House of Representatives
6 June 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1979

Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Mr P. C. Millar) took the chair at 1 0.30 a.m., and read prayers. .

page 2963

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Metric System

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 plan to obliterate the traditional weights and measures of this country does not have the support of the people;

That the change is causing and will continue to cause, widespread, serious and costly problems;

That the compulsory tactics being used to force the change are a violation of all democratic principles.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed to ensure that the people are free to utilize whichever system they prefer and so enable the return to imperial weights and measures wherever the people so desire;

That weather reporting be as it was prior to the passing of the Metric Conversion Act;

That the Australian Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional mile units to be restored to our highways;

That the Australian Government request the State Governments to procure that the imperial and metric systems be taught together in schools.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Aldred, Mr Bryant, Mr Goodluck, Mr Groom, Mr Roger Johnston, Mr Eric Robinson and Mr Shipton.

Petitions received.

Pensions

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

That restoration of provisions of the Social Security Act that applied prior to the 1 978-79 Budget is of vital concern to offset the rising cost of goods and services.

The reason advanced by the Government for yearly payments ‘that the lower level of inflation made twice-yearly payments inappropriate’ is not valid.

Great injury will be caused to 920,000 aged, invalid, widows and supporting parents, who rely solely on the pension or whose income, other than the pension, is $6 or less per week. Once-a-year payments strike a cruel blow to their expectation and make a mockery of a solemn election pledge.

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

  1. . Restore twice-yearly pension payments in the Autumn session.
  2. Raise pensions and unemployed benefits above the poverty level to 30 per cent of A. W.E.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bryant, Mr Holding, Mr Lynch and Mr Martin.

Petitions received.

Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport

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. We call upon the Commonwealth and State Governments to select a site for Sydney’s second Airport now and to protect it by immediate development.
  2. We do not agree to the expansion of the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith ) Airport.
  3. We support the Marrickville Municipal Council’s opposition to the Airport extension proposals.
  4. We do not agree that nuisances from aircraft noises are reducing.
  5. We oppose any shorter evening ‘curfew’ hours.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that there be no extension of Kingsford-Smith Airport, Sydney.

And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Les McMahon.

Petition received.

Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport

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. We call upon the Commonwealth and State Governments to select a site for Sydney’s second Airport now and to protect it by immediate development.
  2. We do not agree to the extension of the Sydney ( Kingsford-Smith ) Airport.
  3. We support Leichhardt Municipal Council’s opposition to the Airport extension proposals.
  4. We do not agree that nuisances from aircraft noises are reducing.
  5. We oppose any shorter evening ‘curfew ‘ hours.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that there be no extension of Kingsford-Smith Airport, Sydney.

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

Petition received.

Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport

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. We call upon the Commonwealth and State Governments to select a site for Sydney’s second Airport now and to protect it by immediate development.
  2. We do not agree to the expansion of the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith ) Airport.
  3. We support the South Sydney Municipal Council ‘s opposition to the Airport extension proposals.
  4. We do not agree that nuisances from aircraft noises are reducing.
  5. We oppose any shorter evening ‘ curfew ‘ hours.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that there be no extension of Kingsford-Smith Airport, Sydney.

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

Petition received.

Universal Disarmament

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia in Parkes, New South Wales, respectfully showeth that taking note that the very survival of mankind is at stake, with the stockpile of nuclear weapons able to kill every person on Earth 24 times over, and this at the inflation-causing cost of $ 1,000m per day for the World, $7m per day for Australia; and noting that the energies released by lifting the burden of armaments could solve such problems as:

World hunger. The cost of one nuclear missile could feed the entire population of Bangladesh for 2 months; and 1 percent of military budgets could finance the World Food Conference plans for increased food production and emergency reserves.

Malaria, smallpox, even cancer The total cost of WHO’s campaign for the eradication of Smallpox was $83m- the cost of one bomber; with $450m-½ day’s spending for military purposes, WHO could completely eradicate Malaria; similarly with Cancer.

Education: At present, there are as many soldiers as teachers.

Unemployment: $49m- one week’s worth- 1/52 of Australia’s defence spending- could create 3,000 jobs.

And noting that the Prime Minister, in his speech to the UN Special Session, said that ‘conscience and reason demand that this waste of resources cease’ and ‘that disarmament is a matter of political leadership’.

Call upon the Australian Government, as a matter of the highest priority, in the interests of the Australian people no less than those of other peoples, to give this political leadership by acting promptly and effectively to further the disarmament which is the desire and determined will of the vast majority of the people of every nation in the World.

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

Petition received.

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. . In South Australia Pre-School services are inadequate.
  2. The development of adequate services has been curtailed by reduced Federal Budget allocations to PreSchools in the last two years.
  3. Projected cuts for 1979-80 will cause further deterioration of the quality of services offered.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the The Federal Government increase its allocation for Pre-School education immediately to enable the provision of adequate pre-school services in South Australia.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Porter.

Petition received.

