is the implication. The implication is: ‘We will use it this time, but if there are further developments and further discoveries we may possibly use it next time’. What sort of policy is that? I should have thought that if this Government is hell bent on developing uranium, as clearly it is, it ought to be endeavouring to develop marketing processes and a legislative fabric which at least is consistent. The implication of the Minister’s second reading speech is that we are going to have these special arrangements in respect of Ranger but no one is entitled to assume that they will be used in respect of any other uranium development anywhere in Australia. In those four sentences I have quoted we have the Government’s answer to the very specific recommendations of the Fox inquiry, and I say to the House that it is no answer at all. It is no answer to the many Australian citizens who believe in principle that Australian uranium ought not to be mined until we have solved the problems of nuclear proliferation. It is no answer to those people, concerned as they are about the problems of waste disposal. It is no answer simply to cast it aside, without even acknowledging the strength of the argument of the Fox inquiry. It is no answer to those people to say: ‘We are going to mine it and we are going to do it our way. Just as we have stood over the Aboriginal people, we will stand over the Australian people.’

By this legislation the Government is creating more problems for itself in the long term than it is solving in the short term. It is creating more problems for itself as it locks itself into what it believes will be some sort of economic bonanza at a time when, if one looks at what is occurring in the uranium industry in Europe and in the United States of America, one sees that the uranium industry is bedevilled with economic problems. If the Government believes that it can simply override those problems by ignoring the very substantial arguments that exist in the Fox report and the very considered and substantial arguments that have been put by my colleagues here tonight, it is creating more problems for Australian society on this issue than it is solving.

This legislation is bad legislation. It is illconsidered legislation. It is legislation which is propounded upon an act of political hypocrisy of quite considerable dimensions. That hypocrisy involves the Prime Minister and the Government, on the one hand, saying that they accept the Fox recommendations in principle and, on the other hand, introducing legislation which, by its very nature, ignores the substance of those recommendations. Not one argument which deals with the substance of the Fox recommendations has been put to this House by the Minister or any of his colleagues. I now invite the Minister to put those arguments because, whatever the differences that exist between the Government and the Australian Labor Party on this issue- they are considerable- at least the differences between us and the differences that exist within Australian society might well start to be resolved if the Government could put its arguments in a forthright and honest manner and not within the framework of an exercise of major political duplicity which is enshrined in the Atomic Energy Act and the amendments to it which are contained in this Bill. For those reasons, I, like my colleagues, will vote against this legislation.

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Farrer · LP

– I do not wish to extend this debate. But, in the course of the address this evening by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), he made an assertion which is quite incorrect. He claimed that a future government would be unable to update environmental protection conditions to which Ranger would be subjected. This is quite incorrect and grossly misrepresents the facts. Condition 4 of the proposed authority attached to the documents tabled by my colleague, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs ( Mr Viner), specifically allows the imposition of further conditions that will render environmental protection more effective. The Opposition does its case no good by misrepresenting the facts in the way that the Leader of the Opposition did this evening.

Question put-

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Dr H. A. Jenkins)

AYES: 74

NOES: 29

Majority……. 45

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion (by Mr Fife) put:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Dr H. A. Jenkins)

AYES: 75

NOES: 29

Majority……. 46

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 3211

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA AND THE NORTHERN LAND COUNCIL

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from 7 November, on the following paper presented by Mr Viner:

Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Northern Land Council- Ministerial Statement, 7 November - and on motion by Mr Groom:

That the House take note of the papers.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-The Opposition opposes this ministerial statement and the other ministerial statement, both of which formed part of the cognate debate, but we will not divide the House on them because in each case the motion is: ‘That the House take note of the papers’.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3211

KAKADU NATIONAL PARK: LEASES AND AGREEMENT

Ministerial Statement

Consideration resumed from 7 November, on the following paper presented by Mr Groom:

Kakadu National Park- Leases and AgreementMinisterial Statement, 7 Novembr1978 - and on the motion by Mr Viner:

That the House take note of the papers.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3212

NEW BUSINESS AFTER 11 P.M.: ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE

Mr SINCLAIR:
Leader of the House · New England · NCP/NP

– I seek leave of the House to move a motion to suspend Standing Order 48A, Adjournment of the House, and Standing Order 103, 1 1 o’clock rule, for this sitting.

Leave not granted.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr SINCLAIR:
Leader of the House · New England · NCP/NP

– I move:

That Standing Order 48a, Adjournment of the House, and Standing Order 103, 1 1 o’clock rule, be suspended for this sitting.

Let me explain to the House that the reason for this amendment is that we obviously have a number of Bills which are not at the stage where we expected that they would be at 9.40 on this Wednesday night. Therefore, in order to ensure that the legislative program can be finished and the House adjourned, on the program that we have suggested, by Friday night, it is necessary that we suspend these Standing Orders for the balance of this sitting. That means that the House will probably be sitting later than expected tonight, tomorrow night and, if need be, on Friday night. However, by doing that I believe we can best meet the desires announced by the members of the Labor Party outside the chamber and the desires that all honourable members admit to themselves. I believe that the House basically supports the idea that we try to conclude the program this week. The reason for the suspension of the Standing Orders is that that objective can be achieved. I commend this motion to the House.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The Opposition does not mind the Government allowing adequate time for debating all matters which are listed on the program, but in this case it listed the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978 which caused a fair bit of debate here this evening and which would do so at any other time it was brought on. Surely the Government should have been able to introduce that measure well before this time. A number of important matters which are on the program should have been afforded adequate time for debate, but now obviously they will not get that time. We make the objection that I have already made, namely, that it would have been easy for the Government to bring on for debate the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978 at an earlier time in the session than now.

In fact, bringing it on at this time is a tardy, slovenly arrangement. Nevertheless, a number of other important pieces of legislation are yet to be dealt with. The Opposition makes the point that it wants all of its members to be given an opportunity to take part in the debates on all those measures. We do not wish to delay the House by dividing it, but we formally object now to the proposal.

Question resolved in the affirmative with the concurrence of an absolute majority.

page 3212

EXCISE TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 15 November, on motion by Mr Fife:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Farrer · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation. Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 4) as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, , be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest, therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of both Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering both measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-The purpose of the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill ( No. 2 ) 1978 is to enact the excise tariff alterations introduced into the House at an earlier time by Excise Tariff Proposals Nos 2 and 3 following the Budget Speech. These proposals altered excise duties on beer, spirits, manufactured tobacco products and crude oil. The Opposition has already indicated that it intends to oppose this legislation. The alternative budget brought down by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) promised that we would, if we had the opportunity, turn around these particular measures. The purpose of the second Bill, the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill, is to enact formally the tariff changes made since May 1978 in Customs Tariffproposals Nos 13 to 29. The Opposition will not oppose the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill although there is one part of the

Bill on which we have serious disagreement with the Government.

I will deal with the second Bill first. As I stated in May this year when speaking on the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1978, 1 am of the strong opinion that it is time to alter the procedures by which Parliament considers tariff changes. As the procedures stand at the moment, there is little opportunity to scrutinise each individual tariff proposal since custom has it that the debate is usually adjourned and never resumed. When Customs Tariff Amendment Bills are periodically introduced to incorporate individual tariffproposals it is virtually impossible to debate the various tariff changes for a number of reasons. Firstly, the debate sometimes takes place more than six months after the actual changes have been implemented. Secondly, the Bills include a number of widely different proposals. For example, this Bill covers, among other things, such commodities as ball bearings, brooms and brushes, carpets, domestic refrigerating appliances, orange juice and light commercial and four wheel drive vehicles. The third reason for taking this attitude on the Bill is that some of the proposals increase tariff levels. For example, this Bill includes increases in the tariff on ball bearings, insulators, light commercial and four wheel drive vehicles, carpets and carbon coated film, whereas others involve tariff decreases, for example, power operated drilling machines, vices and certain products in the printing industry.

There is a fourth reason why it is impossible to debate this Bill properly at this late stage. Some proposals involve the Government’s acceptance of recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission or the Temporary Assistance Authority- for example, those proposals covering orange juice, hosiery, undergarments, carpets and so on- whereas others involve the complete or partial rejection of such advice. A number of heterogeneous measures are included in the one Bill which means that it is almost impossible to debate them in the way in which we should debate such measures in the Parliament. There is yet another reason. Some customs duty increases on drink, such as beer, brandy, rum and whisky and also tobacco products of various kinds arising from the Budget are included in this measure. If we could be certain of upsetting those customs duties we would do so but, as I have explained, it is almost impossible to drag out meaningfully one part of the Bill. If we could be certain of upsetting the increases in the charges in the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) it would, of course, be logical for us to drag out those parts of this Bill relating to customs duties on the same imported products and oppose them.

These sorts of procedures regarding tariff changes may have been satisfactory during the 1950s and 1960s when tariff adjustments were part of a broadly accepted strategy based on protecting Austraiian industry from import competition and fostering import replacement. However, this is no longer the norm for industry policy and tariff adjustments are no longer accepted on face value. Parliament deserves the right and should be expected to give greater scrutiny to tariff changes. The Government should recognise its responsibility to Parliament on this matter. I said much the same as this six months ago in a similar debate. To his credit, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) has recognised the need for change. He wrote to me on the subject. I thank him publicly for noting what I had to say on the last occasion. He wrote to me in the following terms:

Following your comments the matter was again raised with Parliamentary Counsel, this time in respect of the systems used in other Parliaments which adopt the Westminster system. Parliamentary Counsel was unable to assist in this direction; therefore I have asked my department to obtain from the Australian Customs Representatives in London, New York and Auckland details of procedures used to effect tariff changes by the relevant administrations in the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand.

On receipt of the information the matter will be further examined, in consultation with Parliamentary Counsel, and I will keep you informed of the developments.

I remind the Minister of that promise in the hope that we may be able to do something about it and debate these measures more satisfactorily in the future. Basically, I believe that after his statement on each tariff proposal we need, say, 48 hours to study the proposal. The Opposition spokesman should then be allowed to open a short debate of, say, one hour on that proposal. As it is so unsatisfactory to debate such important matters in the way we debate them at present, I hope that those in charge of the business of the House will find the time to allow us one hour in which to debate each proposal separately. I hope that the Minister will have another look at the problem and take my proposal to the Government so that we can do better next time.

As I noted earner, the Opposition opposes all aspects of the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2). Clauses 2 and 3 in the Schedule alter upwards the excise duties on beer, spirits and tobacco products. Clause 4 increases excise duties on stabilised crude petroleum oil. In conjunction with the Excise Aa, this clause will have the effect of achieving import price parity in accordance with the Government’s decision announced in the Budget Speech. A more detailed consideration of clause 4 and the whole question of import price parity has been given by my colleague, the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating), on previous occasions. Basically, we believe that now is not the time to impose these increased charges on the Australian public. I will concentrate on our objections to that part of the Bill which increases excise duties on beer, spirits and tobacco products. These measures were part of the 1978-79 Budget-a Budget designed to penalise the poor, a Budget totally inappropriate in concept for the circumstances that this nation faces today. For a typical worker earning about $200 a week, this measure was one of a series of measures which took away about $ 12 a week. In particular, the increase in excise duties enabled by clause 3 of this Bill means an average increase of around $2 for cigarettes and drinks.

In Labor’s alternative Budget as I mentioned earlier, the Leader of the Opposition made it clear that the excise increases on beer, spirits and cigarettes would be removed. In another part we also made it clear that we would be turning round the other part of the proposals- that relating to crude oil. In fact, Labor would do away with most of the increases announced in this Budget and would aim for a controlled expansion in Government expenditure in order to reduce the grave unemployment that is afflicting this country at the present time. So, this measure was designed to have a contractionary effect on the economy in general via an erosion of the aggregate level of consumer spending. This by itself is reason enough for the Opposition to reject this element of the Bill.

However, I wish to finish by raising some of the particular problems which the increase in excise duties has imposed on the Austraiian brandy industry. Figures produced by the South Australian Department of Agriculture have shown that sales of Austraiian brandy can be expected to fall by at least 40 per cent as a result of the rise in price to the consumer because of the 85 per cent increase in the excise level. In addition, it is expected that 15,000 more tonnes of surplus grapes will be left to rot on the vines. Not only will the grape growers lose significant amounts of income, as will the Commissioner of Taxation, but there will be negative multiplier effects upon the processing and bottling sections of the industry, providing less employment and less tax revenue. Let me emphasise, however, the strong possibility of the measure being counterproductive. Less revenue will be raised because of the lower demand for brandy in our community because of the increased price. That is the indication from all the sources that I have been able to tap to date. I believe that the Government is extraordinarily foolish in continuing with this measure. The Government has failed to act on the pleas of the brandy manufacturing industry in Australia.

The statement made by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs in his second reading speech on this Bill that the Government is ‘concerned with the position of Australian brandy producers’ is merely crocodile tears. His only responses to the industry and its pleas were that he envisaged offsetting benefits to the grape growers associated with a consequent swing to the consumption of wine, and that the time to consider further the position of the brandy industry would be in the context of an upcoming or expected report by the Industries Assistance Commission on potable spirits. It is likely that delaying action on the brandy industry until after some future IAC report will only see the Government trying to make two wrongs into a right. Instead of keeping excise duties on brandy lower and enabling the phasing down of assistance to the industry as the industry becomes more internationally competitive, we will probably see the Government increasing assistance levels in an attempt to undo what it has done that is so wrong in this Budget.

More importantly, however, the Government’s view that any consequent increases in wine sales will offset any detrimental effect on grape growers needs to be questioned very seriously. If these excise duties were the only tax changes made in the Budget, then such an offsetting change in consumption patterns might occur. However, the Budget includes increases in personal income tax and increases in the prices of cigarettes and petrol, all of which will mop up any consumer demand that might have been available to spend on wine. So much for the Minister’s comment in the second reading speech that ‘the Budget . . . provided no new impost on Australian wine’. If wine sales increase enormously, then we can bet our bottom dollar that the next Fraser Government impost will be on wine itself. That is the record of the Government so far.

Even if, in spite of all possibilities, wine sales were to increase, this would not help the majority of producers with the present surplus of wine grapes. This surplus is concentrated in particular types- for instance, doradillos- where there is no demand elsewhere, other than mainly in this brandy area. No variety- that I know of- that is used for brandy is particularly suitable for making quality table wine. Perhaps the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Giles), if he speaks in this debate, could confirm or deny that this is so.

Mr Wilson:

– The surplus wine grapes are used in brandy.

Mr HURFORD:

– If he believes that the surplus grapes that might otherwise be used in brandy can be used elsewhere, as it seems the honourable member for Sturt believes, then let the honourable member for Wakefield tell the House that that is so and I will be very glad to convey his message to the people in his district, as I will be conveying the message of the honourable member for Sturt in this area to the district represented by the honourable member for Wakefield.

For the sake of the Austraiian economy as a whole, as well as for the brandy producers of Australia, these new excise duties should be repealed. We in the Opposition are unable to accept the Government’s reasoning, if that is the right word, for the particular increases in this Bill. We shall oppose the motion for the second reading. Because of the lateness of the hour and the business before the House, we will be opposing the motion for the second reading on the voices. However, we shall then take the Bill to the Committee stage and we shall test whether there is any credibility among Government members, particularly in relation to the brandy industry, by singling out the various parts of the Schedule- the parts for beer, the parts for brandy, the parts for other spirits and the parts for tobacco. We shall vote on them separately. If there is any indication from any honourable member- for instance, from Queensland- that he wants to oppose that part of the Schedule relating to rum, we will see that it goes to a division to enable those Government members to show their credibility and honesty of purpose to that effect. I shall certainly be taking the ‘brandy’ part of the Schedule to a vote at the Committee stage. I will be interested to see how many South Austraiian members- as South Australia is the State so severely affected by this measure, as it relates to brandy- will cross the floor and vote with us on that part of the measure.

I once again remind the House that the Opposition opposes all of the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2). We certainly oppose that part of the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 4) which relates to customs duty increases on the very things that are being increased in price through the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2 ); but we will not be singling out that part of the

Bill for opposition. We will not oppose that particular Bill.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– One of the most incredible things to witness in this Parliament is the way that honourable members who were previously seated on this side can so quickly forget events of the past when they take their seats on the other side. It was only on 6 November that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), when in Broadbeach, Queensland, at the Building Workers Industrial Union conference, said:

A Labor government would not have raised the cost of beer, cigarettes, clothing, footwear and petrol in the recent Budget.

It was only tonight that the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) repeated those sentiments. Yet in 1975, the last year of the Labor Administration, it gave the price of beer a boot along once again, by adding more excise. The Labor Government again kicked up the excise on tobacco. It was also during its administration that it gave the hike to the price of petroleum products. Well may the member for Adelaide drink water in the comfort of the fact that he has regained his seat and does not have to face the comments from this side of the House once again. Well may he gain comfort in conversation with the Clerks of this Parliament to seek guidance as to what steps he may take in the next moment, but there is no escaping the fact that the Labor Party, when in government, not only turned on the taps of the rum kegs but booted everything along and even made the price of a postage stamp jump like a kangaroo. Little wonder that he holds his right hand to his brow, suppressing the beat -

Mr Chapman:

– It is his left hand now.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I am reminded he has swapped hands. Whilst supporting the Government on these necessary moves, I make certain comments which should be borne in mind for the future. I am pleased to see that the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) is at the table, because I do not believe him to be an insensitive Minister or that some of the measures which have been undertaken are completely at the behest of his Department; rather are they instructional changes at the hands of Treasury. It is to Treasury which I direct the following comments. When Treasury decides that it is time for a hike in excise on beer, spirits, et cetera, it indicates little appreciation or understanding of the effect that such a movement has on the market. I do not refer simply to the downturn in consumption but rather to the effect on the small businessman and, in some cases, the not so small businessman whose business is involved in the marketing of these products.

Whilst the Government’s increase in excise on spirits is a nominal figure, the effect on that actual bottle on the shelf on the day prior to the introduction of the Budget compared to the day after the introduction of the Budget is vast. For instance, I cite the example of rum which prior to the Budget marketed at a figure of approximately $6.95 and now sells at a price in excess of $11. Yet successive Treasurers are advised not to relent in any way on the demand that those who wholesale spirits must pass over the collection of excise within seven days. Far removed is Canberra from the real markets of Australia because the facts of life are that in the real business world people pay their accounts within a period of 30 to 60 days. Not only do we increase the excise but indirectly and unannounced in the Budget is the demand that those who supply the product to the retailers must pay the extra amount of money still within seven days. It means that we have businesses scurrying off to banks and lending institutions for the purpose of acquiring extra credit That is but one way whereby a Budget or an announcement which increases the excise has an effect on the consuming public and the wholesaler. I do make a plea to the Minister at the table, whilst I readily concede that a government, the tax collector or the customs collector never loses, that for a change they adorn themselves with the cloak of humanity and understanding and realise that for the small business man and for the not so small business man life is not so assured as the business world is a struggle.

Frequently, measures introduced by government have ramifications far beyond the understanding and comprehension of people living here in the gold lined coffin which represents the nation’s capital. Life is not so easy away from the Austraiian Capital Territory. I know small business men who at this very moment are in great difficulty simply as a result of trying to meet the demands of government that they make their payments within seven days. I make a strong plea to the Minister at the table that he really take this into consideration and realise that with the high cost of servicing borrowed money this can make the difference between a business that is viable and a business that goes to the wall. It is ironic that the South Australian who spoke before me made but passing comment on the future of the rum industry in Queensland. It would seem almost as if someone in his party room stood up and said: ‘Chris, do not forget to mention rum when you make your speech ‘.

I make mention of the Beenleigh Rum Distillery in my electorate because for far too long now Australians have adored a product with the marketable and acceptable name of Bacardi, a magic word, which has meant that millions upon millions of dollars have poured out of this country to Brazil. Yet in Queensland we have the facilities, quality control and development to produce a product which would more than satisfy the needs of the rum consuming community of this country. Governments of all political colours have continued to forget the existence of a most acceptable local product, whether it be Beenleigh or Bundaberg rum, as both producers have the capacity and the product to fulfil the needs of Australians. Whilst my friends, the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Giles) and the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Chapman) become upset- is that the right word?

Mr Chapman:

– Concerned.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– … disturbed at what is happening to brandy, I simply mention in passing that a more sympathetic attitude to the promotion of Australian rum would ensure the cessation of the outflow of millions of Austraiian dollars on imported rum.

In conclusion, I make reference to the excise increase on petroleum products. I truly understand and accept that, if Australia is to continue to have the advantage of prices for petroleum products lower than the average throughout the world, we must expand our search for oil. I accept that without any qualification whatsoever.

Mr Giles:

– Castor oil.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Well may the honourable member for Wakefield need a dose. Whilst I say that, I express the view that the Government has a definite obligation continually to explain to the Australian public what we are all about and why the price of petroleum products must be increased- basically to increase the search. In referring to this aspect, I wish to make reference to the amount of money allocated in the August Budget to the national energy conservation publicity campaign and the $5.7m to encourage coal research, and other expenditure. All this money is being spent in the name of energy. Yet, for the life of me, I do not understand why we continue to impose sales tax on solar appliances. Items such as pool heating are taxed at 1 5 per cent and appliances for industrial uses are taxed at 15 per cent. Household heating appliances are taxed at 2Vi per cent and replacement components are taxed at 15 per cent.

I see the Deputy Government Whip within feet of me. Knowing the power he possesses, I will not push my luck too far. I simply say that I find it totally inconsistent that we still apply sales tax to solar appliances, yet we continue to raise money from other taxes in the name of searching for alternatives and to curb the use of fuels. I know that the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs who is at the table is listening closely to what I am saying. I hope that the next time he is at a Cabinet meeting he will awaken that group of wise men to the inconsistencies which exist.

Mr GILES:
Wakefield

– I intend to speak entirely on Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) in this debate. It is a composite Bill affecting all spirits produced in Australia plus beer and crude oil. As well as brandy and rum, its provisions cover Australian produced gin, whisky and vodka. Rum, with deference to the previous speaker, the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Donald Cameron), is a by-product of the sugar industry. Other spirits, as well as beer, are not the prime outlet for the grain growing industry. In fact only 1 5 per cent of the barley crop of Australia is used in the food products category including that used for beer, whisky, gin, vodka and what have you. In fact, that 15 per cent represents less than the annual fluctuations due to season conditions.

My sole interest in this Bill is in relation to the brandy industry. It is well known to the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford), the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) and others that the conditions that I described for all those other spirits, including beer, do not apply to horticultural planting of trees or vines. The brandy industry cannot turn a tap on and off according to fashion and cannot cope with fluctuating demand situations. Many growers are locked into their production with a small margin available because they are small producers and were able to take action because of rural reconstruction or their personal decisions to adjust their supplies to meet altering demand.

Only the other day I gave evidence to the Industries Assistance Commission for the second time on grape growing. I was pleased to note a changing attitude by the IAC to this problem in the terms that I have just mentioned. In February, three months later than was anticipated, the IAC report on potable spirits will be presented. I believe that currently it has not been written. I hope that the changed views of the IAC that I noted during the inquiry into grape growing will be reflected in the potable spirits report that reaches the Government in February.

Whether this anticipation is right or wrong, in February the Government will have a chance outside the framework of the Budget to make up its mind whether it agrees with the IAC report on potable spirits and whether in its wisdom it will make some change in its policy. There is good news and bad news for the industry in that situation. The bad news is that February-March is a trifle late for the ordering of supplies in the general budgeting position of the brandy processing industry. The report might placate the growers who do not understand the difficulties of the processing sector.

I acknowledge that the Government, with the best will in the world, has not altered any taxation measures relating to the wine sector of the brandy grape industry. A little later I will compare that position with the action of the Australian Labor Party when in government. I shall state my reasons for taking the stand that I intend to adopt. Firstly, brandy manufacturers are a necessary, integral part of the grape growing industry. One cannot differentiate that sector from the other sectors such as the dried fruit sector. The lack of sales of brandy will increase, not decrease, the current imbalance in supply and demand. Secondly, brandy stocks painfully had been brought back to 3.8 years prior to the advent of this Budget. Since this Budget has been introduced, on the newly assessed consumption rates, overnight brandy stocks now represent 6.7 years. Therefore, thirdly, there is currently a critical cyclical imbalance of demand and supply. In other more simple words, there is a growing surplus of grapes.

Fourthly, brandy spirit is an economically storable product if there is a surplus. Wine certainly is not. Fifthly, I believe that in such times of surplus every avenue, including the establishment of a differential in favour of brandy against its competitors, should be used to correct the substantial loss now apparent in growers’ incomes. Sixthly, the brandy industry is an Austraiian industry that could contribute $29m a year to government revenue and $ lm a year to the Australian Wine Board for research and nearly that amount in sales tax. It seems quite infantile to take action that may, as the honourable member for Adelaide said, be counterproductive to revenue in years to come. Seventhly, I should like to refer to my general unhappiness with both sides of this Parliament in refusing to recognise the importance of brandy as an integral part of the grape growing industry and its effects on regional employment. Eighthly, I am taking this stand because of the particular damage done to cooperatives which, due to their structure of grower members, hold a large surplus of red wine and brandy in stock.

I will not have time to analyse all these points, but I wish to attempt to analyse one or two of them. Let us start with brandy as part of the grape growing industry. Prime Minister Whitlam in opening the Kaiser Stuhl extensions in 1973,I think, advised growers that their futures lay primarily in the production of red table wine grapes and that growers should adjust They have; so now there is a pool of red wines. Growers also adjusted by pulling varieties such as gordas, which have a minor implication in the production of brandy in some seasons, as they have doradillas which are the major brandy producing grapes. Every variety of grape, however, is not as some seem to think an alternative from one sector of the industry to another. Only sultana, grenache, and gordas can be dried as the alternative variety of grapes. The processing industry responded to this position by adjusting its stock of brandy down to 3.7 years to cope with the lower rate of consumption. I now seek to incorporate in Hansard table A which I have shown to the honourable member for Adelaide.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr GILES:

-I thank the House. This table shows, amongst other things, quite plainly the outrageous excise increases imposed by the Whitlam Government on the brandy industry. Let us bear in mind that the relative excise rate across the board has not been altered by this Government However, because of the upward movement, there is a decrease in the differential working in favour of brandy as against its main competitor, Scotch whisky. In 1973, the differential that Australian brandy enjoyed over imported whisky was 60.1 per cent. In 1974 it was 24.3 per cent, in 1975 there were two steps- 17.1 per cent and then 11.8 per cent. In 1976 after the sacking of the Whitlam Government it was 5.4 per cent and the differential remained at 5.4 per cent until the last Budget. Due to the upward movements, in harmony with all spirits, the decreasing proportion of the differential is now 2.9 per cent. I believe that these figures explain why the Labor Party tonight felt it was not on strong ground in criticising this Government in terms of widening the differential between Australian brandy and Scotch whisky. Its performance in terms of the brandy industry itself has been abysmal and, of course, it should not attempt to take political advantage, due to the weakness of its own position, on this matter.

Mr Porter:

-State and Federal.

Mr GILES:

– Yes, State and Federal. That is a good point. I do not have a great deal of time, but it is important in South Australia where the majority of the brandy industry exists- ninety per cent of the brandy industry is in my electorate- to remember that the licences for huge amounts of water, granted by the Dunstan Government in that State to firms such as Penfolds at Morgan, Seppelts at Qualco, Yalumba at Oxford Landing, Angoves at Overland Corner and others, have meant an increase in the amount of grapes that can be grown that is more than the surplus of grapes in that area today. I think it is also valid to point out, because the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) has reminded me, that by introducing, with the best motives in the world, price control on grapes the Dunstan Government has succeeded in centralising the entire wine surplus for Australia in Riverland, McLaren Vale and one or two other areas. Obviously, this has an impact on what must happen next year to the incomes of growers.

The 1978 Budget again altered the consumption rates down at a very inopportune moment because of the relatively low demand for grapes generally. The brandy industry now, as I have said before, has a stock holding of 6.3 years. Without any alteration few brandy grapes will be purchased for at least two years. That seems to be a reasonable assumption. This is an absurd situation in which to place a section of that Australian industry. It is equally absurd to leave grape growers in the position where some of our brandy grapes certainly will be unsalable at a time when many of their red grapes, and last season some of their white grapes, were already unsalable and were left on the vines. The lesson surely to governments of all colours is that this industry is complex. It is not as simple or as simplistic as governments seem to think. It has several parts to it. Many of them are interchangeable when there is a need to adjust. It is a vertically integrated industry wherein the growers, having no economic alternative source of production, are locked into the total health of the processing and the marketing sectors. Adjustments have been made and are necessary. The capacity of the brandy industry to help use surplus grapes at times of imbalance must not be ignored. It is important within the industry to be able to self-adjust by way of the sort of government encouragement I will suggest.

Historical support for my views is contained in the Coombs report to the previous Government dated June 1973. 1 seek leave to have excerpts of that report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

page 3219

REVIEW OF THE CONTINUING EXPENDITURE POLICIES OF THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT

June 1973

Excise Duty-Differential between Brandy and Other Spirits.

Date of Introduction

The preferential rates of excise and customs duties for brandy were introduced in 19S4. Excise and customs duties on all potable spirits have been increased twice since 1954. On each occasion the differential in favour of brandy was retained at the original absolute amount.

Purpose of the Concession.

The excise differential in favour of brandy was introduced as an emergency measure to assist the grape-growing industry to dispose of a glut of surplus grapes which had emerged at the time. The reduction in the retail price of brandy thereby effected was seen as boosting demand for brandy and thereby providing an incentive for distillers to process surplus grapes. The rate of customs duty was reduced at the same time, as it is tied to the excise rate.

Operation of the Concession.

The scheme’s immediate objective of absorbing surplus grapes was met

Mr GILES:

-I thank the House. The Australian brandy industry is part of the grapewinebrandy industry which last financial year contributed, as I mentioned before, in three ways in excess of $30m to revenue. I recognise the need for revenue, but I have serious doubts that an increase in excise duty of 83.6 per cent for Australian brandy will in fact increase revenue as much as expected. In fact, early indications support that view because of the reduced volume of sales. Therefore, there seems to me to be a case for less drastic increase which could maximise revenue yields. For example, an increase of only 46.9 per cent in excise, contrary to 83 per cent, might well gather more revenue and, at the same time, almost re-establish the differential compared with imported whisky which existed before the Whitlam Government onslaught on the brandy industry. I seek to incorporate in Hansard a table which explains this statistically.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr GILES:

-I thank the House. This chart puts, amongst other things, three proposals. The middle proposal, which I have called proposal B, produces amendments to the Schedule bringing down the excise duty of brandy to $ 1 5 per litre of alcohol. That, as I mentioned a moment ago, would show a percentage increase from the pre- Budget excise duty of 46.9 per cent. This, by the way, would still be higher than that excise increase produced on beer which is in the region of 32 per cent. That sort of excise is, I believe, the proper level that the industry requires to remain viable.

I have already stated publicly that I would oppose this authorising legislation. I am sorry because it is primarily a Budget Bill, but I will continue to oppose it and try to impress on the Government that it is not a proper method of looking at relative excise rates to look at bottles on the shelf. There is a considerably more important matter of vertical integration which should be looked at and the Austraiian industry should be examined in relation to that. I ask the House to take into account that my only concern with the Excise Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978 is to do with the brandy industry and the need for the Government to act in February- after the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on potable spirits is before it- and to reintroduce an excise differential in favour of brandy over its competitors.

The views I put to the Industries Assistance Commission recently are very simply stated. They are: Firstly, to establish a register of grape growers so that some check can be taken of the vast increase in plantings that contribute to the imbalance of the supply over demand; and secondly, to seek an excise differential initially of about 30 per cent in favour of brandy compared with imported whisky which would cut out when the demand for grapes is high. I refer to my second incorporation in Hansard which entirely backs up this point of view by quoting from Dr Coombs in his report to the Whitlam Government Thirdly, I have been seeking to review quotas and the 12.5 per cent surcharge on quotas on imported brandy. This matter has helped the industry in a comparatively small fashion and I believe that any consequential increases in the differential duty, as I suggested, would entirely outweigh the value of that form of protection. I believe we would get the Government somewhat off the hook that it is currently on because of adverse reaction to this action by the French Government. I have also advised in the paper that I would seek to produce constraints on overproduction on both grapes and brandy as a processing side of the industry.

Summing up, I am seeking an adjustable excise differential for brandy while cyclical grape surplus exists, with proper constraints against over-production in both the growing and processing sectors of the industry. I believe this is a responsible suggestion. I believe this action would be a cheaper and more effective way of dealing with the current imbalance than any other single way one can think of, including massive rural reconstruction. It would properly encourage both the industry and the State governments to exercise their proper responsibilities. It may not decrease and it may well increase and it may well increase revenue and it would aim to correct the savage blow that the Budget has, inadvertently I believe, dealt to brandy processors, with all their investment, and to small growers whose income is needlessly in jeopardy. I hope that both the IAC and the Government will see the wisdom of the course of action I suggest.

Mr FISHER:
Mallee

– I wish to refer particularly to clause 3 of the Export Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2), which refers to alterations that will substantially increase the excise on brandy by 83.6 per cent. I regret that I am unable to support my Government in relation to this part of the Bill which refers to the tariff alterations that will affect the brandy industry. I have no doubt that these changes will throw this vital Australian industry into a critical position and will further aggravate a worsening grape surplus which will be catastrophic in some areas of the Riverland and the Murray Valley and will create quite substantial income reductions for grape growers in many areas in the Sunraysia and grape growing regions of Australia. This alteration has also reversed a government stance of the past when the Government did not place imposts on industries that had a case then before the Industries Assistance Commission. It is intolerable that this Budget decision was taken in the knowledge that an inquiry was proceeding into potable spirits and that it would not be finalised until mid- 1 979, well after the current year ‘s crop.

It has been estimated by the Austraiian Wine Board that there will be a massive grape surplus this year of some 60,000 to 70,000 tonnes, representing an increase of almost 20,000 tonnes over last year. It is therefore highly likely that this rise in excise will cut consumption of brandy by up to 36 per cent. Formerly brandy production has accounted for some 14 per cent of the grape harvest. Last year consumption fell to 4 per cent and this year, if the consumption of brandy falls again, it is likely that none will be distilled from the 1979 harvest. One wine maker in my electorate has indicated that some 5,500 tonnes will not be handled by his winery this year and that this will approximate a loss to producers and to the industry of some $650,000 in income. Another winery has written to all of its producers. Its letter states:

Due to a fall off in demand for spirit, and our overstocked situation, we had no option, than to refuse to accept distillation fruit.

He was referring to this season. Of course one must be critical of many large scale wine makers who have continued to plant vines in the face of a growing surplus of grapes and wine. This action has been irresponsible. The industry therefore has a responsibility to introduce constraints on over-production even if this requires the registration of growers. However, this is a most inopportune time to increase the excise. The brandy industry desperately needs a boost and a lower level of excise is probably the only means of doing it in relation to the current level of production. It is imperative that a differential in favour of brandy against its competitors be established. Prior to the repeal of section 3 1 A by the Austraiian Labor Party when it was in government, the wine industry was able to finance its peculiar cash flow requirements which arose from its raw material being available only once a year. The result has been that all grape production was able to be absorbed in the low and surplus years.

Wine and brandy makers acquired quantities rising from 164,000 tonnes in 19S3 to 439,000 tonnes in 1975. Further growth in both production and clearances of Austraiian brandy was recorded in the 1976-77 and 1977-78 years after four years of continuous decline which corresponded directly to successive increases in excise and the phasing out of the excise brandy differential by the ALP which commenced in 1973 and concluded in 1975. I think it is most hypocritical of the spokesmen for the Opposition tonight to talk about the effect of this excise and not to mention the effect that the Labor Party had on the wine growing industry when it was in office. As mentioned by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Giles) the differential, which did stand at 60 per cent, was reduced to 5.4 per cent during that party’s term of office. We also have to remember that rapidly rising inflation and increases in interest rates greatly disadvantaged many of these industries, particularly those that were involved in any export markets. The customs duty on imported brandy was imposed on this industry in 1965 and gave an advantage to the Australian brandy industry of 5.8 per cent, but this figure has now been eroded to one per cent. If we compare Austraiian brandy with imported whisky in 1965 we see a customs advantage to Australian brandy of some 36 per cent. Because of the recent changes this figure has now been eroded to 2 per cent.

I believe that it is essential that the Government restore the relativity in percentage terms between these two products. Brandy distillers, are quite different from other spirit distillers particularly in terms of major investment such as stockholding requirements, maturation and distillation facilities and bearing in mind the twoyear maturation period required by law in this country. Brandy distillers must plan a vintage production for estimated sales three years ahead. It is therefore necessary, provided there is no sudden change in government policies, that three years’ stockholding should be an objective of brandy distillers. Over the years there has been a definite pattern of stockholding becoming unbalanced following earlier excise increases by the ALP. In the 1973 to 1975 period stockholding in relation to forward sales rose to 4.7 years and it has taken the last 12 months for this figure to be reduced to 3.9 years. This reduction was achieved substantially by reducing production by 55 per cent in the period from 1973 to 1976.

Brandy stocks are again out of balance, directly as a result of Budget excise increases.

It would now seem quite unjustified for brandy distillers to plan any production at all in 1979, and that is exactly what is happening. The pre-Budget clearance prediction for 1978-79, which will now not be replaced, represents somewhere in the vicinity of 34,000 tonnes of grapes. If we base this tonnage on an average price of $125 a tonne we can see that there will be a financial loss of some $4.2 m. Estimates that I can make of the increased revenue that will be collected in the first year from Australian brandy because of this extra increase are that it will be in the vicinity of only $4m. This will be at the expense of an Austraiian industry but in favour of the Sctoch whisky producers in Scotland. The increase in revenue will be made directly at the expense of grape growers and will be offset by losses in income tax as grape growers will have losses of income through grapes being left on the vines.

The brandy industry has been established on a long term basis and brandy grapes have been planted for brandy production. In many cases these grapes are not suitable for wine making purposes. The brandy distillation and maturation operation is capital intensive and its plant and equipment cannot be utilised for other wine making processes. The Austraiian brandy industry is a long cycled industry with a two-year maturation. Vineyards are planted on a long term basis and replacement of stock must be planned for a market three years ahead. Therefore it is essential in the interests of long term stability that governments recognise this and recognise also that any large movements in the rates of excise, such as this massive 83.6 per cent increase, will have harmful effects. It concerns me that this is the first time in my six years in Parliament that I have been unable to support the Government, or the coalition when in Opposition, on a piece of industry legislation. Whilst I give great credit that the Budget did not make a new impost on Australian wine, which has already stimulated domestic demand in the table wine area, I believe that this increase in excise on the Australian brandy industry was illconsidered, unnecessary and totally inappropriate.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

-I rise to take part in this debate very briefly. We have heard from the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Giles), the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) and the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) the expression of a view that that pan of the legislation which deals with the brandy excise will not be supported by them. I rise as a member representing an area that has wine grapes in it. I rise also representing a State that has within it a significant region which is dependent upon grape growing. We have heard from the honourable member for Wakefield that we should view the grape growing industry as a single industry, whether its product is used for wine, for dried fruits or for brandy. Yet we have heard from him, from the Opposition and from the honourable member for Mallee the view that we can isolate that segment of the industry which relates to brandy, examine all the debits and not look at the other aspect of the industry and examine the credits that arise from this legislation. I am concerned that the Government should be given the opportunity to make a close examination of the reports of the Industries Assistance Commission on grape growing and potable spirits. It may well be that in the light of that expert advice the Government will see fit at the appropriate time to introduce a differential.

In this Budget excises were raised and there was a uniform lift in the excise on potable spirits. There was a lift in the excise on beer. There was no tax imposed on wine, and let that position continue into the future. Those who now challenge the Budget by suggesting that they will vote against a piece of legislation flowing from the Budget- a revenue raising measure that was supported by members on this side of the House when they voted for the Budget- now say that they can take a small piece of it and say that they do not like it and therefore will vote against it. Any who vote against that piece of legislation invite future governments to consider the imposition upon the grape growing industry of a wine tax.

Mr Chapman:

– That would be disastrous.

Mr WILSON:

-I agree with the honourable member for Kingston. It would be disastrous, and because it would be disastrous I am supporting the Government’s legislation. I believe that any move that might invite a government to put a tax on wine would do far more damage to South Australia, to Adelaide and to the Riverland than the excise on brandy, particularly in circumstances where the Government has said that at the right time it will look at the recommendations of the IAC. Pressure is being put on the Government by the brewers. They ask why they should be adversely affected by an increase in the excise on beer, which is shifting people’s purchasing habits in favour of wine. If that pressure is maintained and if those who would support the wine industry weaken in their support by voting against this legislation on the basis of protecting but a small section of the industry, then those honourable members and the Opposition and the State Government in South Australia will have it upon their shoulders if any future government introduces a tax on wine.

In present circumstances, there is evidence to suggest that wine sales have increased by 25 per cent. Neither the honourable member for Wakefield nor the honourable member for Mallee gave any credit for the substantially increased sales of wine grapes that will result from that. As a South Australian, and one concerned about an industry that is very significant to South Australia, I will vote in support of the Government’s legislation because I believe that that is the best and surest way to indicate the view that a government should not entertain the idea of spreading the tax burden to raise the same amount of revenue by imposing an excise on wine.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Giles:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 193, might I require you to record my dissent?

Mr Hurford:

– With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I should like you to record also that all of the Opposition have opposed all of this measure.

Mr Giles:

– On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I listened very carefully while you put the question. There was no dissent by the Opposition.

Mr Hurford:

– I dissented then. I said no.

Mr Giles:

– I am making a point of order to the Chair, not to the honourable member for Adelaide.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-(Hon. Ian Robinson) - Order! The procedure followed was in accordance with the usual practice and there was no call for a division.

I refer to the appropriate Standing Order in this matter, namely, Standing Order 193, which reads:

A division shall not be proceeded with unless more than one Member has called for a division. If one Member only calls for a division, that Member may inform the Speaker that he wishes his dessent to be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and in Hansard and his dissent shall be so recorded.

Accordingly, the request by the honourable member for Wakefield will be acceded to.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill

page 3223

AMENDMENTS OF THE SCHEDULE TO THE PRINCIPAL ACT

Item 1-

Omit “$0,394”, substitute “$0.52 “.

Sub-item 2(a)-

Omit “$10.2 1 “, substitute “$18.75”.

Sub-item 2(b)-

Omit”$10.21 “, substitute “$18.75”.

Sub-item 2 (c)-

Omit “$10.2 1 “, substitute “$18.75”.

Sub-item 2 (D)-

Omit “$10.2 1 “, substitute “$18.75”.

Paragraph 2 (e)(1)-

Omit “$ 10.2 1 “, substitute “$18.75”.

Paragraph 2(e) (2)-

Omit “$ 10.2 1 “, substitute “$18.75”.

Sub-item 2(F)-

Omit “$ 10.29”, substitute “$18.75”.

Sub-item 2(G)-

Omit “$ 10.33 “, substitute “$ 1 8.75 “.

Sub-item 2(H)-

Omit “$ 10.29 “, substitute “$ 1 8.75 “.

Sub-item 2(0)-

Omit”$10.64”, substitute “$19.25”.

Sub-item 5 (a)-

Omit “$10.25’’, substitute “$18.75”.

Sub-item 5 (b)-

Omit”$10.64”,substitute”$19.25”.

Sub-item 5 (c)-

Omit “$ 10.25 “, substitute “$18.75”.

Paragraph 6 (a) ( 1 )-

Omit “$9.68 “, substitute “$12.38”.

Paragraph 6 (a) (2)-

Omit “$9.83 “, substitute “$12.53”.

Paragraph 6 (b)(1)-

Omit “$9.73 “, substitute “$12.43”.

Paragraph 6 (b)(2)- Omit “$9.88 “, substitute “$ 12.58 “.

Paragraph 6 (c)(1)-

Omit “$19.22 “, substitute “$24.61 “.

Paragraph 6 (c)(2)-

Omit “$19.36”, substitute “$24.75 “.

Sub-item 7 (a)-

Omit”$16.34”,substitute”$20.90”.

Sub-item 7 (b)-

Omit “$16.56”, substitute “$21.12”.

Sub-item 8 (a)-

Omit “$19.31 “, substitute “$24.70 “.

Sub-item 8 (b)-

Omit “$ 1 9.36 “, substitute “$24.75 “.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– I have four amendments to the Schedule to the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2). I explain immediately that it is only because of a wish to cooperate with the Government Whip that we have not called for a division on the motion that this Bill be read a second time. I hope that that has been recorded more than once now. I take no objection to the stand taken by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Giles), but he should not have reacted the way he did, nor should other honourable members on the Government side of the chamber have reacted the way that they did when I made it clear for the record why the Opposition was not calling for a division on the motion that the Bill be read a second time. We are against all of this legislation. We plan to divide the Schedule into four sections. First of all, I move:

Omit the following:

Item 1-

Omit “$0,394”, substitute “$0.52 “. ‘.

I point out to the Committee that Item 1 relates to beer. The Opposition is totally against this increase of duty on beer. Once again, I have not heard that any Government supporter is prepared to join us in our opposition. But if a Government supporter does wish to join us or if there is a call for a division I will take the Committee to a vote tonight, with the help of the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) and other Opposition honourable members who are in the chamber.

Amendment negatived.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– I move:

Omit from the Schedule amendments to sub-item 2 (a) to Sub-item 2 (c) inclusive.

I draw to the attention of the Committee that these sub-items relate to brandy. Sub-item 2 (A) relates to brandy and seeks to increase the tariff by $8.54 per litre of alcohol. Sub-item 2 (B) relates to blended brandy and seeks to increase the tariff by $8.54 per litre of alcohol. Sub-item 2 (C) relates to fruit brandy and seeks to increase the tariff by a similar amount per litre of alcohol.

I think that the explanation by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) was the most extraordinary explanation that could be given for supporting the Government in this matter. I noticed that the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) referred to his remarks as ‘petty’. I would go further and say that they were extraordinarily weak. If anything, it can be shown that in the disloyalty to South Australia of the honourable member for Sturt he has also been woolly-minded.

What is happening is that there is an increase in demand for wine at the present time. The reaction of the Government to this will be: How unfair this demand is compared with the demand for other drinks, particularly beer. As I said in my speech during the second reading debate, next we will find that an increased impost will be placed on wine. How the honourable member for Sturt can go through the convolutions which arrive him at a position where he can suggest that opposition to this amendment which I have moved would draw a further tax on wine, I leave the Committee to judge. But I cannot understand his reasoning. I am sure that other members of the Government parties and of the Opposition cannot understand it either. So I have moved that amendment to test the feelings of the Committee on this increased impost on brandy.

Mr FISHER:
Mallee

-Mr Chairman, under Standing Order 193 I ask that my opposition to clause 3 sub-clause 2 paragraph (a) be recorded.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! For the benefit of the honourable member for Mallee, I point out that the question has not been put. I ask him to reserve his action.

Mr GILES:
Wakefield

-The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) reminds me of an erstwhile honourable member for Bradfield who, from the height of his blue ribbon seat- no doubt the honourable member for Sturt is busy making his electorate precisely that also- and from the point of view of the retired cockies who may live in his electorate, had the nerve to propound on matters about which he knew very little. In this case, the honourable member for Sturt has completely missed the point. In 1973 the differential in favour of Australian brandy over imported scotch whisky was 60.S per cent. At that stage, the Australian Labor Party got its hot little hands on a bit of easy revenue raising, as it thought, and cut the consumption by the Austraiian people of an Australian produced product to half in a period of three years. The effect of the undue rise in excise was to give the brandy industry in a period of three years the dreadful job of trying to cut its stockholding down to that for little more than three years, which is a reasonable amount considering the statutory condition that this Parliament places in the brandy industry of ensuring that brandy has two years in wood before the industry can even start to sell it.

Brandy is quite different from other spirits. It is quite different from imported spirit, which might be made of barley but more probably is made of grain generally. The Labor Party entirely overlooks the health regulations that apply to Australian brandy. I think I can forgive the honourable member for Sturt because he does not know about the fall-back of the differential that is being faced by the brandy industry. The honourable member for Sturt posed the rather smart argument that we must look at the grape growing industry generally, then pointed out that therefore I should not dare to mention the brandy industry. Again, with respect, the honourable member has missed the point. I cannot blame him for that because I did not have time to read out the section of the Coombs report which I have had incorporated in Hansard. Dr Coombs, a Treasury man and a responsible person in previous governments, has pointed to the situation in a glut in 1951, which was similar to the situation today, when after two years of increasing excise- this is my point, and members of neither Government party seem to appreciate- the then Government was forced to take action. What action did it take to stop a complete debacle? It awarded the brandy industry a differential in its favour. In the section of the Coombs report which I have had incorporated in Hansard Dr Coombs made the point that that was done at a time when there was an ample supply of grapes. Within 18 months that action was successful in achieving a state of balance. The honourable member for Sturt is a great expert on a wide variety of topics and I have a very high regard for him. I just wish that he would confine his interest to those topics.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

-Very briefly, I put the record right by saying that I did not miss the point made by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Giles). I indicated my concern at the outcome of the Industries Assistance Commission reports and indicated also that I hoped that, in the light of the arguments placed before the IAC, the Government would be given objective, sound advice upon which it could base any changes in the relative arrangements as between competing spirits.

Question put-

That sub-items proposed to be omitted (Mr Hurford’s amendment) stand part of the Schedule.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr P. C. Millar)

AYES: 69

NOES: 29

Majority……. 40

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– by leave- I move:

Omit from the Schedule amendments to sub-item 2 (d) to sub-item5 (c) inclusive.

Omit from the Schedule amendments to paragraph 6 (a) ( 1 ) to the end of the Schedule.

Mr Chapman:

– Have the amendments been circulated?

Mr HURFORD:

-If the honourable member were taking an interest in this Bill he would know that they have been circulated. I have a copy available for the honourable member. The first of the amendments I have moved relates to page 3 of the Schedule. It seeks to omit from the Schedule amendments to sub-item 2 (D) to subitem 5 (C). I indicate for the benefit of those honourable members who would like to know what that amendment is about that it relates to the increase in excise per litre of alcohol on whisky, blended whisky, rum and other spirits. I would have moved this amendment separately if the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Donald Cameron) had indicated to me that he was prepared to cross the floor in relation to the excise on rum. He did not so indicate, so we are moving at the same time the amendment which relates to pages 3 and 4 of the Schedule. It seeks to omit from the Schedule amendments to paragraph 6(A)(1) to the end of the Schedule; in other words, those increases in duty relating to tobacco.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question is: ‘that the sub-items and paragraphs proposed to be omitted stand part of the Schedule’.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendments negatived.

Mr Giles:

– I wish to discuss the general matter of the Bill -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Wakefield is not occupying his usual place. I cannot give him the call.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Fife)- by leave- proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr GILES:
Wakefield

-On the third reading of the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) I want to deal with a new matter. Members of the Australian Labor Party can consider themselves very well done by. They moved to exclude totally a clause of this Bill in Committee. Because of my commitments to my electorate I voted with them. It was one of the worst examples of political expediency that has ever been visited on the Parliament. The Labor Party took the brandy industry to the cleaners in five moves while it was in Government. Yet members of the Labor Party dare to be pious on this issue for no particular reason when they were the cause of the trouble in the brandy industry. I voice my objection and horror at having to vote on the same side as people who want to play cheap politics over an issue that is important to my electorate.

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

– I associate myself with Item 1 concerning the excise on beer. I make an appeal to the Government to ensure that in next year’s Budget there is no increase on the excise on beer because of the effect it has on the production of barley.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-(Hon. Ian Robinson) - Order! The honourable member’s attention must be drawn to the fact that any debate on the third reading has to be of a very general nature. He is dealing with a particular item.

Mr McVEIGH:

– With the greatest of respect to your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am referring to the general application of excise duty on beer as opposed to other commodities covered in the legislation. I find some difficulty in accepting your ruling that I am not speaking on the legislation in a general way. I will proceed, therefore, to make an appeal to the Government to ensure that the barley growers of Australia are not discriminated against in future years. An analysis of the duty that is paid on a glass of beer will indicate that a much higher percentage of the cost of a glass of beer goes to the Government in excise than is cost of the production of beer.

Mr Giles:

-That is untrue.

Mr McVEIGH:

– I think the honourable member for Wakefield had a fair go. I make the point that the beer drinkers of Australia are discriminated against to a far greater extent than the wine drinkers.

Mr Giles:

– That is not what you said.

Mr McVEIGH:

– That is what I said. The honourable member was not listening. The point is that far too much of the cost of a glass of beer to the working man of Australia and to other consumers of beer goes to the Government for the purposes of general revenue. No other drink attracts the same amount of duty per glass as does beer. I believe it is appropriate, therefore, in a wide-ranging debate to draw the attention of the Parliament and of the Australian nation to the fact that the barley growers of Australia are having to bear an intolerable burden on their production because of a declining consumption of beer resulting from its cost, when compared with other beverages.

I hope that the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) will take cognisance of this fact when the Government is framing next year’s Budget and ensure that the ordinary working man, the beer drinker in Australia, is not discriminated against. He is a simple man with simple tastes. For far too long he has had to pay far too much tax to the Government in comparison to the other drinkers who, in many instances, may be sophisticated drinkers. He has had to bear an unjust burden. I believe it is intolerable.

The consumption of beer has decreased. Consequently, the Government now is only getting as much revenue from the higher rate of excise as it did previously when there was a greater consumption. In effect, the Government is pricing beer off the bars of Australian hotels. On behalf of the beer drinkers I make a special plea to the Government to re-examine its conscience to ensure that all drinkers pay a reasonable return rather than isolating the burden and placing it on those people who can least afford to pay an exorbitant excise duty.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-Mr Deputy Speaker, you were, of course, quite correct in your ruling that the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) was out of order. He should have taken part in the second reading debate. He should have been in the chamber for the Committee stage when the Opposition made sure that beer was isolated so that those who felt the same way as the Opposition about beer could have voted against the increase.

Mr McVeigh:

– I take a point of order. I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Hon. Ian Robinson)- I point out to the honourable member for Darling Downs that he cannot make a personal explanation on a point of order during a debate.

Mr HURFORD:

– With the greatest respect to the honourable member he is making a farce of this debate. It is a very serious matter. The Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) increases charges on a whole range of products. The Opposition went to the trouble of isolating beer from brandy, other spirits and tobacco products so that Government members who wanted to join with us in showing their opposition to the imposts put on each of the separate categories could have done so. The honourable member for Darling Downs had an opportunity to record his opposition at the proper time. He did not do so. He did not take part in the debate. He has, of course, Mr Deputy Speaker, stretched your patience in joining in, in this grandstanding way, at the third reading stage of the debate.

I also comment briefly on the remarks of the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Giles). He, too, ought to have realised that his Government has been ruining this country for three years. If the honourable member thinks that what the Labor Government did to the brandy industry ought to be undone or turned around, then I point out that his Government has had three years to do just that. What has it done to the brandy industry? It has imposed an increased charge on the industry as witnessed in the Bill before the House. I pay respect to the honourable member because he crossed the floor and joined us. So should many other South Australians who realise the importance of the brandy industry to South Australia. But they did not do so. It ill becomes the honourable member to shed crocodile tears at the third reading stage and suggest that there is any hypocrisy or humbug in members on this side of the House. There is not The alternative Budget speech made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) on 22 August laid down quite clearly where we stood on this measure. We have opposed each section of it and we facilitated the honourable member’s being able to oppose the brandy section of it by calling for a division in the way we did at the Committee stage.

Mr FitzPATRICK (Riverina) ( 1 1.21)- I support the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) in his appeal for no further cost to be put on the worker’s drink, beer. There is no doubt that the worker is finding it harder and harder to have his usual drink after work each night. I want to refer to the remarks made by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Giles) about the amendment that the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) moved regarding the excise on brandy. It is not true to say that the Labor Party was hypocritical on that matter, because I have taken this matter up in our Resources Committee and also with the honourable member for Adelaide. He assured me that he had moved this amendment on account of the effect that this Bill had on my electorate. The electorate of the honourable member for Wakefield is not the only big wine and brandy area. The Riverina area is a big wine and brandy area. Our Party agreed, after discussion on this matter, that it would move this amendment. Although I appreciate the fact that the honourable member for Wakefield and the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) crossed the floor to vote with us, that is not saying that we in the Labor Party were hypocritical on this matter. We were quite sincere about it.

Mr McVEIGH (Darling Downs)-I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Hon. Ian Robinson)- Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr McVEIGH:

– Yes. In reply to the comments made by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) I point out to him that I was present in the chamber during the Committee debate. What I sought to do was not to introduce new material, because he had moved an amendment relative to beer in the debate.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Darling Downs is entering a debate again. He is now debating the whole question. I ask you to rule accordingly.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order. I will require the honourable member for Darling Downs to State how he has been misrepresented. I am extending some leniency to the honourable member for Darling Downs; but if the honourable member does not comply with the Standing Orders I assure the honourable member for Newcastle that I will require him to do so.

Mr McVEIGH:

– The fundamental point where I was misrepresented was this: The honourable member for Adelaide queried why I had not spoken for his amendment. My contribution was to make an appeal to the Government to consider the matter of a reduction of the duty on beer in next year’s Budget. I fully support the Budget, and for anyone to say that I do not do so misrepresents my position.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 3227

CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 4) 1978

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 16 November, on motion by Mr Fife:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr Fife) read a third time.

page 3227

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from15 November, on motion by Mr Fife:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-The Customs Amendment Bill 1978 has as its purpose an amendment to the valuation provisions of the Customs Act 1901 so as to put beyond doubt the inclusion of outside packaging in the dutiable value of imported goods. This is an issue which is currently subject to challenge in the courts of this land. Whilst not opposing the Bill, the Opposition does voice its concern over the manner in which decisions have been made regarding this legislation and the role of some of the parties involved. This piece of legislation is, we believe, an example of the Government’s failure properly to think through its policy proposals, the result being that it has had to cave in- that is one way of putting it- following pressures from some outside sources.

Let me just review the story as it has been related to me. The Brussels Definition of Valuethe BDV system of valuing imported goods for duty purposes- came into force on 1 July 1976. Apparently it was the Government’s intention that the customs value of imported goods would include the value and costs of any packaging in which the goods were contained. However, Renault (Wholesale) Pty Ltd made an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal earlier this year, contesting the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs practice of including the value of outside packaging when determining the assessable value of an imported item. The Tribunal’s judgment, not yet announced, may go against the Government. Therefore, the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs put a submission to the Cabinet in June of this year- as the story has been related to me- recommending that the Customs Act should be amended to put beyond doubt the question of the treatment of outside packaging.

In that recommendation to Cabinet, apparently some retrospectivity was involved, so that it dated back to 1 July 1976. That submission, as I understand it, argued firstly that the amendment was necessary to give effect to a Cabinet decision in January 1976 in which the Cabinet specifically noted that the value of outside packaging would be included when assessing the value of imports for duty purposes; and, secondly, that the amendment should be made retrospective to 1 July 1976 for two reasons. The first was that a successful application by Renault would have a significant adverse effect on government revenue- I believe that a figure in the vicinity of $40m was mentioned- and this meant $40m in payouts of duty already collected from Renault and others. The second reason was that retrospectivity in customs legislation differed from that relating to tax legislation since the importers had already paid the duty and the duty would have been included in the price of the imported goods when they were sold, so that any refund would amount to a windfall profit.

It should be noted at this stage that no one has seriously challenged the first proposition of the Department’s submission. Indeed, the Opposition strongly supports the view that all packaging should be included in the value of imports for the purpose of customs valuation. What has been subject to attack has been the retrospectivity aspect of the Department’s proposals. When I said that no one has opposed the first part of the submission, I meant that no one in this Parliament, as far as I know, at this stage has opposed it. Of course, there are those outside the Parliament who challenge it, as they have shown by taking the matter to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal- and maybe to the courts of the land.

Following Cabinet’s consideration of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs submission, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs announced on 10 July that the Government proposed to amend the Customs Act to put beyond doubt the fact that the cost of outside packaging was to be included in the value of imported goods for customs valuation purposes, and that the amendment would be made retrospective to 1 July 1976. However, following various representations from and on behalf of the industries concerned- I must confess that I was involved in these representations- considerable Government back bench and other pressure arose when the legislation was presented in early September to the Government parties. They decided that the retrospectivity part of this Bill would now date only from July this year. Now that that has happened, the Opposition does not have any reason to oppose the Bill. We hope that the original legislation will hold up before the courts because I do not think there is anybody on our side of the House who would want to see the revenue eroded in this way. Because of the hour and because of the fact that this has been canvassed elsewhere to quite a large extent, I will not detain the House any further other than to repeat that the Opposition supports the fact that this Bill now clarifies the issue and therefore we support the Bill.

Mr Peter Johnson:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I will take the time of the House only for a few minutes as well because I feel it is important to go back to when the Customs Amendment Bill came in and started operating from 1 July 1976. This actual system was the convention on the valuation of goods for customs purposes, or as commonly known, the Brussels definition of value; or, as it operates in the market place, free on board price values. However, from the time of the legislation being introduced, problems did arise because many people were not clear as to exactly what was a container, a pallet and what was outside packaging. There was a degree of criticism before 1 July when the system was introduced but from the information I have gained over the last few years, the amount of duty paid in that period of time has decreased by some 2 per cent. Firstly, I think it vindicates the Government’s move towards this Brussels definition of value for outside packaging by the decrease of 2 per cent. I think the duty that has been levied is a much clearer and simpler way. It is becoming a world wide way of valuing duty.

Secondly, what was not clear was how to exclude things such as gas bottles which quite obviously come in and goes out, or a metal pallet or metal container. Challenges were brought to it; indeed they went as far as the High Court, and many discussions took place in government. I commend the Minister at the table, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife), and also the Department concerned because if one goes back to the time prior to 1 July 1976, the Department did work very hard to try to ensure that everybody did have a clear understanding. I think that even those people who have challenged this particular piece of legislation should realise that the Department put out a Blue Paper. It had a series of notices sent to everybody involved in importing and had a series of meetings throughout the major centres of Australia where goods were coming to this country.

I think the intention was there and in all fairness the Department did try as much as it possibly could to make the intention clear. I do commend the Minister in taking into consideration that there was a degree of uncertainty in certain quarters. There was a challenge before the courts. He decided to amend the legislation to apply from 10 July 1978 and in so doing I think took into consideration an understanding that a number of people had brought forward at the same time. It gave him an opportunity to exercise a degree of fairness. I am pleased to support the piece of legislation that we have before us this evening.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr Fife) read a third time.

page 3229

QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED (LOAN GUARANTEE) AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 November, on motion by Mr Nixon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-This is a straightforward piece of legislation, its purpose being to put beyond doubt the authority provided to the Treasurer (Mr Howard) under the principal Act, the Qantas Airways (Loan Guarantee) Act1978, to guarantee overseas borrowings by Qantas Airways Ltd to finance the purchase of its sixteenth and seventeenth Boeing 747 aircraft. It appears that some difference of opinion arose as to the legality of the guarantee originally provided because, initially, Qantas funded the purchase of the aircraft in question from its internal resources and the proceeds of the loans are to be used to reimburse its internal funds. The Bill, then, removes any doubt as to the legality of the use of the overseas borrowings and the Opposition does not oppose it.

Qantas Airways Ltd is an important Australian industry owned by the Australian people. It has a world-wide reputation for its high quality of operation. These are the words of one of its staunchest opponents, Sir Freddie Laker.

What I have to say is that Qantas, notwithstanding the excellent airline that it is, and let’s be frank about it, it is par excellence, it is one of the finest airlines in the world . . .

That was the comment of Sir Freddie Laker, a worthy competitor of Qantas. With that kind of world reputation, I would have thought that the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) would have had something to say in his second reading speech about the financial performance of Qantas; that he would have been more forthright during the overseas air fare controversy by stressing that initiatives for the negotiation of new bilateral agreements for air services must come from government. These agreements have almost the status of treaties, hence it is not a matter of an airline negotiating with a foreign government. The negotiations must be between governments. Instead, I believe that the Minister, to mask his own inability to conclude successfully negotiations for cheaper air fares, has allowed Qantas in a number of ways to be portrayed unfairly as the barrier to the introduction of cheap airfares.

The reason for the Minister’s attitude towards Qantas lies within Government ranks. It is within those ranks that there have been resolutions at State level and Young Liberal Council level showing that there is a deep ideological opposition to Qantas as a publicly-owned transport enterprise. They would like to sell it off to someone. They do not say who. Accordingly, there is strong opposition in Government ranks to any action that may reflect credit on Qantas. This is a strange philosophy for the Government of an isolated nation, a nation which the International Civil Aviation Policy Review found, in its recent report, should, at least on defence grounds, maintain its own international airline. Even when travelling overseas at taxpayers’ expense, some Government members are loath to use Qantas, but I will return to that later.

Last week, in speaking to the Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Bill, I stressed that, in the view of the Opposition, where public guarantees for loans were being sought by airlines the Parliament was entitled, when the loan guarantee authorities were being legislated, to a report on the financial performance of those airlines. We have not been told anything of Qantas’ performance in the recent year. It is eight months since Qantas ‘ financial year ended, yet its annual report has not been tabled. The only information available is what can be gleaned from newspaper reports and some preliminary information from Qantas. In our view it is scandalous that the annual accounts of Qantas have not been presented. It illustrates once again the lackadaisical and contemptuous attitude of the Government towards the interests of air travellers.

A brief examination of the information that is available shows that Qantas operates to 34 countries. It handles 185 flights a week in Australia. For the year ended 31 March 1978 it carried 46 per cent of passengers departing Australia by air. It employs more than 13,000 people. I would be interested if the Minister could advise us at some later stage of the indirect component of employment. I do not know what ratio would apply, but certainly it would be a fairly high figure. The total revenue of Qantas for 1976-77 was $564. 121m. As I have said, the figures for 1977-78 are not yet available. We do not know what the gross revenue of Qantas was and certainly the Opposition does not know what its profit result was, but we can say that Qantas made a net contribution of some $21 lm to our balance of payments. That is the figure that remains after taking into account the expenditure of Qantas overseas.

Its load factor in the same period, to March 1978, was 59.8 per cent. Of the passengers that were transported out of Australia across the Pacific, 66 per cent were Australians and 22 per cent were Americans. On the Kangaroo route to London, 76 per cent of the passengers carried were Australians, 10 per cent were from the United Kingdom and Ireland and other passengers represented smaller less significant percentages. I believe that public appreciation of the problems of operating airline services, both domestic and international, is limited because of the failure of the Government to provide adequate and up to date information on these subjects.

I mentioned the annual accounts earlier. I turn briefly to the actual operating features of our international airline. Air travellers properly expect a high level of service punctuality; that is, that aircraft arrive and depart on time. Qantas has a punctuality target of 65 per cent; that is, according to the strict definition reaching destinations within 15 minutes of scheduled times. Many factors influence the achievement of this rate. These include airport congestion, bad weather, airport curfews, unexpected industrial disputes, aircraft defects and even the operations of government authorities as some people have often experienced with immigration controls abroad. All these factors can create delays.

In 1975 prices, the cost of operating a Boeing 747B on the Sydney-London service return was $A400,000, which meant that a 12-hour delay, say, at Singapore would negate the profit potential of the whole trip. If overnight accommodation had to be found for 400 passengers the cost could run as high as $A 18,000 in direct outofpocket expenses. The punctuality rate of Qantas has climbed from just under 50 per cent in 1974-75 to just below 65 per cent in 1977, despite all the obstacles. It is worth noting that, in early 1975, delays were costing Qantas in the vicinity of $A900,000 annually in direct outofpocket expenses without considering lost revenue that could occur from delays. This was reduced by better management and maintenance procedures to $345,000 in 1976-77.

Another key element in operational efficiency is the utlisation rate of aircraft. An examination of the utilisation rate of the Qantas fleet of 13 Boeing 747 in 1975 showed that all the aircraft- 100 per cent of the fleet- were in use at least 10 hours out of 24 hours, that 70 per cent of the fleet was in use for 1 1 out of 24 hours and 50 per cent of the fleet was utilised for almost 12 hours out of 24 hours. Compare that with the world scene. Of the total world fleet of 308 Boeing 747Bs, leaving out the three which operated for a period of between 12 to 14 hours out of 24, the remaining 305 aircraft were utilised at rates well below that of the Qantas fleet.

Qantas is a publicly owned transport enterprise operating in a difficult international environment Its shareholder is the Australian Government. Therefore, it is always under the control of the government of the day. Its financial directive comes from the government of the day. When cheaper airfares are negotiated with other governments again that is at the duty of the government of the day. Ultimate responsibility lies with the Government, not Qantas. I emphasise that Qantas is not a statutory corporation; it is a private company registered under the Queensland Companies Act. I mentioned earlier that Government members were loath to travel on Qantas. I extend that to include some public servants who travel abroad at taxpayers’ expense in the performance of their duties. I find it alarming that people who travel at taxpayers expense prefer to use overseas airlines instead of their own nation’s airline. The question I ask is: Where is their spirit of nationalism, their pride in Australia and their concern for our balance of payments position?

Obviously some people are prepared to trade their national identity for the ‘free wine’ of an overseas airline as was put to me by a Qantas employee some months ago. I think that is fair comment. Treasury direction 6/10 requires that public servants going abroad must travel by Qantas unless- this is the device used- available Qantas flights do not coincide with departmental requirements. Without going into the detail of the direction, the first alternatives are to fly by airlines with which Qantas pools revenue, and so the direction goes on. The device that is used to circumvent Treasury direction 6/10 is first to check the Qantas timetable and then arrange the overseas schedule for times when Qantas services are not suitable. It is a very easy exercise. This abuse of Treasury direction 6/10 by people travelling abroad at taxpayers’ expense currently adds approximately $lm to the revenue of foreign airlines operating out of Australia. I believe that this abuse of Treasury direction 6/ 10 is a national disgrace and that the Government should enforce the requirements of that direction.

The spurning of Qantas by public servants going abroad only mirrors the action of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and some other Ministers, certainly not the Minister for Transport, who also prefer foreign airlines to Qantas. On a number of occasions in the past the Prime Minister has travelled by Singapore International Airlines, SLA, on his overseas safaris, ostensibly because it provides sleeperette seats. I do not know whether it has anything to do with the Singapore syndrome. The Foreign Minister (Mr Peacock) is also well known for his preference for travelling by SLA. Recently yet another Minister sought to transfer his travel entitlements from Qantas, our own national airline, to Thai International. It is little wonder that the Prime Minister has refused to provide information to the Parliament by way of answers to questions on notice about overseas travel by Ministers, the costs involved and the airlines on which they travel.

I move to a comparison of fares for the Australian sectors of international travel with domestic fares. The House will recall that the international civil aviation policy review made a recommendation that unused capacity on Qantas flights on outward bound journeys across the Australian continent could be used for domestic travel fulfilment.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– This praise is only causing the Minister to blush, really.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! The honourable member for Shortland will proceed.

Mr MORRIS:

-Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that interjection is most uncharacteristic of the honourable member for Lilley. We on this side of the House suggest that the Government ought to be taking this matter up with the domestic airlines in a more vigorous way. Without having access to the information that is available to the Minister in confidential submissions, it appears that the proposition that Qantas be used both ways across the Australian continent is worthy of consideration by the domestic airlines and certainly by the Minister in giving leadership. I refer to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald of 28 October 1978 headed ‘Saving of $90 return. Qantas puts Perth fare cut plan.’ The report indicates that in its proposal Qantas has informed Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia that return air fares between eastern State capitals and Perth could be reduced by more than $90 return if passengers were allowed to use Qantas jumbo jets. I know that the argument that was put to the review was that the outward bound Qantas aircraft departing from eastern ports, could with their punctuality rate be expected to leave on time but because when they returned on the inward bound journey to the west coast they were at the completion of a 2Vi day to 3-day cycle the chances of a lapse in the punctuality rate would be greater.

I think it is worth considering that if the price is right, if some sort of advance purchase fare proposal was put by the domestic airlines, and if they took Qantas ‘s unused capacity at a marginal rate- this is fairly predictable on eastern and western traffic across the continent- it would provide some net increase in revenue to Qantas. It would provide a wider range of departure and arrival times between east and west. As I said, if the price were right on an advanced purchase basis, I am quite sure that people would be prepared to accept an element of uncertainty on the west-east journey given that when delays occur on the return journey to Australia, if one takes the last departure point as Bombay, the delay is telegraphed ahead. It is not something that suddenly happens prior to the aircraft leaving the last point of departure and returning to Australia on an eastward course from the west. Information could be transmitted ahead to Perth to advise passengers that a delay was to occur. I think that even though there could be a lesser level of reliability of departure dmes for that west to east service, the matter is still worth looking at with the objective of improving the service between west and east and vice versa.

The fares for Australian sector travel on international airlines are much cheaper than on domestic airlines. The public, understandably from its point of view, see this difference as an imposition on domestic air travellers. Let us look, for example, at the first class return fare between Sydney and Perth. The fare charged by domestic airlines is $5 12. However, if one purchased a first class Sydney-Perth-London-Perth-Sydney ticket the total cost would be $2,946. If one did not utilise Sydney-Perth-Sydney sectors, the credit available for that unused travel would be approximately $220. This means that the international sector fare component for SydneyPerthSydney is about $220 and a traveller in those circumstances could claim a credit for $220 from the international airline. However, people who are travelling at taxpayers’ expense could not transfer that credit or accumulated credits to domestic airlines for use on intra-Australian travel for non-governmental personnel as a Minister has been seeking to do recently. Last week I asked the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) whether he had authorised this practice by Ministers, this attempted misuse of public moneys, but he avoided answering the question.

Mr Nixon:

– Well, be specific. Why make allegations like that?

Mr MORRIS:

– You know the answer as well as I know the answer.

Mr Nixon:

– If you have the courage of your convictions be specific. You should not make allegations otherwise.

Mr MORRIS:

– You know the answer. I will ask the Minister -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! I remind the honourable member for Shortland that he appears to be straying fairly substantially from the Bill. I hope that his remarks will be directed to substantiating the proposals in the Bill.

Mr MORRIS:

– The Bill deals specifically with Qantas Airways Ltd. I have compared the difference between intra-Australian travel by international airlines and domestic airlines. I used Qantas as an example. The Qantas fare is the same as any other international airline fare. I have shown that if one buys a SydneyPerthLondonSydney ticket the credit that would be available for the unused Sydney-Perth-Sydney sector is about $220. In conclusion -

Mr Neil:

– It is a scurrilous attack.

Mr MORRIS:

-It is not a scurrilous attack. If the honourable member for St George does not know the answer, he should ask the Minister. I should not have to explain what the Government is doing. I call on the Prime Minister to table in Parliament this week the warrants issued this year to Qantas for ministerial travel overseas, the credit slips from the airlines for any unused Australian sector travel and the details of the airports at which Ministers boarded international aircraft for departure for overseas. As I said earlier, the Bill removes any doubt about the legality of the principal Act passed earlier this year- the Qantas Airways Ltd (Loan Guarantee) Act. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill.

Mr CHAPMAN:
Kingston

-The purpose of the Bill before the House- the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Amendment Bill 1978- is to amend the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Act 1978, which was enacted to authorise the Treasurer, on behalf of the Commonwealth, to guarantee overseas borrowings by Qantas Airways Limited to the extent of $US80m or its equivalent to finance the purchase of two new Boeing 747 series aircraft. Qantas sought the guarantee of the Treasurer for a borrowing of $US80m under the provisions of the Act. Negotiations for a proposed borrowing were not sufficiently advanced, however, for Qantas to be enabled to finalise the terms of a borrowing before taking delivery of these aircraft. Qantas had funds earmarked for other purposes but these funds were temporarily available to make the payments owing on the aircraft, in anticipation of these funds being recouped in due course from the proceeds of the $US80m loan for which a guarantee was being sought. As doubt has arisen as to whether section 4 ( 1) (a) of the Act as originally drafted provides for the giving of the guarantee in the circumstances I have just outlined, the amendment to the original Act which this Bill provides is intended to put that question beyond doubt. Qantas has very heavy financial commitments to meet before the end of 1978 and is relying on the loan proceeds.

Qantas has contributed for a long time to Australia’s national interest in terms of international aviation. Australia, as an island nation continent where alternative transport by land is impossible or by sea is not attractive or is not readily available- it is worth noting that movements of passengers by sea in 1977 was less than 2 per cent of total overseas passenger movements- has its own particular interests in the operation of international air services. While other countries continue to pursue divergent interests that are perceived as best meeting their national interests, concern will remain in Australia about the vulnerability of dependence on other states for the provision of these services. Cases have arisen where, without a countervailing Austraiian aviation presence, air service arrangements would have operated in a manner inimical to Australia’s interests. Any change in this environment is unlikely for some time, despite the fact that there are many total international economic benefits to be gained from a changed environment. The distribution of benefit and cost in a changed situation would, however, probably fall unevenly between states and this would delay change.

Successive Australian governments have ensured deliberately that Qantas Airways Ltd, is a wholly owned government company and the only Australian airline designated to operate international services, has operated within this environment as a commercial organisation. It is subject to broad Austraiian policy, which is reflected in the regulatory arrangements which would apply whether it was publicly or privately owned. As I have said, it is a feature of Australian policy that successive governments have adhered to the policy of designating a single Australian carrier only- Qantas Airways Limited- to operate those air services which are Australian entitlements under bilateral arrangements. The decision to grant this exclusive right to the company was made first when the Government purchased half the shares in the company. The Government later purchased the remainder of the shares and the company now remains wholly government-owned.

The considerations which successive Australian governments have taken into account in maintaining the policy of single designation have been, firstly, the retention of an Australian presence in international civil aviation, particularly during the early development years; secondly, the problem of capital formation to meet the heavy investment programs required for rapid growth; thirdly, the ability of government to have a close understanding of the economic and other considerations applying to the supply of international airline services; fourthly, the ability of government to mobilise readily the national resources the airline represents in case of an emergency; fifthly, the maintenance of a clear link between ownership of the airline and the flag of registry; and, sixthly and finally, the ability to examine more readily regulatory control of capacity in bilateral situations where many other states favour single designation of an airline to exercise their traffic entitlements.

Allegations have been made from time to time, particularly in the context of the negotiations which are currently going on for cheaper international air fares, that Australia’s international civil aviation policy is designed specifically to protect Qantas from competition. That is patently untrue. Another 23 international airlines fly into Australia. Qantas Airways Ltd is only one competitor among these 23. Furthermore, last year Qantas and British Airways alone agreed to the current $850 advance purchase excursion fare to London. Other European carriers flying into Australia declined, on commercial grounds, to introduce comparable fares. I cite for example those airlines flying between Australia and Amsterdam, between Australia and Rome and between Australia and Frankfurt. Qantas is enthusiastic about the Government’s proposed lower air fares to London which the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) announced several weeks ago on an expected basis of some $568 return to London in the low season. He also announced an expected $450 return fare from Australia to the United States in the low season.

Qantas obviously shares the Government’s concern for the Australian travelling public through the introduction of lower fares. Therefore any allegation that the Government’s policy is directed particularly towards protection of Qantas from competition is just not true. In his remarks a little while ago the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) asserted that the Minister was blaming Qantas for delays in the introduction of cheaper international air fares. This was purely an assertion by the honourable member for Shortland. He did not provide any evidence in his remarks to back up that assertion. Certainly, as far as I am aware the

Minister has not in any way blamed Qantas for delays in the introduction of cheaper international air fares. What the honourable member for Shortland needs to recognise is that the introduction of cheaper international air fares is dependent upon obtaining the agreement of all parties, that is all airlines and all governments involved in international civil aviation into and out of Australia. Until that agreement is obtained it will not be possible for these cheaper air fares to be implemented. Certainly, the Minister has not in any way attempted to blame Qantas for the delay in introduction of those fares. As we are all aware from the Minister’s recent statement, he is hopeful that a detailed announcement of cheaper air fares into and out of Australia will be possible prior to Christmas.

The honourable member for Shortland also commented that public servants are not travelling overseas by way of Qantas. Certainly, I believe that public servants and indeed all Australians travelling overseas ought to be encouraged to travel by Australia’s international airline. But it is also reasonable that overseas travellers, including public servants, should retain the right of freedom of choice as to which particular airline they wish to use when travelling overseas.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Why?

Mr CHAPMAN:

– The honourable member for Newcastle asks by way of interjection why the travelling public should retain freedom of choice. Honourable members on his side of the House, committed as they are to socialism, do not believe in freedom of choice under any circumstances. They believe in government direction in all aspects of the economy.

Mr Neil:

– Socialists.

Mr CHAPMAN:

– As the honourable member for St George says, they are socialists. They seek to destroy freedom right across the board. We, as Liberals, and the present Government believe in freedom of choice in economic matters and other spheres of activity. As I have said, I believe that while Australians, including public servants, ought to be encouraged to use Qantas they should not be forced to do so. If they choose to use an alternative airline, they ought to have that opportunity. As I mentioned earlier, the specific purpose of the Bill before the House is to allow Qantas to borrow funds to purchase two new Boeing 747 aircraft The purchase of these aircraft will allow the phasing out of the existing Boeing 707 aircraft which have become obsolete. The 747 aircraft which will replace these 707 aircraft are of course significantly larger than the 707 aircraft and will allow significantly higher passenger loads. This is of importance in the context of the Government’s commitment to introduce cheaper overseas air fares. Clearly, higher passenger loads will enhance the capacity of Qantas to provide lower air fares, because one of the important factors in being able to introduce lower air fares is an increased passenger load on any particular aircraft and, therefore, a spreading of the cost of operating that aircraft across more fare paying passengers. When that is achieved the fare paid by any individual passenger can be that much lower. Hence the introduction of larger aircraft, such as the Boeing 747, which will be allowed under this Bill will make a significant contribution to the achievement of lower air fares.

Another important aspect involved in the purchase of such aircraft, of course, is the provision of a high quality of service. The degree to which airline services are differentiated over various dimensions characterises the quality of air service. From the viewpoint of passengers, a higher quality of air service is always preferred to a lower one. However, the strength of this preference will differ between individual passengers and between the separate dimensions of which the general quality of air service is composed. So the underlying quality of air service is important to passengers in general and influences the level of total demand for air travel and, once again, is an important factor in the capacity of Qantas to implement lower air fares.

Of course, certain costs are attached to the provision of quality of service in general and the availability of specific quality dimensions. Some cost implications are obvious and easily identified while others are implicit and subtle. For example, on the one hand, the costs associated with general passenger services, such as meals, are easily determined. On the other hand, the costs associated with seating comfort, frequency of service, stopovers and the risk of not obtaining a seat on demand are complex in origin and not easily comprehended by passengers. Even less obvious is the added complexity that for air services, demand and the cost of supply are inextricably intertwined. I hope that with the opportunity that has been provided for Qantas through this amendment to the Act to borrow funds to purchase two new Boeing 747 aircraft, Qantas will give attention to maintaining the very high quality of service which it provides for passengers into and out of Australia. I trust that that quality of service will be provided in association with the move towards cheaper air fares for international travellers, once again into and out of

Australia. It is on that basis that I support this Bill and urge its passage through the House.

Thursday, 23 November 1978

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Bill before the House is the Qantas Airway Ltd (Loan Guarantee) Amendment Bill, which contains a minor amendment to correct a technical fault in the original Act which received assent on 16 May this year. Before dealing with the Bill I would like to make a couple of comments in passing. I am very pleased to see the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) here tonight. It is indeed pleasing to see him sitting in on a debate on a transport Bill. On behalf of the Opposition I extend a welcome to the Minister and trust that we might get some answers out of him tonight.

Mr Chapman:

– He is a first-class Minister.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-He is second or third class. He is not even in the first class. He does not even warrant a class.

Mr Chapman:

– He leaves you for dead.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– The honourable member for Kingston (Mr Chapman) bought into an issue some months back on the motor car industry. He moved a motion in this place and the egg is still hanging from his face. He should not ever forget his performance. He should put his head between his legs and get out of the road for ever more. We have just heard tonight from the honourable member for Kingston a performance on the great free enterprises of the Liberal Party. Yes, Qantas Airways Ltd is a socialised airline and I am very proud of the fact that it is. It is one of the best airlines in the world. The great free enterpriser from Kingston says that he wants to give the public servants the right to travel on any airline they choose. In the great free enterprise country of the United States of America public servants are not permitted to travel on any other airline when an American airline is available. It is not a question of whether it suits their travel arrangements. They fit in with the schedules of the United States airlines. That is the great free enterprise country, and that policy applies to travel by members of parliament. On any fare that has been financed by the American Administration, American airlines have to be used wherever they are available. People ‘s schedules are fitted to their times.

I think the demand made by the honourable member for Shortland that Ministers, members and public servants should all be required to use Qantas whenever and wherever it operates is a reasonable one. If no Qantas flight operates to a particular destination, then of course they cannot use it. As far as Qantas revenue is concerned, it should be treated as export income. That is the way we should look at it. If we do not look at it in that light, all the money that is paid for flights out of Australia goes into other countries. The servicing of the aircraft and the operation of the aircraft have to be financed in some way. It is fair and reasonable to expect Australian Government employees and Australian Government members and Ministers to use their own airline so that at least the money is kept in this country. The honourable member for Kingston would not have enough sense or enough brains to work that out and understand what it is all about. All he can see is this great free enterprise Government against a socialised airline.

Let us get back to the facts. What concerns me is the gutless conduct of this Government and the Minister over recent weeks in the negotiations with the American Government representatives on the entry into Australia of Continental Airlines Incorporated. We do not know the reasons the American Administration’s decision to grant approval to Continental. We do not know what dishonesty and corruption are associated with it, but the American Government has certainly taken a strong line. In the case of American Airlines, which was given permission to operate into Australia some years ago, there was obvious Government and party influence involved. We do not know the facts. The chief representative of the American team said the other day that unless the Austraiian Government approved the entry into Australia of Continental, Qantas would not be permitted into the United States. Why did not the Minister have the courage to say: ‘If that applies to Qantas, then neither will Pan Am be given permission to operate into Australia*? When someone comes here throwing his weight around, surely other people can apply the same measures to the American operator. I know that none of us would like to see a situation where no American airlines were operating the Pacific run into Australia or vice versa, but that negotiator came here throwing his weight around. I am sorry to say that this bombastic Minister copped what was coming to him.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! The honourable member for Newcastle might like to withdraw that term.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I do not see anything objectionable about it. It is most descriptive of the Minister.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I trunk it is a personal reflection. It is a word that I think the honourable member should withdraw.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-No, Mr Deputy Speaker, I disagree with you. There was nothing unparliamentary about what I said and I have no intention of withdrawing.

Mr Chapman:

– Name him.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Kingston could well attract the attention of the Chair if he persists with that behaviour. Did the Minister for Transport find the term offensive?

Mr Nixon:

– I found the term not one bit. offensive.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-In those circumstances, the honourable member for Newcastle is freed from the requirement to withdraw. Might I be assured by the honourable member that the remarks he is making have a relevance to the Bill, I presume on the score of the financial situation of Qantas.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-My word they do. I am concerned in view of the over-capacity that has been permitted on the Pacific route, whether Qantas will find it necessary to purchase these two aircraft. My remarks are related to the Bill, bearing in mind that the Government is asking this Parliament to be the guarantor for these loans. In my opinion and from the information available to me on what has been happening in recent weeks, the entry of Continental Airlines Inc. will create serious over-capacity on what Qantas calls the Southern Cross route. I will give honourable members some information on what Qantas has been saying about this route. In each of the airline’s financial reports and statements to this Parliament over recent years, there has been a continuing complaint drawing attention to the state of over-capacity on the route. We know that prior to 1972 the seat factor, the load factor, on the Australia-America route was between 34 per cent and 36 per cent. This means that two out of every three seats on aircraft were unoccupied. Aircraft cannot be operated profitably under those conditions. I draw the attention of honourable members to what is stated on page 8 of the 1973-74 annual report of Qantas Airways Ltd. It states:

The Southern Cross route between Australia and the US West Coast continues to be of concern. The service beyond San Francisco to New York and London was discontinued from 1 April 1973.

I interpolate that that was done at the direction of the Labor Government. The report continues:

However, the route is still unprofitable. Despite the decision by American Airlines to withdraw its services from March 1974, there is still too much capacity provided on the route.

Incidentally, that was also a decision of the Labor Government. It was stated in the 1973-74 annual report that there was a serious overcapacity on the route. I now turn to the 1 974-75 annual report of the airline which contains a similar statement. It states:

At the beginning of 1974-75, the company viewed the over-capacity situation on the Southern Cross route with some concern. Therefore, despite withdrawal of America Airlines flights between Australia and the United States from March 1974 and cessation of British Airways’ Pacific services early in 1975 . . .

Once again the result of pressure by the Labor Government-

Qantas did not increase its previous year’s frequency of four B747Bs and three B707s per week. This, coupled with the emergence of new traffic generated by the introduction of group inclusive tour fares on the Pacific, along with operating difficulties faced by competitors, enabled Qantas to improve its seat factor considerably to 53 per cent on Sydney/San Francisco services- a record on this route for the jet era.

I draw attention to one factor Even though the airline increased its seat factor to 53 per cent, a table on page 6 of the same report shows that the revenue seat factor for the whole of Qantas’ operations was approximately 62 per cent. The last report available to the Parliament is for the financial year 1976-77. I do not think that the 1977-78 report has been published yet. The 1976-77 report is the latest one available. I accept the acknowledgement of the Minister for Transport of that fact. It is stated on page 1 1 of that report:

From April 1976 all Qantas flights on the Southern Cross route to the U.S.A. were operated with B747B aircraft, with calls at Nadi in both directions. With the increased number of seats available for passengers travelling between Sydney and Nadi, the weekly B707 service from Sydney terminating at Nadi was withdrawn in April 1 976.

Once again this indicates an over-capacity on the Southern Cross route. For the Government, at this stage, to grant this American company another four flights a week to Australia obviously will create even more serious over-capacity on the route. It is for these reasons that I am concerned about the way in which the Government has been handling this situation and its effect on the financial affairs of Qantas. I draw the attention of honourable members to an article in today’s Australian Financial Review which is headed: ‘Airlines income up but not their profitability’. The article reported on an International Air Transport Association meeting in Geneva and stated:

International airline income improved marginally in 1977-78 but not at a sufficient rate to keep pace with costs despite the extra revenue generated from increased passenger numbers.

The trumpeted cheap air fares experiment exported by the US across the North Atlantic does not appear to have increased profitability . . .

The article goes on to state:

This is despite a rise in airline load factors, which for the first time in a decade are expected to climb to more than 60 percent.

On the other hand, break-even load factors- the number of passengers an airline must cany per flight to be profitable- are also climbing to record levels.

So the position is this: The Government and the Minister for Transport apparently have been successful and have put forward a proposition for a cheap fare across the Pacific for certain months of the year, which rises almost to the normal fare. It is quite a complicated arrangement. The Minister shakes his head, but I accept that that is so. Notwithstanding that fact, that proposition has not yet been negotiated. Unless that cheap fare generates a considerable amount of extra traffic, obviously the operators on the Southern Cross route must end up in financial trouble. At the present time obviously they are carrying a considerable number of empty seats on each flight. Four more flights a week would mean an additional number of empty seats.

In any case, I cannot understand why the Government is permitting Continental Airlines to come in with four extra flights a week and is leaving Pan Am with its nine nights a week, as against seven nights a week by Qantas Airways. What we will have is 13 American nights as against seven Australian nights a week. That is not an even-handed policy. I would like an explanation from the Minister why that situation should be tolerated. When the Australian Labor Party was in government we did not tolerate such a situation. We put pressure on the Americans to pull their airline out, the same as we put pressure on the British Overseas Aircraft Corporation, which is now British Airways, to pull its aircraft out of what is called the Southern Cross route. I would like some explanation from the Minister on the effect the Government’s proposition would have on the profitability and the financial affairs of Qantas and on the need to purchase these two additional aircraft.

In the few remaining moments available to me, I raise another matter which concerns discounting. It is a subject that has been under considerable public scrutiny for some time. What concerns me is the way in which some travel agents are jibbing the people by offering them a small proportion of what they are really getting in discounts. I commend the Minister for the fact that he put into operation the regulations which were drafted by the Labor Government. He had to pick them up and put them into operation, so we are in agreement -

Mr Nixon:

– I had to amend them.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-He had to amend them very, very slightly. We did the spadework. The Minister has had to cop some of the odium in bringing them into operation- a socialist, bureaucratic type of action which some of his people talk about- instead of the great free enterprise system and the exploitation of people to prevail. What concerns me about discounting is the fact that a number of airlines operating within Australia have been offering very substantial discounts of up to 30 per cent of the fare to some of the travel agents who give business to them. The travel agents have not been passing on to their customers the whole of that 30 per cent discount; they have been retaining a considerable amount of it. I hope that the Minister will take very positive action to expose these people and to make known the exact amount that the agents are actually ripping off. That is the only term that can be used. The customer or passenger- call him whatever you like- talks to an agent and the agent says that the economy fare to England is $940 but he can do it for $840, notwithstanding the fact that he has already made a deal with a foreign airline for a 30 per cent agent’s fee for all of the passengers to whom he sells tickets for that airline. The passenger gets $ 100 reduction and thinks that is a hell of a good bargain. But the odds are that the agent has also made an extra $100 out of it. These things are going on with discounting.

I would like to see the Government take some very positive and strong action to eliminate discounting because all it means is that the middle man is making huge profits out of being able to exploit one airline against another. If the Government wants to go into such matters as fares, it is at liberty to do so. These are the matters that I believe some people on the Government benches, public servants and the like have been exploiting in getting benefits and necessitated credit or advantage by giving their custom and their business to foreign airlines when the

Government should be doing what the Government of the United States of America does in requiring anyone who travels on an American Government ticket to travel with an American airline. If it is good enough for the Yanks to impose on their people, it should be a good point for the Australian Government to require the same sorts of conditions and the same sort of loyalty to its airline and its country.

Mr CHAPMAN:
Kingston

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr CHAPMAN:

– I do, Mr Deputy Speaker. Early in the remarks of the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) he claimed that I was left with egg on my face following my successful moving of a censure motion against the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) earlier this year for his outrageous statements that Chrysler Australia Ltd was going to the wall. I point out that ever since that successful motion was passed in this Parliament Chrysler has gone from strength to strength, proving its long term viability, such that the Sigma motor vehicle is now the largest selling four cylinder car in Australia.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Kingston had the indulgence of the Chair to explain how he had been misrepresented. He failed to do that and did not give the Chair the opinion that in fact he was engaged in a bona fide exercise.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr Nixon) read a third time.

SALES TAX ASSESSMENT (Nos 1 to 9) AMENDMENT BILLS 1978

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 16 November, on motion by Mr Howard:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-The Sales Tax Assessment (Nos 1 to 9) Amendment Bills 1978 that are now before the House close off five tax avoidance schemes which, by varying means, seek to reduce artificially the wholesale price on which sales tax is levied so as to reduce the amount of sales tax that is paid. The most spectacular of these schemes is the one which involves the selling of new motor vehicles for as little as $20 with the rest of the price being described as an option to purchase, thus enabling a reduction in sales tax from $500 or more to as little as $3.

Of course the Opposition supports these Bills. At this late hour of the night I do not wish to go into any great length in respect of what is involved in the legislation. One could have mentioned various relevant points but I will refrain from doing so because of the time at which we are debating this legislation. However, I would like to make the point, in supporting this legislation, that the Opposition has consistently supported the measures against tax avoidance which have been introduced by the Government this year. Indeed it has suggested various ways in which they could be improved. We supported that legislation because we clearly believed that the loss of legitimate government revenue should be prevented and that the continuation of tax avoidance schemes reduced the equity of the tax system.

In this connection I reject the claim by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) that this Government has done more to increase equity in the tax system than has any other government and that the Labor Government did nothing about it. That is the repeated refrain from the Treasurer. I must say that it is one which stretches the truth more than somewhat. The fact is that tax avoidance has become far worse under this Government than was the case previously and that this has necessitated the legislation which has been introduced.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– What absolute rubbish!

Mr WILLIS:

-The honourable member for Fadden would not know the first thing about it. The reality is that we have had an explosion of tax avoidance. At a time when the country has been moving into recession at a rate of knots the one growth industry to which we can all point is the tax avoidance industry. In those circumstances it is inevitable that, with an explosion of tax avoidance schemes and measures, therefore there is a need to introduce legislation to overcome those tax avoidance schemes. That has not been necessary in the past. I do not wish to belabour this point, but it is a fact that the Treasurer has sought to make great capital out of the fact that this Government, by blocking off tax avoidance schemes, has introduced greater equity into the taxation system. Having that tax avoidance legislation passed has been necessary simply to retain the existing level of equity in the system. The equity of a tax system is in no way enhanced if the only reason for that legislation is to close off tax avoidance schemes which had not been operating in the past. Indeed, that in general is the situation, and that is the situation in respect of this legislation. As I understand the situation and as I am advised by the Taxation Office-

Mr Ruddock:

– I don’t think you would give credit to your mother for yourself. You are very generous.

Mr WILLIS:

-The honourable member would not know the first thing about it. As I understand the position as explained by the Taxation Office, the sales tax avoidance schemes which are operating now are of relatively recent vintage. Indeed some are as recent as the past two or three months. In those circumstances, of course, the Government is acting to protect revenue, and rightly so. I support that action fully. Such action would not have been necessary a few years ago because these schemes were not in operation. That is the fact. Obviously we have to legislate now because the schemes are in operation. The practice of tax avoidance has moved from the income tax area, where the major emphasis has been, into the sales tax area. Because the Act had not been amended in respect of tax avoidance for some 30 years, there was clearly ample scope for the smart operators to find loopholes. That in fact is what has happened in the last year or so. Consequently action has been taken. That action is a product of the increased activity of tax avoiders. That is the reality of the situation and that is the way in which we must interpret the legislation which is being brought forward, not by a government which came into office with some great crusading zeal to smash the tax avoidance industry but rather by a government which has had to act in this way in order to protect revenue because of the greatly increased activity of the tax avoiders.

Mr BRADFIELD:
Barton

-I support the Sales Tax Assessment (Nos 1 to 9) Amendment Bills 1978 which legislate to abolish tax avoidance schemes in the area of sales tax. This legislation represents the continuation of this Government’s policy in cutting out tax avoidance schemes because the operation of such schemes has the effect of not levelling tax fairly and squarely on the shoulders of those people in the Australian community who certainly should pay their fare share of tax. I might add that tax avoidance schemes in the sales tax area, which these nine Bills legislate to abolish, have been in operation for many years. I disagree with the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) that the number of these sorts of schemes increased only during the term of this Government. I will come to that matter later. As I said, these amending Bills are designed to level fairly the liability of sales tax throughout the community. They are not designed or put forward in any way, shape or form to disadvantage the genuine business person. The nine Bills cover a complicated field. The reason why there are various Bills is that goods of Australian manufacture have to be dealt with separately, imported goods have to be dealt with separately and goods that are sold directly by a manufacturer or marketed through a wholesaler have to be dealt with separately. The legislation deals with goods manufactured with sales tax exempt materials supplied by a customer. A serious situation has been brought about by a few people throughout Australian industry purposely avoiding the payment of sales tax. I am pleased to see that the amendments in these Bills pick up this situation. Other amendments take account of sales tax avoidance on goods manufactured by a person which he applies to his own use. Another amendment relates to goods sold between associated companies or enterprises for amounts which are certainly not fair and reasonable amounts.

Most of all, and perhaps most importantly, the Bills also pick up a situation that has been in operation for some time in relation to option schemes. I regard it as a most serious situation. People are using it openly to flout the sales tax laws. I know that the Treasurer (Mr Howard) mentioned the other day in his second reading speech that there had been instances of people buying new cars for as little as $20, on which sales tax is payable, and there is an associated option in relation to the purchase of the car. The amending legislation also picks up the overuse of service charges in relation to the purchase of goods. Where a service charge is an exorbitant amount which greatly deflates the wholesale price of the goods for sales tax purposes.

As I have said, these Bills tend to make the tax laws more equitable. The honourable member for Gellibrand spoke about avoidance schemes coining onto the scene only in the last few years. I should like to mention that before I became a member of this place I had been associated with one industry for 25 years and it used to horrify me when I saw situations develop in which people created false arrangements just for the purpose of avoiding sales tax. I just wanted to throw that in because the honourable member for Gellibrand is of the opinion that this situation has developed only over recent years.

Although the hour is late, I would like to take the time to mention something which has become apparent with the introduction of this sales tax legislation. I mention this matter particularly because I know that the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), who was to speak after me in this debate but who is not now able to speak because of the lateness of the hour, is concerned about the people who live in isolated areas. I know that the honourable member for Dawson is concerned for the welfare of the people in his area. There is some provision in this legislation which is of interest to those people who live in isolated areas. I refer to the sales tax on the freight cost of goods. I think there is some confusion about that in Australia today, particularly in isolated areas. The people in those areas are disadvantaged because they are paying sales tax on the cost, insurance and freight- the cif price of goods landed in those isolated areas. If the wholesalers and retailers in these isolated areas choose to purchase their goods on a cif basis at the point of manufacture there is no need to pay sales tax on the freight component in delivery charges to those areas. I know that the honourable member for Dawson intended to take up this point in this debate. I am sure that he will be taking back to the people of his electorate the good news that this option is available to wholesalers and retailers in isolated areas.

I would like briefly to analyse some of the sales tax collections over the last 10 years because the honourable member for Gellibrand and the other Opposition members who speak on tax matters in particular tend to claim that this Government is a government that has levied excessively high taxes on people since coming to office. Of course it is wrong to say that in respect of the income tax area. It is interesting to note that it is also wrong to say that about the sales tax area. It is rather interesting to note that prior to the Whitlam Labor Government coming into power in 1972 increases in sales tax over previous years were of an orderly figure of about 10 per cent. It is interesting that in 1973-74 sales tax collections increased over the previous year by 26.7 per cent. In 1974-75 the increase in sales tax collections was just short of 20 per cent. In 1975-76 the increase in sales tax collections was 22 per cent. There was then a change of government. When we came to power sales tax collections in 1976-77 increased by 17.2 per cent. In 1977-78 they increased by a mere 6.5 per cent. It is estimated that in the current year, 1 978-79, the increase in sales tax collections over last year will be a mere 2.4 per cent.

I put these figures forward because if we calculate the component of the consumer price index we find that particularly over the past two years this Government has collected a lesser amount of sales tax revenue in comparison with the previous year. That throws out any argument that the Government is tending towards the indirect taxation field because it is a way of collecting tax that is not obvious to the people. The hour is late. I know that the Treasurer would like to comment on the Bills before they are passed. I fully support the Government in these Bills. I think they will do justice and fairness to the Australian taxpayers in the future.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time.

Third Readings

Leave granted for third readings to be moved forthwith.

Bills (on motion by Mr Howard) read a third time.

page 3240

EXPORT MARKET DEVELOPMENT GRANTS AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 15 November, on motion by Mr Anthony:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The Opposition does not oppose the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill but it proposes to move amendments in the Committee stage. We are well aware that the Government may consider those amendments, not necessarily in this House but in another place. We accept the undertaking given by the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony). I thank him for it. The hour is particularly late. It is nearly 1 a.m. The Bill itself is an important measure. One would have hoped that it could have been introduced earlier so that it could have been considered in more detail in the course of a normal parliamentary day. Today is an abnormal day. I will not waste a lot of time discussing a number of matters.

The tenor of the legislation is to give market development grants on a basis of 70 per cent of eligible expenditure. That replaces the present dual rates of 85 per cent and 60 per cent which relate to whether the market is a new one or otherwise. The Bill will be effective from 1 July 1978 and remain in force until June 1982. We note that the Bill is an amendment to the Labor Government’s legislation. There is an effort to remove some of the complexities associated with its administration. As I indicated, we propose to move amendments which we think will assist that administration. I make the point that problems are apparent in the administration area. These remarks are not aimed at the Minister but relate to the administration of any Act of this Parliament, to the Public Service Board and to staff ceilings in respect of which I understand there are problems. I think it is important to have adequate staffing in order to avoid the present problems.

I mention also the importance of trade and how we wish to encourage it. We are very mindful of the fact that the Government seems to be a little obsessed with access to the European Economic Community. I am reminded of a consulting firm called Agra Europe which is quoted in an article in the Australian Financial Review of 17 November as having said that the chance of getting a significant change in the agricultural policy of the Common Market is nil unless there is some drastic world development. The article continued:

The prospect for Australian farmers gaining access to EEC markets become even more dismal when the possibility of the entry of Portugal, Spain and Greece to the EEC is considered.

We say that the Government should be making thrusts into other markets. In a debate last week we emphasised that we would be anxious to see adopted a policy for an effective assessment of the international economy, a review of the operation of the traditional forms of trade promotion, assistance in traditional markets, incentives for export gains and export development to efficient industries by providing assistance in inverse proportion to the scale of other industry assistance, the establishment of machinery to facilitate trade with new markets and small markets, guaranteeing co-operation and not necessarily competition with private industry. Opportunities exist for new markets in the Middle East, Asia and Eastern Europe. All these matters have been mentioned before. We have been critical of the Government because we feel there are gaps in its policies.

It is clear that great potential exists in Australia when we look at Australian inventiveness and talent, particularly within the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Further development could take place in water technology, fuel technology and in basic research into solar energy. I think that these areas of research provide a great opportunity for Australia and a lot more could be done in respect of them. This applies also to the secondary processing of primary products, such as leather goods, and to wool technology. We can do so much more if we get behind our own talent and develop production here with the idea of having an export market. Unless we do so we will always have the problem we now have of increasing unemployment. The computer technology which is being introduced into the service industries will make severe inroads into areas of employment which it was thought would be safe from the effects of this technology.

It appears that manufacturing could be our strongest base, and we should approach the matter from that point of view. We are not trying to prop up inefficient industries, we are talking about the future of Australia. Machines such as work processing machines and what is called the electronic chip’ will create massive redundancy in clerical work and work which was deemed to have a secure future. Employment in banking and insurance and of shop assistants will be seriously affected. It is for that reason that we have to develop new ideas which need export incentives behind them. The Bill is in accordance with our policy in that regard.

Let me deal with the problems that we see in the Bill itself. Proposed new section 14 provides that a grant is not payable unless the amount of the export earnings in the grant year exceeds $25,000 or, if the whole of that amount consists of consideration for the disposal of eligible industrial property rights or eligible know-how, $10,000. Two amounts are mentioned-$ 10,000 and $25,000. A problem arises if a person falls between those two stools. A person might fall into the area of $10,000 plus but the Bill is drafted on the basis that the person has to have export earnings of one amount or the other. It is for that reason that we intend moving amendments. In other words, if he went into the position of $10,000 of industrial property plus $1 for a screwdriver over and above that he could lose the whole entitlement because it was not solely related to the $10,000.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-Is the honourable gentleman foreshadowing an amendment at the Committee stage?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I am. I thought that to save time I would do it now, unless there are any basic objections. I make the point that we will move an amendment there. The other matters go to the question of eligible expenditure which is referred to again in clause 10, the proposed section 14 (5). You can get into difficulty trying to interpret it. It seems to me that we can have all sorts of interpretations of what is deemed to be the expenditure there. There may be, we say, eligible expenditure in promoting tourism, but that eligible expenditure is not eligible in the term proposed, as it is not eligible expenditure in respect of grants which shall not be payable under the proposed section. There is no expenditure in relation to which the criteria of the section may apply that would indicate what income must be received. This relates to the tourist industry. There is either no grant payable or a grant that may be payable irrespective of section 14.

It is confusing, but the point I am trying to make is this: I trunk what the Government wants to say is that if one is in the tourist industry and one has spent money one ought at least to make more than what has been spent; otherwise you can get into the situation of this Bill where you are running at a loss and you are still going to get a subsidy- in other words, get it on your expenditure. The Opposition is saying that there ought to be some question of having a look at the income. I understand that it has been indicated that the Department feels it is a bit too hard to look at that situation. We think it can be done. We suggest that registration cards at hotels or motels could show the home addresses; car renters could show their licences; tours booked abroad could provide for remittances from abroad. It is better to have some rules, we say, that can be reasonably interpreted rather than no rules at all. For that reason we will move those amendments.

Another one is in respect of the small business that may be prejudiced. We make the comment that if the Government is setting a limit as it does after three years of $25,000, the report of the Board indicates that of 1,725 grant claims processed and paid in 1976 and 1977, 862 grants involved between $1 and $2,500; 354 involved grants between $2,500 and $5,000. So it can be seen that there is a large number of small businesses not getting a lot of money, but getting something very much less than $25,000. It would appear, if we applied it in this sense, that many of them would be excluded. In other words, the majority of the grants were below $5,000. In our view it may be that this figure of $25,000 could prejudice small businesses and that ought to be looked at in the light of what we are saying. We also point out that there is not definition of tourist services. The Bill simply provides that tourist services are what the regulations call tourist services. It would be better if the Government legislated in that regard.

Clause 17 amends the offence of breaking the requirements of section 39. The new section clearly involves a misreading of the original section in the sense that it would not be an offence to present the Board with information that was false or misleading unless it had been done with knowledge. What the Opposition is trying to suggest here is that a person is guilty if it is false. The question of mens rea or intent does not come into it. I think that is a bit savage. If it just happens to be wrong, you are guilty. I think we can do better than that. Under the new section 39 ( 1 ) (c) a person can be convicted for making a misleading statement or false statement and sent to prison for six months for something which he did nor know was misleading or false, or did not have any reason to believe was misleading or false. The Opposition opposes strict criminal liability such as that and accordingly the Opposition will move an amendment to require an element of intent; that is, that the person is deemed to have some knowledge of what he is doing. The final matter relates to section 13, sub-section 4. It has been brought to my attention by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins) who is in the House that there has obviously been a history of the Board’s asking people for more information about their claims, without telling them what sort of information it wants.

Whilst we recognise that there is an appeal provision we think that that is a bit stupid! The provisions we have in mind would state that if the Board wants more information it has to specify the information sought. We will leave these matters for consideration in the Committee stage. We will not press our amendments but we are very anxious that the Government considers them. We are well aware of the fact that the Board has the power to consider claims but it may not do so, and that seems to be a difficulty. There is no definite obligation in the Bill to try to get detailed consideration. In summary, the Opposition supports the Bill but feels that it could be much strengthened. It feels that the situation would be improved if the amendments it proposes to move are accepted by the Government.

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
Lilley

-I am aware of the great and growing interest and the excitement about matters we are debating at nearly one o’clock in the morning. That being the case, I will not take a long time to say what has to be said. Because this Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill is aimed to developing export markets it deals with that characteristic of economies which marks the successful economies of the world as distinct from those that are not successful. Immediately one thinks of successful economies one thinks of Japan and West Germany. What distinguishes Japan and West Germany from the rest of the world is their capacity to export and the capacity of their currencies to increase in value. The simple proposition is that they have positive balances of trade. This Bill is aimed at developing export markets in order that Australia can achieve a more satisfactory balance of payments or balance in its current account

I want to say a few words on what is known as the great and growing market of China. Perhaps I might give a few warnings to the House. The glittering prospects of the China market may not exist in the way we have been led to believe. The famous British house of Jardine, Matheson and Co. also had this prospect of a euphoric market in China after the treaty of Nanking. According to its information the Chinese did not eat correctly, they ate with chopsticks. The firm immediately exported knives and forks to China. It was also told that the Chinese did not dress properly so it exported suits and western clothes to China. It was told that the Chinese could have a sense of culture so it exported pianos to China. Those goods rusted and rotted in ports along the coast of China. That market, which was looked at nearly 140 years ago, never ever quite developed. Today, when we hear magnificent reports concerning the prospects of the Chinese market, I would hope that the Government would give exporters very precise advice and quite clear guidelines as to what might happen.

The Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony), who is at the table, returned recently from China and quite correctly said that there may be wonderful prospects for the export of Australian technology to China. This Bill would play a part, I would presume, in assisting the export of some technology to that nation. The Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) a little earlier spoke about the capacity for exports to China. Other leaders have spoken about it; the former Minister for Overseas Trade in 1973, Dr J. F. Cairns, spoke in the same vein. I bring a few matters before the House tonight so that the prospects in that country may be seen in a more precise light We ask: What hopes are there in the country, and what can be done to see that the hopes will be realised without excessive hurt?

One or two things need and have to be said. China’s possession of foreign exchange is quite small. In relation to her trade which is $ US 19,000m per year, her possession of foreign exchange is only in the order of $2,500m. Her possession of gold reserves overseas is in the order of $2,500m. So, immediately, her capacity to engage in normal multilateral trade is not great; it is relatively small. It is the reason why China desires to engage overwhelmingly in the barter trade. My information is that even at the present time 25 per cent of China’s trade is in terms of barter. As an example, this has been used by the Japanese in respect of the SinoJapanese Trade Treaty of very recent date. The Japanese have been able to bring that Treaty to the stage at which it is because they are willing to engage in barter trade. Chinese oil from Tai Clung- it is heavy; it is waxy- is another element in the export of Japanese technology and machine equipment. So, barter trade is important to China and will remain important in that country.

What does this mean for Australia? It means that Australia in her exports to China will have to look very carefully to see the way in which those exports will be consumated. Those exports will have to contend with the fact that China is short of foreign exchange. In many ways, of course, a controlled economy is better attuned to barter trade than it is to normal multilateral trade. I will give one example of what has occurred and then raise some matters with the Government with respect to Chinese trade.

Recently, a British firm- a famous toy manufacturer- indicated that it had made trade agreements with China. Here I am referring to Dunbee Combex Marks. Amongst other things it is a toy manufacturer. Previously that firm had made trade agreements with Russia in which it exported its technology. The goods were made in Russia, in return for which the firm then marketed the goods in the country of origin, Great Britain. The general Manager and Director was in Australia recently and indicated that his firm had made similar deals with respect to China. This matter raises very important matters for trade within this country and also for foreign policy.

The firm exported its second division toy technology to China; the toys and the goods are to be made in China, in return for which it retains the marketing rights in Great Britain and in a number of other European countries. What would happen were similar arrangements able to be made in respect of Australia? I will go through a few of them: The goods which are made in China and are then able to be exported are made basically with slave labour. That fact just has to be acknowledged.

The excellent article written by Professor Audrey Donnithorne in the issue of Quadrant on China- she is a woman with an impeccable reputation- pointed out, for example, that in the wage structure in that country there had been no adjustment in wages whatsoever from the late 1 950s to 1977. China’s official wage policy is that wages rise below the rate of productivity. No measure of inflation occurs and no adjustment for prices is made. I repeat: Wages rise just below the rate of productivity. Of course this policy includes quite significant incentives. Were such barter deals to exist between Australian exporting firms and China, the first question would be: What rights will exist for the exporting firm to market, similarly to what the Dunbee Corporation has done, those goods in this nation? We need to be very careful. Will it be acceptable that those goods may be marketed from second division technology but with slave labour? What happens with respect to the ASEAN countries? There is some worry that this technology can and will interrupt the nature of the ASEAN countries’ exports to Australia. This has been expressed quite explicitly in a very respectable journal. In the Asia Research Bulletin of October 1978 at page 493, the editor poses this very important point:

How competitive China is going to be with Singapore and other Southeast and East Asian exporters of light industrial goods remains to be seen. It looks ominous.

But it also means a great deal to Australia, because the export of such technology to China, with results similar to those that occurred in respect of the British corporation mentioned, would interrupt and overtake the development of trade between ASEAN countries and Australia. Therefore, I suggest to the House even at this late stage that various matters concerning trade between Australia and China need to be examined. Will barter arrangements be acceptable to this country? If so, will they be acceptable irrespective of the circumstances under which the goods will be manufactured in China with the technology that is expected to be exported from this country? The Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) has referred specifically to the fact that technology is likely to be exported. Will normal multilateral trade relations exist? China’s possession of foreign exchange is not sufficient to tie in with the rate of growth which she proposes under the five and ten-year plans which she has promulgated. Finally, and fourthly, were such things to be allowed to go on, irrespective of what is happening between the ASEAN nations and Australia, foreign policy relations would be concerned very precisely indeed.

Matters of trade are quite important. They cannot be ignored. Ultimately trade matters are what distinguish the successful countries of the world from those that are unsuccessful. I would hope that this matter of trade would be looked at by the Government very precisely indeed.

Mr DAWKINS:
Fremantle

There is a great presumption against speaking at all at this hour of the night. Certainly there is a severe presumption against speaking at very great length. Therefore, I intend to reiterate briefly some of the points that my deputy leader, the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) made in speaking to this Bill. A couple of the points that I want to make arise from circumstances experienced by a Western Australian who has been in touch with me in relation to certain difficulties that he has had with the board which administers the principal Act. I just want to relate a couple of them so that the Government might take on board an examination of the Act with a view perhaps to introducing further amendments which will clarify the situation. I think that, as certainly Ministers of this Government have been prepared to accept, the board is constrained to act within the limits provided for by the Act; yet in some circumstances it has clearly acted in a way which is quite inconsistent with any fair reading of the Act.

I refer specifically to section 1 3 of the principal Act and to the amendment which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has moved, in relation to sub-section (4) thereof. The point here is that whereas sub-section (4) appears to be quite clear in terms of requiring the Board to specify what further information it might want from an applicant before agreeing to a claim, the Board in fact has declined to specify what extra information it wants from the applicant on whose behalf I am speaking tonight. I refer to Paul Ritter who has been involved in a number of export oriented activities. When the Board has disputed the claim he has made and asked for extra information he has asked: ‘What extra information do you require?’ The Board has refused to specify what information it wanted.

It seems to me that sub-section (4) of section 13 of the principal Act makes it perfectly clear that the Board must specify what extra information it wants from an applicant. Yet in at least some circumstances the Board has declined to do so. Indeed, in one case, the Board having refused to specify in writing the extra information required, Mr Ritter has travelled to Canberra to discuss the matter with the Chairman of the Board who has orally indicated what extra information would be required. Mr Ritter has subsequently provided that extra information and then the Board has turned around and said that that extra information is still insufficient. That seems to me to be not good enough. The Board must be required to specify what extra information it wants from an applicant if it is going to deny a claim on the basis of inadequate information. It seems to me that the Board should not be allowed to use its power to require extra information to deny a grant to an otherwise eligible applicant.

I know that Mr Ritter has discussed this matter personally with the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) and that the Minister has acknowledged that there is a difficulty. I hope that the Minister will take on board a review of this sub-section with a view perhaps to considering the amendment which has been proposed by the Opposition which makes it clear beyond doubt that the Board must reasonably specify what extra information it wants from applicants before it denies a grant. In making these remarks I make it perfectly clear that I have no criticism of the recently appointed Chairman of the Board. He has shown me nothing but the greatest courtesy. I say in passing that it seems that some of the officials of the Board have been less than courteous at least to Mr Ritter and indeed to Mrs Ritter. I think the treatment to which the Ritters have been exposed is close to some measure of harassment. In one case one of the officials wrote to the Ritters and then the Chairman of the Board had to communicate with the Ritters to apologise for the fact that the official had communicated with them in terms which the Chairman of the Board thought were entirely inappropriate. The official in fact asserted that Mr Ritter had been guilty of certain illegalities in relation to the Board without Mr Ritter having any redress of those allegations whatsoever. I realise that it is important for the Board to have a fair amount of discretion in these matters, but I think that we have to be very clear that when an Act of Parliament prescribes the area of discretion of a board the board should be required to act within those prescribed limits.

I want to refer briefly to two other matters. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has referred to the problem which we see in relation to clause 10 sub-clause (3) of the Bill which seems to indicate that, in relation to the value of exports coming from the sale of industrial property rights or eligible know-how, if the amount is $10,000 someone would be eligible for consideration of a grant But the point is that the clause says now that the whole of those earnings must be from the sale of industrial property rights or eligible know-how. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition quite rightly pointed out, this puts a person who has extra export earnings from another source in a particular difficulty if the total export earnings lie between $10,000 and $25,000 and may make that person ineligible even though he has $10,000 worth of export earnings coming from the sale of industrial property rights or eligible know-how. I think that that is a major fault with this Bill and I hope that the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) will take on board a review of that part of the Bill.

There is just one other area to which I wish to refer. It is mentioned in clause 10 (3) of the Bill as well. At lines 18 and 19 the expression ‘eligible expenditure incurred’ appears. There has been some difficulty in getting an interpretation out of the Board as to what ‘expenditure incurred’ actually means. Bearing in mind that the Act which was introduced in 1974 replaced the words ‘payments actually made’ with the words expenditure incurred’ and that that change tended to free up the definition of ‘eligible expenditure’, we find now that the Board refuses to give a definition of ‘eligible expenditure’. There seems to be some doubt as to the legal commitment the Board requires before it will accept the expenditure as being eligible expenditure, that is, before the expenditure is actually made but has been legally incurred. The Board seems to be in some doubt about what degree of commitment is involved before it is prepared to accept the expenditure as eligible expenditure. I think that it is important that these points be clarified, mainly from the point of view of small exporters who, in terms of number, are the major beneficiaries of this legislation, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition pointed out. I think that it is much more difficult for a small exporter to benefit from this legislation if he is confronted with these vagaries and inconsistencies on the part of the Board. It is quite unfair for us to expect small exporters to incur expenditure in the expectation that that will be accepted by the Board as eligible for a grant when in fact later they discover that that expenditure is not going to be accepted by the Board. I think that it is important, particularly for small exporters, that the guidelines of the Board be crystal clear.

It is just possible that the same problem may arise in relation to another phrase in this clause. On lines 15 and 16 of clause 10 (3) at page 9 of the Bill the expression ‘received, or became entitled to receive’ appears. In regard to that expression we might find ourselves faced with the problem of how the Board will define an entitlement to receive.

Mr Martyr:

– Probably about 2 o ‘clock.

Mr DAWKINS:

– It is all very well for the honourable member for Swan to moan about the time of day but this happens to be a very important matter to a large number of exporters in this country. The honourable member may be prepared to be frivolous about this matter, regardless of the time, but I am not. The point is that this is a measure which is supposed to be designed for the advantage of small or large exporters. The point I am trying to make is that if the Board uses its discretion in such a way as to confuse exporters then it will make it less likely that small exporters will be able to take advantage of otherwise quite useful measures. I do not intend to delay the House or, indeed, the honourable member for Swan (Mr Martyr) any longer. The Opposition will not press its amendments but I understand that they will be moved. I hope that the Government will take on board a review of the Bill. I hope that it will bring forward early next year some amendments which will take account of the points which have been raised by the Opposition.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– I have amendments which relate to clauses 9, 10, 17 and 19. The clauses read in part:

Clause 9.

Section 13 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting after sub-section (2) the following sub-section: “(2a) A claim relating to a grant year shall be submitted within 5 months after the end of that year, or within such further time as the Board allows. “.

Clause 10.

Sections 14 to 18 (inclusive) of the Principal Act are repealed and the following sections are substituted: “14.(1) Grants are not payable to-

  1. a State or the Northern Territory; or
  2. an authority or association declared by the regulations to be a body to which grants are not payable. “(2) A grant is not payable to a person in respect of eligible expenditure incurred by that person at a time when that person was not a resident of Australia. “(3) Where a person, other than an approved body, received, or became entitled to receive, grants in respect of eligible expenditure incurred by him during any 3 or more grant years preceding a particular grant year, a grant is not payable to him in respect of eligible expenditure incurred by him during that grant year unless the amount of his export earnings in that grant year exceeds $25,000 or, if the whole of that amount consist of consideration for the disposal of eli- gible industrial property rights or eligible know-how, 10,000. “(5) A reference in sub-section (3) to eligible expenditure shall be read as not including a reference to eligible expenditure incurred in relation to the supply of eligible tourist services.

Clause 17.

Section 39 of the Principal Act is amended-

  1. by omitting sub-section (1) and substituting the following sub-section: “( 1 ) A person shall not-
  2. knowingly obtain or attempt to obtain a grant that is not payable;
  3. obtain or attempt to obtain a grant by means of a statement that he knows to be false or misleading or by means of a book, record or document which to his knowledge contains information that is false or misleading; or
  4. make to the Board, or to a person having duties or functions for the purposes of this Act, a statement that is false or misleading in a material particular.

Penalty: $10,000 or imprisonment for 2 years, or both.”; and

Clause 19.

After section 40 of the Principal Act the following sections are inserted: “40a. ( 1 ) In this this section- decision’ has the same meaning as in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975; decision of the Board’ means a decision of the Board under this Act in connection with a claim in relation to a grant entitlement in respect of the grant year that commenced on 1 July 1978 or of a succeeding grant year.

I seek leave to move five amendments together.

Leave granted.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I move:

  1. 1 ) Omit clause 9, substitute the following clause:

    1. Section 1 3 of the Principal Act is amended:
    1. by inserting after sub-section (2) the following subsection: (2a) A claim relating to a grant year shall be submitted within 5 months after the end of that year, or within such further time as the Board allows. ‘; and
    2. by adding at the end thereof the following subsection:
  2. In exercising its powers under sub-section (4), the Board shall specify the information it requires in such a manner as is reasonable to enable the claimant to comply with the request. ‘. ‘.
  3. In clause 10 in proposed section 14 (3) omit all words after ‘him’, third occurring, to the end of proposed subsection (3), substitute ‘during that grant year unless-

    1. the amount of all his export earnings in that grant year exceeds $25,000;
    2. in respect of export earnings consisting of consideration for the disposal of eligible industrial property rights or eligible knowhow, such earnings exceed $10,000; or
    3. in respect of earnings in relation to the supply of eligible tourist services, such earnings exceed eligible expenditure.’.
  4. In clause 10, omit sub-section (5) of proposed section 14, substitute the following sub-section:
  5. A reference in paragraph (c) of sub-section (3) to earnings from eligible tourist services is a reference to payments made by persons normally resident outside Australia, whether such payments are made inside or outside Australia.’.
  6. In clause 17, in proposed section 39 (1) (c), omit ‘is’, substitute ‘he knows to be, or should reasonably be expected to know to be’.
  7. In clause 19, in proposed section 40a ( 1 ), in the definition ‘decision of the Board’, after ‘year’ second appearing, add ‘and includes a refusal to consider a claim under subsection 13 (4) or 13 (5)’.

We adverted to these amendments earlier. The first amendment to section 13 of the principal Act provides that the Board shall be required to specify any information it requires. The second amendment to clause 10 inserts other words which would guarantee that there would be a clear definition of what was eligible expenditure-either $25,000 or $10,000. At the present time, the Bill is defective in that it provides $25,000 or if the whole of that amount consists of consideration for the disposal of eligible industrial property rights, or eligible know-how, $ 10,000. So the situation could be in some doubt if the amount were above $10,000. We also believe that the tourist industry’s earnings ought to be in excess of eligible expenditure. The third amendment clearly refers to earnings from eligible tourist services and refers to payment made by persons normally resident outside Australia, whether such payments are made inside or outside Australia. The fourth amendment refers to clause 17, that is, criminal intent. At the present time, if a statement is false a person is liable. We are trying to be more just by deleting the word, is’ and substituting ‘he knows to be, or should reasonably be expected to know to be’. The fifth amendment relates to clause 19 and we are suggesting that after ‘year’ the words ‘ and includes a refusal to consider a claim’, et cetera. At the present time there can be an appeal against the Board’s decision but it would appear that there can be no appeal against the refusal of the Board to hear a claim. We are suggesting that that should be included.

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Trade and Resources · Richmond · NCP/NP

– I would like to make a few comments in relation to the amendments moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It is very late so I will try to be as brief as possible. But what I have already said to the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) is that if some of these amendments were accepted tonight- I believe that some of them could be looked at and would be acceptable- it would mean reprinting the Bill. That would prevent us from being able to get it through the Senate by the time in which the Senate is expected to deal with it. It would be unfortunate if this Bill were not passed in both Houses so that it could become operative immediately. I think that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition recognises this problem and would not want to see the Bill held up.

This Bill was introduced into the House on 15 November, and since then honourable members have had the opportunity to study its provisions. The amendments that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has moved are ones to which he has given serious consideration. As regards proposed new section 14 (3), I agree that there could be a need to have this particular provision clarified. It is not the intention to exclude a claimant who had exports of eligible industrial property rights and know-how in excess of $10,000, but who also had other export earnings, the combined total of which did not exceed $25,000. The Government recognises that an anomaly could exist and I undertake to have the provisions scrutinised with a view to introducing a suitable amendment during the next session of Parliament if it is confirmed that the current wording is deficient.

The points raised in the other amendments are noted. However, I believe that the current provisions are adequate and will be interpreted by the Board in a reasonable manner. The amendment to section 13 of the principal Act concerns the case of the Board refusing to consider a claim if the claimant does not supply further information. This matter was raised by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins). The amendment is designed to meet cases where the Board does not state specifically what information it requires. The Board is required to consider every claim duly made, but may refuse to consider it if the claimant does not supply further information. On past experience, the Board has acted in a reasonable manner and has set out what information it requires. In cases of doubt, an officer of the Board visits the firm to sight the relevant information. Of course, now if there is any dispute in respect of any claim, steps may be taken under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal provisions. We believe that the amendment to clause 13 has been handled adequately but, just in case there are any problems in the future, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is now available to deal with them.

The amendment to clause 10 seeks to institute a performance test for the tourist industry. Currently it is not practicable to devise a performance test for this industry because of lack of records of overseas tourist payments to individual establishments. However, the Government has announced that there will be a review of this question before the end of 1980. The Bill therefore provides for a rninimum expenditure test as set out in section 7 which states that a claimant must incur at least $5,000 expenditure, excluding air fare, to be eligible for the grant. The amendment in relation to clause 17 is concerned with the legal point of whether a person knew that he was making a false or misleading statement to the Board. Clause 17 is a standard provision drafted on the advice of the Attorney-General’s Department. The Attorney-General’s advice would be needed in this case. We believe that clause 1 7 is in the appropriate legal form.

I hope that explains the situation to honourable members opposite. I know that their examination of this Bill has been directed to trying to make it work more satisfactorily. I recognise that fact. I am prepared to look at proposed new section 14(3) and, if it shows any anomalies, an amendment to it will be introduced next session.

Amendments negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Mr Anthony)- by leaveread a third time.

House adjourned at 1.31 a.m. (Thursday)

page 3248

NOTICE

The following notice was given:

Mr Ellicott to present a Bill for an Act to provide for the government of Norfolk Island.

page 3249

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Australia Post: Agency for Medibank and Other Government Activities (Question No. 333)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 2 March 1978:

  1. Has any consideration been given to suggestions from numerous quarters that the facilities of Australia Post be utilised as agencies for Medibank and other Government activities.
  2. Has any consideration been given to allowing Australia Post to be used as an agency for State Government activities such as car registration and licensing.
Mr Staley:
Minister for Post and Telecommunications · CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) Australia Post does provide various agency services for Commonwealth Government Departments and Authorities, including, for example, Telecom Australia, the Commonwealth Savings Bank Departments of Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs, the Australian Electoral Office and the Australian Taxation Office. Many of these agency services were provided by the former Postmaster-General’s Department and others have been introduced more recently.

Agency arrangements initiated by the then PostmasterGeneral’s Department on behalf of the Health Insurance Commission were taken over by Australia Post in July 1975. Since then, Australia Post has provided at selected post offices, certain agency services, on behalf of the Health Insurance Commission, including the issue of Medibank application forms and claim forms. In addition since 31 January 1978 Australia Post has provided expanded agency services on behalf of the Health Insurance Commission at seven Tasmanian post offices. This arrangement has involved the acceptance of subscriptions to Medibank Private and the payment of routine medical claims for both Medibank Standard and Medibank Private. The post offices concerned are at Smithton, Ulverstone, Deloraine, Scottsdale, New Norfolk, Glenorchy and Kingston.

  1. Under section 12 of the Postal Services Act, Australia Post is authorised to enter into agreements to act as an agent for Federal and State Government Departments and Authorities. Australia Post provides already many agency services on behalf of State Government Departments and Authorities, including, for example, acceptance of payments for power, water and sewerage, rates and rents, and the sale of duty stamps. Although car registration and licensing activities are not among services currently provided, they are under consideration as potential areas for future agency work.

Telephone Connections (Question No. 363)

Mr MacKenzie:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 2 March 1978:

  1. How many telephone subscribers are connected to manual telephone exchanges in Australia.
  2. When is it estimated that (a) 50 per cent and (b) 90 per cent of those subscribers will be connected to automatic exchanges.
  3. Why has the free installation limit for connection of new subscribers to manual exchanges been held at 8 km while the limit for connection to automatic exchanges is 16 km.
Mr Staley:
LP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) At 30 June 1978 the number of manual telephone services was 104,158.
  2. (a) By mid-1982; (b) By about 1987.
  3. I have asked the Australian Telecommunications Commission to provide a report on the implications of extending free line plant for subscribers to manual exchanges to 16 km and expect to receive that report very shortly. Once that paper has been studied I expect to be able to give further consideration to the issue raised by the honourable member.

Post Offices: Electoral Division of Sydney (Question No. 854)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 5 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many post offices are in the Electoral Division of Sydney.
  2. How many public telephones are in each post office.
  3. What renovations were carried out in each post office in the last 5 years and what was the cost of these renovations.
  4. Is the Government contemplating the painting and renovation of any of these post offices in 1 978.
Mr Staley:
LP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) There are thirty-seven post offices in the Electoral Division of Sydney, twenty-eight of which are official offices and nine are non-official offices.
  1. Details of renovations carried out in the five years up to 20 April1978 are as follows:
  1. Further painting and renovation work at the following post offices in the Sydney Electoral Division is planned by Australia Post during the remainder of1978:

Annandale

Balmain

Glebe

GPO, Sydney

Haymarket, City

Leichhardt

Newtown South

Pyrmont

Royal Exchange, City

Rozelle

Public Broadcasting Grants (Question No. 863)

Mr Jull:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 6 April 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What grants have been made, directly or indirectly by government departments and instrumentalities to individuals, groups, societies and associations in respect of public broadcasting, including the establishment and operation of public broadcasting stations, since 1 July1975.
  2. What is the estimated value of (a) overhead costs incurred and (b) salaries paid to academic, professional and technical staff employed in universities, tertiary institutions and colleges of advanced education in respect of public broadcasting during the1977 academic year.
Mr Staley:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)I regret that it is impossible to give a definite reply to this question. I am aware of grants made by the Australia Council and the Australian Film Commission, as set out below. However, other government instrumentalities sometimes make grants for specific purposes, e.g. a grant of $25,000 was made in 1977 by the Management Committee for the Disadvantaged Country Area Program in the Western Region to construct and equip a public radio station located at Bourke High School.

  1. Again it is impossible to give a definitive reply since no such figures are recorded in my Department. However, some 14 public broadcasters are associated directly or indirectly with tertiary institutions and the figure would be substantial. I understand that Macquarie University is currently conducting a survey for the New South Wales Education Department which is expected to provide information on this point

Payments to Aircraft Operators in the Northern Territory (Question No. 1296)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 26 May 1978:

What payments have been made by his Department to individual aircraft operators in the Northern Territory for the provision of postal services during each year since 1 962.

Mr Staley:
LP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

Payments made by the former Postmaster-General’s Department prior to 1975 and by Australia Post since then, to individual aircraft operators in the Northern Territory, for the carriage of mail during each year since 1962 are as follows:

Generally, payments made to Connair Pty Ltd for the carriage of mail in the Northern Territory are made to the Department of Transport, as the agreement made in 1962 between the Commonwealth of Australia and the former Connellan Airways Pty Ltd for the maintenance of services for the carriage of passengers, cargo and mail on specified routes, is administered by that Department.

The following sums were paid to the Department of Transport:

As listed above, special payments were made direct, however, to Connellan Airways Pty Ltd in 1967 and to Connair Pty Ltd in 1974 and 1977.

Payments made to Ansett Airlines of Australia and to Trans-Australian Airlines for carriage of mail within Australia are made on a national basis and no details, therefore, of individual payments made to these airlines for the carriage of mail in the Northern Territory since 1962 are available.

As from 1 July 1978, however, all payments are made direct to the individual airline operators and not through the Department of Transport. Details of direct payments since 30 June 1978 are not yet available.

Postal Services: Electoral Division of Kingston (Question No. 1482)

Mr Chapman:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 7 June 1978:

  1. 1 ) Which areas within the Electoral Division of Kingston lack postal deliveries and collections.
  2. What plans for a full postal service are being made for these areas.
Mr Staley:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) Areas within the Electoral Division of Kingston which do not have postal deliveries are as follows:

Aldinga

Aldinga Beach

Aldinga Beach South

Lonsdale

McLaren Flat

Maslins Beach

Moana South

Port Willunga

Sellicks Beach

SellicksHill

Willunga South

Areas within the Electoral Division of Kingston which do not have postal collections are as follows:

Lonsdale

SellicksHill

Willunga South

  1. Australia Post keeps under constant review any area which it considers could, as a result of further development, require mail delivery services and/or the installation of posting boxes.

Development in the Moana South area has reached the stage where the provision of a delivery service is justified. It is not practicable, however, for Australia Post to provide such a service at this stage, as many of the roads in the area are unmade and are not trafficable in all weather. A delivery service in the area would be provided if the standard of the roads were improved.

A survey is currently being conducted in the areas of Port Willunga, Aldinga Beach, Aldinga Beach South and Sellicks Beach to determine whether mail delivery services are justified. If the survey indicates that development of the areas has reached the stage where mail delivery services are justified, their introduction would depend on the condition of the roads in each area.

In the areas of Aldinga, McLaren Flat and Maslins Beach, mail delivery services could not be justified at this stage, nor could mail delivery services and posting box facilities in the areas of Sellicks Hill and Willunga South be justified at this stage, as there are insufficient householders in each area to justify the provision of such services. In addition, the provision of a mail delivery service and posting box facilities in the Lonsdale area could not be justified as the existing development is very scattered.

For those areas where mail delivery services and posting box facilities are not justified at this stage, mail is available, however, through counter service facilities and/or private boxes at post offices in more closely settled areas of the surrounding districts, and, in some cases, through roadside mail boxes. Also, mail may be posted at the post offices and in any of the eighty-eight street posting boxes which are located throughout the Electorate.

Telephone Concessions: Country Organisations (Question No. 1504)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 8 June 1978:

  1. Has he had any further discussions with Telecom regarding concessions being made available to organisations such as the country fire services in South Australia and equivalent organisations in other States, by way of reduced telephone and landline rentals.
  2. If so, what have been the results of those discussions.
  3. Has consideration been given to the fire protection service these organisations provide to Commonwealth property, especially telephone lines, landlines, microwave links, rural automatic exchanges and other facilities operated by Telecom in rural areas.
Mr Staley:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. to (3) I draw the honourable member’s attention to the statement made by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations on behalf of the Minister for Administrative Services, entitled ‘Commonwealth Property: Payments to Fire Brigades’. (Hansard of 22 March 1 977, page 4 1 5 ).

In that statement the Minister explained that payments are being made to the States to replace the telephone concessions previously provided to fire brigades as a contribution towards the cost of fire protection services for Commonwealth property. From 1976-77 payments are being based on a fixed percentage of each State ‘s operating expenditure on fire brigade services. This percentage is based on the ratio of total Commonwealth payments and telephone concessions for 1975-76 to total fire brigade operating expenditure that year, and is calculated separately for each State. The amounts paid are adjusted at the end of each financial year when actual expenditure is known. The States are responsible for allocating appropriate amounts to their fire brigades. The scheme is believed by the Government to be an equitable one.

Custody of Royal Commission on Espionage Documents (Question No. 1582)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 15 August 1978:

  1. Who now holds custody of the Petrov documents which were withheld from publication by the Petrov Royal Commission.
  2. Have any of such documents been copied; if so, by whom, and where are these now located.
  3. When will other members of Parliament be given an opportunity of reading these documents.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
  2. The papers of the Royal Commission on Espionage have been under the continual control of the Government of the day. Under this control, some documents have been copied to those for whom a need-to-know was established and in respect of whom access to the copies was authorised by the Government of the day.
  3. Questions of release of documents are matters for the Government of the day. Records are normally available for public access after a period of thirty years.

Foreign Languages in Schools (Question No. 1764)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 17 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many primary and secondary schools, both state and private, in each of the 6 states teach the following languages: (a) French; (b) German; (c) Italian; (d) modern Greek; (e) Serbo-Croatian; (0 Chinese; (g) Japanese; (h) Indonesian/Malay and (i) Arabic
  2. 2 ) How many of these schools teach 3, 4 or 5 languages.
  3. What endeavours are being made by the Department of Education to promote the learning of languages in schools throughout Australia.
Mr Staley:
LP

-The Minister for Education has provided the following reply to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Data on the teaching of modern languages in Australian schools was obtained in a survey conducted by my Department in 1973. More recent comprehensive information is not available. It should be noted that, while all secondary schools were approached, responses were obtained from 74 per cent of them. Therefore the figures for secondary schools are a lower limit. Primary schools known to have a high proportion of students from a non-English-speaking background, and/or known to offer modern language courses, were fully enumerated; a one-in-ten sample was taken of the remaining primary schools throughout Australia. Of those primary schools approached, 88 per cent responded. Therefore, the figures for primary schools are more likely to be underestimated than overestimated, but sampling error could conceivably lead to overestimation.

Data from the survey has been published in ‘The Teaching of Modern Languages in Australian Schools, 1975 - Department of Education, Research Branch Report 3’ (AGPS, Canberra, 1977). Data was reported in total for each State, and in total for Australia for government schools, for Catholic schools and for other non-government schools. The figures have not been distributed between the three school types within individual States, and it is not proposed to undertake any further analysis of the data at this stage.

The information available from the survey is shown in Tables land 2.

  1. In addition to the research survey quoted above, my Department has been involved in two important initiatives in recent years related to the teaching of languages in Australian schools. The Asian Studies Co-ordinating Committee, set up in 1972 with the purpose of actively promoting the teaching of Asian languages and cultures in schools completed its program of activities in 1978. The work of the Committee gave a considerable boost to the interest shown in Australian schools in Asian languages and related studies.

The Committee on the Teaching of Migrant Languages in Schools, the report of which I tabled in the Senate on 8 December 1976, put forward a number of recommendations concerning the importance of making available greater opportunities for school pupils to study ethnic languages and cultures. The work of the Committee, with members drawn from my Department and State and non-government education authorities, has helped to focus attention on the need to extend the range of studies available.

My Department and the Schools Commission are actively involved in the program of follow up activities resulting from the Government’s acceptance of the Galbally Report of the Review of Post-Arrival Services for Migrants. In accepting the Galbally Report, the Government agreed to a number of recommendations relating to multicultural education programs, including proposals for the teaching of community languages and cultures. On 9 June 1978, in my statement to the Senate on Guidelines for the Education Commissions, I said that the Government would provide in 1979, within the total allocation,$0.5m which will be concentrated mainly on stimulating the teaching of community languages. These funds will be used in both government and nongovernment schools and represent part of the first year of the program of the Galbally Committee.

In the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory my Department actively promotes the learning of second languages. All secondary colleges in the Australian Capital Territory offer a variety of languages and all secondary high schools now offer at least two modern foreign languages.

In the Northern Territory five of the schools providing secondary level courses now offer at least one foreign language. Four teach two or more languages. My Department is also involved in the teaching of Aboriginal languages in the Territory through the bilingual program which is operating in nineteen primary schools.

Jabiluka Project (Question No.1816)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 23 August 1 978:

What progress has been made in the negotiation of an agreement between the Northern Land Council and Pancontinental Mining Ltd concerning the Jabiluka, NT project and the proposed Arnhem Highway extension.

Mr Viner:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

The Prime Minister stated on 9 February this year that the Government will not permit the granting of mining interests over land claimed by Aboriginals in stage two of the Kakadu National Park- and this includes the Jabiluka project areauntil the land claims have been determined.

The Prime Minister has reiterated to the Northern Land Council that the Government has not made a decision to allow Pancontinental to mine and the Government will not be making a decision until the required processes of the law regarding the environment and Aboriginal land claims have been completed.

It is therefore premature at this time to speak of an agreement between the Northern Land Council and the company in respect of the Jabiluka project.

The Government has advised the Northern Land Council that no construction on the Arnhem Highway beyond the existing bitumen will take place, except with the agreement of the Northern Land Council, before a final decision is made by the Government on whether or not the Jabiluka deposit can be mined.

In the event that the Jabiluka area becomes Aboriginal land, the Northern Land Council will negotiate with Pancontinental Mining Ltd pursuant to its powers and duties under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act.

Parliamentary Question No. 1612 (Question No. 2013)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 14 September 1978:

When may I expect an answer to question No. 1612.

Mr Street:
Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by me to bis Question on Notice No. 1612. (See Hansard, 9 November 1978, page 2682).

Parliamentary Question No. 1660 (Question No. 2056)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 18 September 1978:

When may I expect an answer to question No. 1660.

Mr Nixon:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

The answer to question No. 1660 was published in the Hansard of 17 October 1978 on page 1978.

Department of Transport Computers (Question No. 2210)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 27 September 1 978:

  1. How many computers are (a) owned, (b) operated, (c) in the process of being purchased or (d) rented by bis Department and statutory authorities and business undertaking under his control.
  2. What is the cost of purchase or rental of each computer.
  3. 3 ) For what purposes is each computer used.
  4. What is the nature of the data stored by each computer.
  5. What interconnections exist or will exist between any of these computers.
  6. Who has access to each computer.
  7. What savings in staff numbers have been achieved or are anticipated as a result of the installation or operation of each computer.
Mr Nixon:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

Department of Transport

Part(l)

Computers-

  1. owned- 5
  2. operated (loaned)- 2
  3. being purchased- 2
  4. rented-Nil

Part (2)

Owned- lxGE225: $212,000 lxICL 4/70: $1,883,000 lxNCR8200: $80,000 1 x DEC PDP1 1 /45: $ 1 15,000 lxDECPDP11/10: $34,000

Loaned- 1 X NCR8200: No charge-Public Service Board 1 X DEC PDPII/04: No charge-Department of Defence

Being purchased-

Configuration’A’: $100,000 (estimated)

Configuration ‘B ‘: $60,000 (estimated )

Part (3)

GE22S and ICL 4/70: General Data Processing NCR8200: 1 x Key to Disc Data Entry System NCR8200 (loaned): 1 x Interfacing Visual Display Units to ICL 4/70

PDP 1 1 /45: Air Safety Data Analysis

PDP 11/04: Monitoring Shipping Movements in Australian Waters

PDP11/10: Interfacing Visual Display Units with CSIRONET computing network

Configuration ‘A’: Facilitate issue of compliance plate approvals

Configuration ‘B’: Transport Industry Research by the Bureau of Transport Economics

Part (4)

GE225: Departmental Cost Accounting data, flight crew medical examination data

ICL 4/70: examples would be- airline industry address records and publications entitlements, airline movements statistical data, aircraft registration records, personnel records.

NCR8200 (Data Entry): transient data storage

NCR8200 (interfacing): No data stored

PDP 11/45: data concerning aircraft accidents and incidents and data extracted from aircraft flight data recorders

PDP 1 1 /04: reporting data on vessel movements

PDPU/10: transient data storage

Configuration ‘A’: data related to submissions seeking compliance plate approvals for motor vehicles in accordance with Australian Design Rules

Configuration ‘B’: statistical, modelling and forecasting data

Part (5)

Apart from the NCR8200 computer used for interfacing visual display units with the ICL 4/70 computer, no interconnections exist or are planned to exist. However, data can be readily transferred between computers via magnetic media.

Part (6)

All computers: authorised personnel within the Department for official purposes, e.g. operating, maintenance and production staffs, User authorised personnel for certain production systems (via remote terminal), data prepartion staff and for dedicated computers, User Branch authorised personnel.

GE225 and ICL 4/70: in addition to the above, the Public Service Board (Mandata) and the Prices Justification Tribunal have access for processing of their systems; the Public Service Board on a total configuration basis, and the Prices Justification Tribunal via terminals on a time sharing basis.

Part (7)

It is over15 years since computer techniques were first introduced into the department.

Many tasks which are now carried out by computers may have not been attempted or performed in a much modified form by other methods. There has also been considerable growth and changes in functions and activities since the introduction of computers.

Any assessment of staff savings must therefore be based on an estimate of the additional staff which would be required to carry out the work now done by computers.

This is estimated to be of the order of170 net after taking account of staff employment in the operation of computers and preparation of data.

In addition some 30 staff are presently employed in the development of new or improved computer systems.

No staff have been retrenched as a result of the introduction of computers.

Qantas Airways Limited

Part(l)

Computers-

  1. owned- 8
  2. operated (leased)- 17
  3. being purchased- 2
  4. rented- 2

For the purposes of this question, we have defined ‘computer’ as a system consisting of a processor or processors and its associated peripherals which is not part of some other item of equipment.

Part (2)

  1. General Data Processing System (GDP)-2 x Amdahl 470 V/5 Computers and associated peripherals

Leased: $11 1,576 p.m.

Rented: $7,354 p.m.

  1. Reservations and Departure Control System
  2. Current- 2 x IBM 360/65 Computers and associated peripherals

Owned: $186,560

Leased: $27,592 p.m.

  1. Replacement for the Current System- 2 x IBM 3032 Computers and associated peripherals

Leased: $6,455 p.m.

Being purchased: $6,262,526

Rented: $2,269 p.m.

  1. Message Switching/Data Interchange System
  2. Current-2 x Honeywell H632; 2 x Honeywell H5 16; 5 x Honeywell H316; 2 x Honeywell H716 Computers and associated peripherals

Owned: $200,204

Leased: $20,610 p.m.

  1. Replacement for the Current System- 6 x Interdata 8/32 Computer with associated peripherals

Leased: $20, 114 p.m.

Being Purchased: $96,000

  1. Qantas Interim Terminal System (QITS)-2 x IBM 360/40 Computer and associated peripherals

Owned: $212,000

Leased: $8,809 p.m.

  1. London and San Francisco Accounting System- 2 x IBM System 32 Computers and associated peripherals

Rented: $2,603 p.m. (0 Unit Record Processor-1 x IBM 360/20 Computer and associated peripherals

Owned: $4,600

  1. Cargo System- 1 x Singer 10

Owned: $62,000

Part (3)

  1. General Data Processing System- Engineering, Inven tory, Finance, Payroll, Personnel, Marketing, Planning, Flight Operations and Operations Control Systems.
  2. Reservations and Departure Control SystemPassenger Reservations and Departure Control.
  3. Message Switching/Data Interchange SystemCommunications Data and Teletype for QITS, GDP and Reservations.
  4. Qantas Interim Terminal System- Flight Planning, Production Control Survey Sheets and Purchase Order Work in Progress Systems.
  5. London and San Francisco Accounting Systems-

London System 32- Agents Remittances, Accounts

Payable and Receivable.

San Francisco System 32- Qantas Holidays Vouchers, Accounts Payable and Receivable.

  1. Cargo System- Cargo Inventory System. Part (4)
  2. General Data Processing System- Personnel and pay data, accounting data, inventory data, component overhaul and modification data, workshop costing data.
  3. Reservations and Departure Control SystemPassenger itinerary data and flight schedules etc.
  4. Message Switching/Data Interchange SystemEssentially this system operates as a ‘post office’ and does not store data apart from control tables.
  5. Qantas Interim Terminal System- Basic flight planning data (e.g. weather information, distances et cetera).
  6. London and San Francisco Accounting Systems-

London System 32- Local Accounting data

San Francisco System 32- Local Accounting data

  1. Cargo System- Cargo inventory data.

Part(5)

Apart from the mini computers (London, San Francisco and Cargo) all the computers are physically inter-connected but not logically (i.e. users of GDP systems cannot directly access the Reservations system).

Part (6)

Direct access to the computers is limited to Data Processing Operation staff with very strict security measures prevailing. Terminal access for each system is possible for authorised users, e.g. ticket sales officers and travel agents can access Reservations data through remote terminals.

Part (7)

The progressive implementation of computer systems within Qantas over the past two decades has enabled staff numbers to be contained during a period of substantial growth within the airline. No staff have been displaced as a result of computerisation, however it is estimated that to effect the tasks now undertaken on the computer an additional 1,500 staff would be required. Present plans anticipate that this figure will reach 2,000 by 1982. This avoidance of staff growth to handle routine clerical functions has been one factor enabling Qantas to keep fares at their present and planned low level.

Australian National Airlines Commission (Trading as Trans Australia Airlines)

Part(l)

Computers-

  1. owned: 8 (b) operated: 10
  2. being purchased: 3
  3. leased: 2

Part(2)

Owned- 2xUnivac494: $3,414,000 lxWordplex7: $98,000 3 xDFCPDP11: $220,000 2 x Collins Telephone Queueing Systems: $750,000

Being purchased- 1 x Univac1100/82:$5,407,000 ( 1978) Plus mass storage lease costs: $298,000 p.a. 1 x Collins C8562: $ 1 , 820,000 ( 1 978 ) 1 x Sigma Data5500 Datapoint: $70,000

Leased- 1 x Univac 494:$452,000 p.a. (1977) 1 x Univac 1 100/ 1 1: $279,000 p.a.

Part (3) 2 x Univac 494- Operation of the real-time Reservation and Operational systems. 1 x Univac 494- Processing Commercial Batch Systems e.g. Payroll, Traffic Statistics, Debtors, Aircraft Maintenance Records. Back-up for two Univac 494 computers listed above.

DEC PDP1 1 ‘s- Flight Information Display Systems

Collins Telephone Queueing Systems- Reservation calls

Queueing Sigma Data 5500 Datapoint- Seat allocation

Univac 1100/11- Interim computer utilised for conversion of commercial systems to 1 100 series.

Wordplex 7- Word processing.

Univac 1 100/82- Replacement computer for Univac 494 ‘s which are due to reach end of life in 1 980.

Collins C8562- Control transmission of data on TAA’s teletype, telex and VDU data network.

Part (4) 2 x Univac 494 ‘s- Flight Schedules, inventories and passenger and operational data. 1 x Univac 494- Flight schedules, inventories and passenger and operational data plus commercial, financial and statistical data.

Univac 1100/11- Commercial, financial and statistical data.

Univac 1 100/82- Flight schedules, inventories and passenger and operational data plus commercial, financial and statistical data.

Collins C8562- Teletype, telex messages.

Word Processing- Letters, forms and precedents.

DEC PDP 1 1 -Local airport flight information.

Collins Telephone Queueing Systems- Telephone call statistics.

Sigma Data 5500 Datapoint- Aircraft seating layouts, passengers manifests.

Part(5)

The Collins C8562 will operate as a Front-End Communications Controller for the Univac 494 and the Univac 1 100/82. Transmission of data originating from, or directed to, the network from the main computer will be controlled by theC8562.

The Wordplex 7 will eventually be linked to the Univac 494/ 1 100 ‘s via a 9 track magnetic tape drive.

The D.E.C. PDP1 1 ‘s are connected to the 494 computers.

Part (6)

Access is restricted to authorised TAA computer centre staff requiring such access to perform their duties. Additionally reservations and operational staff access flight and booking data in the normal course of their duties. Access in other areas is restricted to TAA personnel who require the data in fulfilling their normal duties.

Part (7)

No staff have been retrenched because of the introduction of computers but staff numbers in certain areas have not increased as rapidly as would have been the case if there had been no computer assistance. The major areas affected have been reservations, supply, finance, communications, statistical, operational and secretarial areas.

It is estimated that a further 620 staff would have been needed if computers had not been introduced. In certain areas however, particularly reservations and supply, additional staff alone would not allow a satisfactory standard of customer service to be achieved. The handling of reservations for over four and three quarter million passengers per year is beyond manual methods, especially having regard to the speed and quality of service which the travelling public now takes for granted.

Australian National Railways Commission

Part(l)

Computers-

  1. owned: 1
  2. operated: Nil
  3. being purchased: Nil
  4. leased: Nil

Part (2)

Owned- 1 x Burroughs 3500: $696,000

Being purchased- 1 x Communications Oriented Processors (expansion of existing system): $312,000

Part 3

Burroughs 3500- Accounting for costs, stores, payroll, accounts receivable, accounts payable.

Part (4)

Burroughs 3500- Data in connection with (3) above. Part(5)

The Communications Oriented Processors being purchased will be connected to the Burroughs 3500 by communications lines.

Part (6)

Access is restricted to staff of Australian National Railways.

Part (7)

Managerial controls and records have improved and additional systems workloads have been achieved without additional staff.

Australian Shipping Commission (Trading as The Australian National Line)

Part(l)

Computers-

  1. owned: Nil
  2. operated: Nil
  3. being purchased: Nil
  4. leased: 3

Part (2)

Leased- 1 x FACOM 38 Series 3: $242,952 p.a. 1 x FACOM 38 Series 2: $89,640 p.a. lx ICL 2903: $70,440 p.a.

Part (3)

General purpose data processing, e.g. Corporate and General Accounting, Cargo Control, Commercial Documentation, Equipment Control, Preparation of Payrolls.

Part(4)

Finance, Operational and Commercial.

Part(5)

None.

Part (6)

Employees of The Australian National Line and authorised shipping agents of the line.

Part (7)

Computer applications, in the main, are directed to better utilisation of capital equipment although significant savings in staff growth have been achieved.

Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs: Position of Assistant Director (Question No. 2550)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs:

  1. 1 ) Is the position of Assistant Director, Class 7, in the Adelaide Office of his Department advertised only in the Commonwealth Gazette.
  2. If so, why is such an important and sensitive position not more widely advertised.
  3. What are the qualifications of the members of the selection panel, and what are their linguistic qualifications.
  4. If linguistic qualifications are not held by the panel, why not.
  5. 5 ) What are the intended selection criteria.
  6. Does the appointee have to be (a) bilingual, (b) bicultural, (c) of migrant ethnic origin or (d) actively involved with ethnic communities.
  7. Will the person appointed merely administer existing services or will he assume functions currently performed by personnel within the Department.
  8. Will the Ethnic Liaison Officers be of equal status with this appointment
Mr MacKellar:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. The position was only advertised in the Commonwealth Gazette. Should that not produce candidates of sufficient quality wider re-advertisement can be considered.
  2. The position is in charge of the Migrant Services Branch and calls for wide administrative experience and the stipulated tertiary education, which can be attracted from within the Australian Public Service.
  3. The selection panel is comprised of two Branch Heads from the Adelaide office with extensive departmental experience.
  4. Given the range of migrant languages spoken in Australia possession of a linguistic qualification by the selection panel is not seen as essential. The linguistic qualifications of the applicants would be fairly established, if necessary, by reference to appropriate language testing bodies.
  5. 5 ) The selection criteria for the position are:

    1. wide administrative experience particularly in migrant settlement matters and operating procedures of the department in general.
    2. tertiary education in social administration with social work background desirable.
    3. experience in transcultural setting.
    4. ability to establish and maintain good relations with employers, government departments, community agencies, national groups etc.
    5. ability to analyse trends and to prepare analytical, logical and concise reports.
  6. The appointee needs to be a sound administrator and possess the appropriate social welfare background. However involvement in and/or knowledge of ethnic cultures and communities and foreign language skills will be factors taken into consideration.
  7. The appointee will administer a growing program of services, many of which already exist.
  8. There are currently no positions of Ethnic Liaison officers in the Department ‘s office in South Australia.

The honourable member’s interest is appreciated and I take this opportunity to advise that since the advertisement of this proposed position on 31 August the classification of the position is being reviewed. If a change in the position occurs I have asked that the Department advertise the position both within and without the service.

Yeppoon Resort Project (Question No. 2551)

Mr Humphreys:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 18 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to estimates compiled by the Queensland Conservation Council that (a) a by-pass road planned to provide access to the proposed resort at Yeppoon, Queensland, would cost approximately $1.5m and (b) an international airport to service the Yeppoon complex would cost approximately $250m.
  2. ) Has his Department compiled estimates on the cost of providing these services to the Yeppoon development.
  3. If so, what are the estimates.
  4. What is the Commonwealth Government’s involvement, either directly or through special assistance to the Queensland Government, in meeting expenses for the provision of these and other ancillary services to the IwasakiSangyo project at Yeppoon.
  5. What approaches have been made to the Government regarding the establishment of an airport to service the Yeppoon development
  6. How would the establishment of such an airport affect the development of, and Commonwealth Government assistance to, the Brisbane Airport.
Mr Nixon:
LP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. Yes.
  2. No.
  3. No.
  4. None.
  5. 5 ) While lam generally aware of Mr Iwasaki ‘s proposed developments at Yeppoon, no definite proposal in regard to provision of international aviation facilities in the area has been made to me or to my Department
  6. The effect on traffic in and out of Brisbane airport cannot be estimated until concrete proposals are received from the developers. Whether or not such proposals are made, there is no prospect of the Government delaying work on Brisbane airport in favour of the Iwasaki project.

Child Care Facilities (Question No. 2620)

Mr Shack:
TANGNEY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 25 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) What is the total number of child-care facilities within Australia for which the Department of Social Security has financial responsibility.
  2. ) What is the cost to the Department of these facilities.
  3. 3 ) How many children are catered for by these facilities.
  4. How many children (a) come from single parent families and (b) are from 2 parent families where both husband and wife work.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) Approximately 800 facilities are regarded as being of a child care nature. There is some uncertainty about the precise number because up to date information on projects funded via the States is not available.

The figure includes facilities which are soon to become operational as well as operational ones and also includes full day care services, services for handicapped children, other special need groups and families at risk, but excludes preschools and the large number of holiday projects.

The Department of Social Security makes a contribution towards the cost of these facilities but does not have full financial responsibility for them.

  1. $25. 136m was spent in 1977-78 and an estimated $32.3m will be spent in 1978-79.
  2. and (4) There are no accurate figures to indicate the number of children catered for by these facilities or the number falling into the categories requested. However, a statistical collection is to be introduced in early 1979 and information of the kind requested by the honourable member will then be more readily available.

Parafield Airport: Landing Procedures (Question No. 2639)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 25 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has his Department claimed that the new control procedures introduced at Parafield Airport, SA, on 1 1 August 1978 involving the simultaneous use of left and right hand circuits, will achieve a better rate of utilisation with an improved margin of safety. If so, what it the basis for the claims.
  2. Is it a fact that these procedures will intentionally place aircraft approaching for landing in a conflicting traffic pattern giving rise to an increased risk of mid-air collision.
Mr Nixon:
LP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. Yes. The basis for the claims is the observation by a combined Departmental/Aviation industry study group of the application, in the USA and Canada, of similar procedures at general aviation airports processing large numbers of aircraft.
  2. Overseas experience has proved that air traffic can be processed safely and efficiently by the use of contra-circuits and parallel runways at general aviation airports. A positive air traffic control service, coupled with pilot co-operation and circuit discipline, ensures that safety is maintained. Australian flying organisations have strongly endorsed the new procedures and have requested their introduction at other capital city general aviation airports.

Aviation Accidents (Question No. 2640)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 25 October 1978:

  1. How many accidents involving general aviation aircraft occurred in Australia during (a) each of the last 7 years and (b) the period 1 January 1978 to date.
  2. Of the accidents investigated, how many have been attributed to (a) pilot error, (b) physical causes, (c) technical defects, (d) servicing faults, (e) inaccurate weather forecasting and (0 unknown causes.
  3. 3 ) How many accidents were fatal.
  4. Of the pilots involved, how many held (a) a private pilot’s licence, (b) a commercial pilot’s licence, and (c) a senior commercial pilot’s licence.
  5. 5 ) How many of the pilots involved held a current instrument rating.
  6. In how many of the accidents which occurred in adverse weather or weather suitable only for IFR flights were the pilots involved holding only (a) a private licence or (b) a licence not endorsed for flight in instrument conditions.
Mr Nixon:
LP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. (a) 1971-218; 1972-181; 1973-220; 1974-233; 1975-188; 1976-243; 1977-220; total 1,503; (b)208.
  2. (a) 1,141, (b) 292, (c) 340, (d) 83, (e) 1, (f) 49. (Covers 1971-1977 inclusive).

Note: More than one causal factor present in some accidents.

  1. (a) 689, (b) 6 16, (c) 5 1. (Covers 197 1-1977 inclusive.)
  2. 120 (Covers 1971-1977 inclusive).
  3. (a) 62, (b) 83.

Aboriginals: Alcoholism (Question No. 2642)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 25 October 1 978:

  1. Does his Department accept the concept of group alcoholism as being especially typical in Aboriginal communities and group involvement in therapy, especially with groups of recovered alcoholics travelling to stay for a time with alcoholic groups, as being essential to success in treating these group problems.
  2. Have the results of this approach vindicated the claims of Benelong ‘s Haven that they achieve more lasting recoveries and more rapid spread of effective initiatives per public dollar spent than orthodox rehabilitation which uses one-to-one patient/counsellor confrontation and individual admission of patients to institutions.
  3. Have Health Departments co-operated with his Department in increasing the emphasis on and funding for group confrontation activities faster than one-to-one therapy activities.
  4. What (a) funds have been allocated and (b) number of persons have achieved lasting sobriety in each of the last 3 years for which figures are available in (i) the Benelong’s Haven movement and (ii) the most successful alternative.
Mr Viner:
LP

-The answer to the honourable member ‘s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) Group therapy is regarded as a very useful option in the treatment of alcoholism. Visits by groups of recovered alcoholics can be useful in initiating and in maintaining recovery of local persons with alcohol problems, and even in changing community attitudes to alcohol. It could not be said, however, that they are essential to success in treating these problems, nor that other approaches cannot be equally successful.
  2. Statistics provided to the Department by Benelong’s Haven to date are not sufficiently detailed to allow conclusions to be drawn about the effectiveness of particular approaches. There would be few, if any, rehabilitation programs which depend entirely on one-to-one relationships. Almost all programs utilise group process and recognise the need to go beyond the patient to involve his family and attend to community factors.
  3. Health Departments have co-operated with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in encouraging the development of the most appropriate program for given settings. An example of this co-operation is the appointment of individual community health workers- Aboriginal Alcohol Counsellors- located in western New South Wales towns.
  4. The information is not available. Details of grants to Benelong’s Haven can be supplied but reliable statistics indicating success rates cannot. Nor can any program be identified as ‘the most successful alternative’ : there is a variety of other promising programs, including a number similar to the Benelong’s Haven program.

Skin Cancer Treatment (Question No. 2646)

Mr McVeigh:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice on 25 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to a report appearing 2 years ago in the Medical Journal attributed to 2 Brisbane doctors which claimed some success in the treatment of skin cancer by using the sap of a common weed (Euphorbia Peplus commonly known as Radium Plant).
  2. If so, is there any scientific evidence to support the claim.
  3. Is any research being undertaken into this matter at the present time.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. I have been informed of the report in the Medical Journal of Australia of 1 2 June 1 976 concerning treatment of skin cancer with Euphorbia Peplus.
  2. The authors, Drs Weedon and Chick, recorded the apparently successful treatment of basal cell carcinoma by a patient using the milky sap of the plant. However it was stated that the communication should in no way be taken as a recommendation of the form of therapy.
  3. Other than the research (clinical) provided by this one case- no research is known to be proceeding and certainly no Government funded research.

Aurukun and Mornington Shires Funding (Question No. 2685)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 7 November 1978:

  1. Has his Department notified former Councillors of Aurukun and Mornington Shires that Federal funding to their Councils will be indirect through State appointees.
  2. If so, will a condition of these payments be that expenditure, employment, housing and other local government, community development, welfare and commercial activities so funded be under the control of the representatives chosen by the communities concerned at ballots where voting and the custody and counting of votes are supervised by scrutineers appointed by the local communities, assisted by appropriate legally aware persons chosen by them after full information as to voting and scrutineering statutes is given to his satisfaction.
Mr Viner:
LP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. No.
  2. See answer to ( 1 ).

Moscow Olympic Games 1980 (Question No. 2691)

Mr Hodgman:
DENISON, TASMANIA

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 7 November 1978:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to reports following a visit to Melbourne by Soviet Olympic Games officials from Moscow that Australians proposing to attend the 1980 Games will (a) only be permitted to remain in Moscow for one week of the Games, ( b ) then be taken on a tour of factories for the balance of their visit and (c) only be entitled to tickets for three sessions of the Games which will be selected for the visitor by the Russian authorities.
  2. If so, will he have these matters fully checked out so that Australians will know exactly what to expect if they make the trip to Moscow in 1 980.
Mr Peacock:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

It is the Government’s understanding that the Soviet authorities have not yet finalised arrangements for visitors to Moscow for the 1980 Olympics. Discussions on these matters are continuing between the Soviet Olympic authorities and individual Olympic committees in a number of countries. It was in furtherance of these discussions that three officials from the Soviet Olympic Games Organising Committee visited Australia in early October at the invitation of the Australian Olympic Federation. Further discussions are to be held next month when a representative from the Australian Olympic Federation is to visit Moscow along with representatives of Jetset Tours, the designated sales agency in Australia for Moscow Olympic Games package tours. It is to be noted that the general approach adopted by the Soviet authorities in relation to the physical arrangements for the holding of the Games has been approved by the International Olympic Committee.

Wollogorang Station: Aircraft Landing (Question No. 2692)

Mr James:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 26 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many aeroplanes have landed at Wollogorang Station, NT, from (a) within Australia and (b) overseas during each year since 1 975.
  2. What were the names of the passengers and pilots of these planes.
Mr Nixon:
LP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) (a) and (b) Unknown. Statistical records of this nature are not maintained for infrequently used aerodromes such as Wollogorang Station, NT.
  2. Unknown.

Interest Rates (Question No. 2710)

Mr Bryant:
WILLS, VICTORIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 8 November 1978:

  1. Will the Government introduce legislation to prevent companies and individuals causing unemployment in the course of their efforts to increase individual wealth.
  2. Is it a fact that its much publicised efforts to lower interest on bank overdrafts under $ 100,000 are of huie practical benefit to industry because the trading banks strenuously avoid granting these overdrafts and force small companies to accept bills and term loans at much higher rates of interest.
  3. Is it also a fact that small companies requiring funds to cover the effects of inflation, and attempting to borrow from a bank, such as the ANZ Banking Group, are required to provide first mortgage security over personal assets such as the homes of their directors, whilst the same bank grants multi-million dollar loans to individuals wishing to strip public companies of assets for personal gain, these large loans being secured against the shares in the public companies concerned.
  4. Has the Government’s attention been drawn to the situation in Marrickville Holdings Ltd where control was attained by Southern Packers Pty Ltd, a company in turn controlled by a family named Liberman and the former company deliberately put into a loss situation to force minority shareholders to sell, with resulting destruction of many jobs.
  5. Will the Government take action to prevent a recurrence of the situation in which the ANZ Bank spent millions of dollars overseas on stainless steel fittings for their new luxury office in Melbourne, these fittings being readily procurable in Australia with consequent benefit to employment.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1) to (5) The honourable member’s questions are partly rhetorical and partly to do with alleged activities of particular companies and I do not believe that a detailed reply would be warranted or appropriate. I can say, however, that the Government has no intention to introduce legislation of the kind referred to in the first part of the question and that it does not accept that the recently announced reductions in interest rates on bank overdrafts of under $100,000 ‘are of little practical benefit to industry’. Many thousands of businesses have such overdrafts and will directly benefit from the reductions. It is also relevant to note that other bank interest rates, in addition to those on smaller overdrafts, are being, or will be, reduced including those on term loans and on larger overdrafts.

Pensions: Electoral Division of Bowman (Question No. 2735)

Mr Jull:

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 9 November 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many persons in the Electoral Division of Bowman receive (a) aged, (b) widows and (c) supporting parents pensions.
  2. What is the estimated cost to the Government of these pensions during 1978-79.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) It is estimated that at 30 June 1 978 there were

    1. 10,770 persons receiving age pension.
    2. b) 1 ,020 persons receiving widow ‘s pension, and
    3. 420 persons receiving supporting parent’s benefit, in the Electoral Division of Bowman.
  2. Information as to the amount of expenditure on pensions and benefits in the Electoral Division of Bowman is not available.

Nursing Home Benefit: Department of Health (Question No. 2745)

Mr Stewart:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 9 November 1978:

  1. 1 ) What is the sum of the Government subsidy presently paid in respect of nursing home patients in receipt of ordinary nursing care and how is it determined.
  2. How often is the subsidy adjusted.
  3. What was the extent of the last adjustment and when was it made.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) The levels of nursing home benefits presently paid by the Government in respect of uninsured ordinary care nursing home patients are:

The level of benefit in each State is determined so that the benefit plus the minimum statutory patient contribution (i.e. 87½ per cent of the single rate pension plus supplementary assistance) covers the whole of the fees charged for at least 70 per cent of the beds in non-Government nursing homes approved under the National Health Act.

  1. The Government decided when increasing nursing home benefits in all States from 1 October 1977 that the benefits would be reviewed annually on the basis I have outlined in (1).
  2. Nursing home benefit levels were last adjusted on 9 November 1978 following a review which showed that benefits applying in New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania were still sufficient, together with the minimum patient contribution, to cover the whole of fees charged for 70 per cent of the beds in participating nursing homes approved under the National Health Act.

However, in Victoria and South Australia, benefits needed to be increased by $5.25 a week and $10.50 a week respectively to maintain the 70 per cent cover.

Public Hospital Services: Tasmania (Question No. 2758)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 14 November 1978:

In the case of Tasmania, is it intended to hold public hospital services at current levels or are they to be reduced.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

The primary responsibility for the provision of public hospital services rests with the States. The matter raised by the honourable member is essentially one for consideration by the Tasmanian Government.

Social Security: Agreement Between Australia and New Zealand (Question No. 2775)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 14 November1978:

  1. What arrangements exist between Australia and New Zealand for the handling of social security payments to citizens of one country resident in the other.
  2. How many New Zealanders are presently receiving social security payments in Australia, by state of residence.
  3. How many New Zealanders are presently resident in Australia.
  4. How many Australians are receiving social security payments in New Zealand.
  5. What forms of identification are required for New Zealanders when registering for social security benefits.
  6. How do these requirements differ from the forms required for identification of Australians seeking unemployment benefits in New Zealand.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) There is a reciprocal agreement on social security between Australia and New Zealand. In broad terms this enables people who move permanently from one country to the other to receive the social security pensions and benefits of the country in which they are living and allows people temporarily in one country to receive the social security benefits of the country in which they are ordinarily resident. In addition, under general portability arrangements, Australian pensions are payable to eligible pensioners in New Zealand.
  2. At 30 June 1978 there were 247 Australian age, invalid, wives and widows pensions being paid under the reciprocal agreement with New Zealand to former residents of New Zealand living permanently in Australia. The numbers residing in each State were as follows:

Additionally, there were 24 New Zealand income security benefits and 28 New Zealand family benefits being paid to 30 June 1978 under the reciprocal agreement to people from New Zealand temporarily in Australia.

  1. The information requested is not held by my Department.
  2. At 31 March 1978, the latest date for which information is available, there were 667 New Zealand benefits of a pension nature being paid under the reciprocal agreement to former residents of Australia living permanently in New Zealand. At 30 June 1978 there were three Australian age or invalid pensions, one widows pension and 24 family allowances being paid under the agreement to people from Australia residing temporarily in New Zealand.

In addition to payments being made under the reciprocal agreement, there were at 31 March 1978 a total of 773 former residents of Australia in New Zealand recieving Australian age, invalid, wives or widows pensions or supporting parents benefits under general portability of pensions arrangements.

  1. 5 ) There are no separate requirements in respect of forms of identification for New Zealanders when registering for social security benefits. New Zealanders are subject to the same requirements in respect of proof of identity as other members of the community.
  2. The Department of Social Security does not have information on which to answer this part of the question.

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (Question No. 2845)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 16 November 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many professional staff in the CSIRO Division of Textile Physics are involved in research programs (a) related to textiles, (b) concerned with minerals and energy and (c) in other studies.
  2. When were those programs concerned with minerals and energy commenced.
  3. Has any consideration been given to relocating those staff and programs concerned with minerals and energy within other Divisions and Laboratories of the Organisation.
  4. If so, what conclusions were reached.
Mr Adermann:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Primary Industry · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

– The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Currently 39 professional staff are engaged in textile research and 10 in minerals and energy work. There are no other research programs in the Division.
  2. The research program relating to minerals and energy commenced in July1976.
  3. In June/July this year the Executive commissioned a review of the research programs of the Division of Textile Physics, one of the terms of reference of which was to determine whether the minerals and energy programs should remain within the Division.
  4. The conclusion of the review committee was that the minerals and energy programs in the Division of Textile Physics, together with the staff involved in them, should become part of CSIRO ‘s Minerals Research Laboratories. The Executive accepted this recommendation. From an operational point of view it has already taken effect. From an administrative point of view, it will take effect from the date of the setting up of the new Institutes approved by the Government following the Independent Inquiry into CSIRO.

The minerals and energy group will remain on the Textile Physics site at Ryde and will have its own on-site OfficerinCharge, who will report to the Director of the Minerals Research Laboratories (or the Director of the appropriate Institute). It is expected that there will be considerable short-term exchanges between this group and the existing minerals group with which it has most in common, which is situated close by at North Ryde.

Review of Australia’s International Civil Aviation Policy (Question No. 2873)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Construction, upon notice, on 16 November 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did his Department make a submission to the Review of Australia’s International Civil Aviation Policy.
  2. If so, (a) what was the substance of the submission and ( b) will he release it for the benefit of the Parliament.
Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. No.
  2. ) See answer to ( 1 ).

Department of Transport: Computers (Question No. 2239)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Transport, on notice, on 27 September1978:

  1. 1 ) In respect of each computer owned or operated by his Department and statutory authorities and business undertakings under his control, what information stored therein can be sold, hired, lent or given to any person or organisation other than properly authorised employees of his Department, authority or business.
  2. Under what circumstances can this information be (a) sold, (b) hired, (c) lent or (d) given.
  3. On what occasions, and to whom, has any information been sold, hired, lent or given in the past.
Mr Nixon:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

Department of Transport

Part(l)

Except as indicated in Part (2), information stored in departmental computers is not available to other than properly authorised employees of the Department.

Part (2)

Only as authorised by the senior officer of the functional area responsible for the information and where appropriate in the case of information supplied by non-departmental services, with the concurrence of the provider of the information.

Part (3)

Statistical data of value to elements of the airline industry is published and distributed regularly.

The Australian Register of Civil Aircraft is produced monthly and can be purchased over the counter. A list of the names, addresses and licence category of licensed flight crew personnel was formerly available for purchase by parties interested in the civil aviation industry, but in recent years availability of this information has been restricted to flying training organisations.

Aircraft Accidents and Incidents data is exchanged regularly with aviation authorities in some other countries, e.g. USA.

Qantas Airways Limited

Part(l)

Information stored in Qantas computers is not available for sale, hire or loan nor is it given to other organisations except as stated in Part (2) below, and except for the use of information in execution of the function for which the information is stored. Examples of such functional use are:

The exchange of airline reservations data with the other airlines on which a passenger wishes to book a seat;

The transmittal of bank deposit information to banks for the deposit of employees pay.

Part (2)

Information is given to other organisations when provision of such information is required by law or regulation. Examples of such use are:

The transmittal of payroll information to the Australian Taxation Office;

The provision of such information as may be required by the Auditor General in performance of his duties.

Part (3)

Information is given on a regular or ad hoc basis as required in the circumstances defined in Parts (1) and (2) below.

Australian National Airlines Commission (Trading as Trans Australia Airlines)

Part(l) (Refer to (2) below).

Part (2)

Certain statistical and operational data is supplied by magnetic computer tape at no charge to the Department of Transport as required under Air Navigation Regulation 107.

Traffic statistics exchanged with Ansett Transport Industries pursuant with the requirements of the Airline Agreements.

Part (3)

Information is given on a regular basis as noted in Part (2) above.

Australian National Railways Commission

Part(l)

None.

Part (2)

None.

Part (3)

Not applicable.

Australian Shipping Commission (Trading as The Australian National Line)

Part(l)

None.

Part (2)

A policy of complete non-disclosure.

Part(3)

Not applicable.

Parliamentary Question No. 2054 (Question No. 2309)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 27 September1978:

When will the Parliament receive an answer to question No. 2054 appearing on the Notice Paper in my name in relation to a question which was first put on the Notice Paper on15 August 1978.

Mr Street:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by me to his Question on Notice No. 2054. (See Hansard, 9 November 1978, page 2683).

Parliamentary Question No. 2056 (Question No.2310)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 27 September1978:

When will the Parliament receive an answer to question No. 2036 appearing on the Notice Paper in my name in relation to a question which was first put on the Notice Paper on15 August 1978.

Mr Nixon:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

I answered question No. 2056 today.

Citizen Band Radio Licences (Question No. 2403)

Mr Jull:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 10 October 1978:

  1. How many licences were issued for citizen band radio sets during 1977-78.
  2. What was the estimated amount of revenue received by the Government from the licence fees during this first year of licensing.
  3. How many licences had been renewed as at 30 September 1978.
Mr Staley:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. For the 12 month period ending 30 June 1978, 168,439 citizen radio service licences were issued.
  2. It is estimated that $3,980,000 was the amount of revenue received by the Government from citizen radio service licence fees during this period.
  3. As at 30 September 1978, 14,669 citizen radio service licences had been renewed.

Small Arms Factory (Question No. 2422)

Mr MacKenzie:

asked the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 10 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is the Small Arms Factory at Lithgow, NSW pan of Australia’s defence infra-structure; if so, what proportion of its output is currently directly attributable to defence purposes.
  2. What plans does the Government have both in the short and long term for the Small Arms Factory.
  3. What (a) was the staff strength of the factory during (i) 1973, (ii) 1976 and (iii) 1977 and (b) is the staff strength at the present time.
  4. What was the apprenticeship intake at the factory during the same periods.
  5. Have the Government’s staff ceilings affected the output and employment capacity of the factory.
Mr Macphee:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) Yes; approximately 73 per cent of its output is directly attributable to defence purposes.
  2. The Government plans in the short term and the long term to retain the Small Arms Factory, Lithgow as a production facility to meet Defence production needs as required.
  3. The staff strength of the factory:

    1. a) as at 30 June in recent years was-
    2. 1975,989; (u) 1976,910; (iii) 1977,891.
    3. and was 914 as at 20 September 1978.
  4. Apprentice intakes at the factory were: 1975, 18; 1976,21; 1977,25; 1978,25.
  5. Staffing restraint has been exercised at factory as a result of staff ceilings. Staff ceilings have not affected output of defence work. There have however been some inhibiting considerations in quoting for commercial work of a nature which can be undertaken elsewhere in the Australian private sector.

Air Fare Increases (Question No. 2447)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1978:

What was the gross value to commercial airline operators of each fare increase approved by the Government since 1 January 1973.

Mr Nixon:
LP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

Ansett and TAA fare increases approved by successive Government since 1 January 1973 have been:

The calculation of the gross value for each fare increase would need to be calculated from airline data of a commercially confidential nature and I am therefore not in a position to disclose such information.

Parliamentary Question No. 1672 (Question No. 2448)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1978:

Will he look again at Question No. 1672 and explain why he failed to answer the second paragraph of that question.

Mr Howard:
LP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

I have nothing to add to the answer provided by me to Question No. 1672 (see Hansard, 10 October 1978, page 1667).

Tullamarine Airport: Staff (Question No. 2480)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1 978:

  1. How many special flight service officers has his Department employed for Tullamarine Airport during the periods (a) 1 January 1976 to 1 January 1977, (b) 2 January 1977 to 1 January 1978 and (c) 2 January 1978 to date.
  2. Is this number adequate to meet the general staffing requirements of Tullamarine.
  3. Is this intake of special flight service officers adequate to meet the current staffing requirements of Tullamarine Airport with respect to ( a ) recreation leave and ( b ) sick leave.
  4. If the current intake is inadequate, what action does he propose to take to rectify the situation.
Mr Nixon:
LP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. (a) nil, (b) nil, (c) five.
  2. Yes; within the limitations of the duties these officers are qualified to perform.
  3. There are practical limitations as to the number that can be employed prior to entering formal flight service officer training. Although there is a current shortage of trained flight service staff at Melbourne Airport, leave relief is manageable but does involve the working of some overtime. These circumstances are likely to continue until about mid 1979 when staff now at the training school will become progressively available.
  4. Existing shortages in flight service officer staffing result from the cancellation of some training courses in 1975-76 due to inadequate recruitment in 1974. Subsequent recruiting has provided intakes of 13 trainees in 1976-77, 59 in 1977-78, with 160 scheduled for 1978-79. This accelerated program of training is considered adequate to overhaul existing shortages and to service future staffing requirements. However, in view of the lead times involved, the impact of these programs is only now starting to be felt. The pretraining employment of special flight service officers is an additional initiative taken by the Department of Transport to boost staffing levels pending the availability of increasing numbers of fully trained personnel.

Domestic Airlines: Statistics (Question No. 2482)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Do the domestic airlines record statistics relating to the origin and destination of their passengers.
  2. If so, are those statistics made available to his Department and will he make them available to the Parliament.
  3. If these statistics are not recorded, are the airlines developing procedures for their derivation.
  4. If procedures are being introduced, was this at the request of his Department.
  5. If procedures are not being introduced, what are the reasons.
Mr Nixon:
LP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) Some domestic airlines do so in respect of passengers on their own services, but normally not in respect of transfers from or to other airlines.
  2. For special exercises undertaken by my Department, the airlines may provide this information on a confidential basis and subject to it being used on an aggregate basis for public purposes.
  3. This is a matter for the commercial judgement of the airlines but as far as I am aware the airlines extract only sufficient information to meet their internal needs.
  4. No.
  5. The present regular collections of statistics together with special studies as required has to date met the normal statistical requirements of the Department. Nevertheless, the question of collecting origin and destination information will be kept under review.

Mr Jonathon Gaul (Question No. 2529)

Mr Armitage:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 17 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) What payments were made to Mr Jonathon Gaul and businesses operated by him during (a) 1975-76, (b) 1976-77 and (c) 1977-78.
  2. ) For what purposes were the payments made.
  3. Have payments been made or are payments to be made during 1978-79.
  4. What are the purposes of the payments.
  5. Are any debts outstanding in relation to sums paid during the period 1 July 1975 to date.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. to (5) My Department does not keep any records of payments made to individual persons and firms by other Commonwealth Departments. The only information I am able to provide is that, so far as the Department of Finance is concerned, a search of the Department’s records indicates that the answer to part ( 1 ) of the question is none and the answer to parts ( 3 ) and ( 5 ) of the question is no.

Essendon Airport (Question No. 2533)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 18 October 1978:

  1. During what hours are aerodrome rescue and fire fighting services provided at Essendon Airport.
  2. What is the standard of these services at the various times.
  3. What type of aircraft movements occur during these times.
  4. How many aircraft movements occur (a) during and (b) outside the periods in which rescue and fire fighting services are provided.
  5. Are simulated engine failures permitted at Essendon in association with pilot training and endorsement procedures.
  6. Are formation take-offs (a) permitted and (b) performed at Essendon Airport.
  7. Is there a policy on the maximum growth in respect of flight traffic for Essendon Airport; if so, what are the details of the policy.
  8. Does this policy limit the future development of jet traffic at Essendon Airport.
  9. What is the procedure for rescue and fire fighting services in the event of an aircraft crashing upon take-off or approach at Essendon Airport if the aerodrome rescue and fire fighting services are not available.
  10. 10) Is it planned that helicopter pilot training services are to be instituted at Essendon Airport
  11. What are the technical reasons which would exclude freight operations presently conducted at Essendon Airport being conducted at Tullamarine Airport.
Mr Nixon:
LP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
  2. Normally Category 2, but upgraded in the event of airline aircraft being diverted to Essendon from Melbourne Airport due to bad weather.
  3. Various types of propeller-driven aircraft up to DC4 size, and jet aircraft up to F28 size. There is a curfew on jet aircraft movements between 1 1 p.m., and 6 a.m.
  4. (a) Average monthly movements are approximately 6,300.

  5. Simulated engine failures are not permitted in singleengined aircraft, but are permitted in multi-engined aircraft under prescribed operating restrictions which do not permit feathering of propellers.
  6. Formation take-offs are only permitted by special arrangement. This type of operation takes place only once or twice a month, in daylight, and normally involves only two aircraft.
  7. Essendon is in no different position from other airports in Australia in that the Department of Transport maintains surveillance to ensure that traffic is compatible with existing facilities and services.
  8. Essendon is not available, nor will it be made available, for the major airlines, unless weather conditions prevent their aircraft landing at Melbourne and the weather at Essendon is suitable.
  9. Rescue and fire fighting services are available continuously, and are supplemented from Melbourne Airport as necessary.
  10. 10) Some helicopter pilot training is conducted at Essendon Airport
  11. Shortage of apron space and facilities.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 22 November 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1978/19781122_reps_31_hor112/>.