Health of Aboriginal Children

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 there are Australian Aboriginal children living under conditions of inadequate nutrition in a background of poor housing, hygiene, and over-crowding that amounts to a Third World enclave in the midst of affluence; + that such a state of affairs is intolerable in our country; + that only an effort on an unprecedented scale could create conditions that would give these children the rights set out in the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will make generous funding available for the specific purposes of: + making a real improvement in the health, housing, education, employment and welfare of our Aboriginal people, doing so with due regard for the needs, hopes and aspirations of the Aboriginal people themselves. + providing increased help, encouragement and opportunity for Aboriginal people to train as nursing aides and in other para-medical roles, and as fully qualified nurses, doctors and social workers; + providing increased health education for Aboriginal people in ways that are acceptable to them. by Mr Porter.

Petition received.

Supporting Parents Benefits

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

That the present Social Services arrangement which gives single parents with dependent children a ‘Supporting Parents’ Benefit’ if they have not previously been married, and a ‘Widow’s Pension’ if they are previously married persons who have been separated, divorced or widowed, is inequitable.

It denies that need, and degree of need, should be the primary test by which the help given should be distributed.

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

Abolish the Supporting Parents’ Benefit and the Widow’s Pension, and introduce in their stead a Lone Parents’ Pension, based on need, particularly the needs of children, and independent of sex, and marital status or cause of single parenthood.

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

Petition received.

page 2964

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I direct a question to the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs. I refer him to a question asked of him on

Monday, 4 June, about the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill and his assurance that- and I use his wordsBefore regulations are prepared and promulgated there will be consultation with staff organisations’. I ask the Minister: Is it not a fact that the Public Service Board has sent instructions to the Attorney-General’s Department requesting officers to draw regulations prescribing ‘limited efficiency’ as a reason for redeploying staff, and had not these instructions been given before the question was asked of the Minister on Monday?

Mr VINER:
Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs · STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I do not know whether it is a fact. I will make inquiries and advise the honourable member. However, as I have said before, there will be consultations with the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations and the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association after the legislation is passed by Parliament and is assented to by the GovernorGeneral. That assurance has been given in correspondence to both organisations.

page 2965

QUESTION

DOMICILIARY NURSING CARE BENEFIT SCHEME

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Health. The Minister recently announced the first change to the domiciliary nursing care benefit scheme since its introduction by a Liberal-Country Party Government in 1972. Will the Minister endeavour to have the $2 a day benefit, which has remained unchanged since 1972, increased to a more realistic level before the 1 November starting date of the expanded eligibility criteria which now includes patients 16 years of age and over?

Mr HUNT:
Minister for Health · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

-I do not think I need tell the honourable member for Murray that the Government strongly supports policies that are designed to minimise the high cost of institutional care. The Government’s strategy generally is to encourage the development of policies that will minimise illness in the community. The prime aim of the health promotion campaign that will be launched in the next financial year will be to improve the quality of health of the Australian people. At the same time, the Government believes that it should give incentives to people to provide domiciliary care when it can provide a satisfactory alternative to high cost institutional care. It was in that context that the Government took the decision to reduce the age eligibility criterion for the benefit from 65 years of age to 16 years of age in the amendments to the National Health Act which were debated in this place only this week. However, the increase in the daily benefit will be a matter for Cabinet’s

Budget consideration. I cannot give any guarantees whatsoever. I know that the honourable member for Murray is a member of the Government parties health and welfare committee and that he has a very keen interest in ensuring that this policy is maintained and strengthened.

page 2965

QUESTION

LUNCHEON ATTENDED BY MINISTER FOR NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr DAWKINS:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I refer the Minister for National Development to questions which I asked him on Monday and yesterday concerning his secret lunch with representatives of oil companies organised by the Liberal Party in Western Australia and to which the Minister replied yesterday -

Mr Killen:

– I raise a point of order. The question carries the plainest of imputations -

Mr Innes:

– What has that to do with it?

Mr Killen:

– It has everything to do with it. I respectfully submit that any question that contains an imputation, as that question contains, is clearly out of order.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– On the point of order, I put it to you, Mr Acting Speaker, for your consideration that no point of order arises and that in fact all the honourable member for Fremantle is doing is repeating a question which you allowed on Monday. If it is out of order now, it would have been out of order on Monday; but you allowed it then.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I rule on the point of order. I uphold the point of order.

Mr Innes:

– Who has got at you?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order.

Mr Innes:

– You have got your riding instructions.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-I warn the honourable member for Melbourne, and honourable members on my right will assist if they remain silent. The observations of the honourable member for Burke are not incorrect. They require me again to draw the attention of the House to what I have said on a previous occasion, that is, that our practices have tended to drift from the Standing Orders. Many things are accepted by practice which in fact are not consistent with the Standing Orders. In this situation the Minister for Defence took a point of order and I had no alternative but to uphold that point of order because it is consistent with the Standing Orders and not with the practices which in many respects have become somewhat questionable. The honourable member for

Fremantle will withdraw the imputation and proceed with his question deleting such references.

Mr Hayden:

– I raise a point of order. Under Standing Order 142 it is quite clearly provided that questions may be put to a Minister relating to public affairs with which he is officially connected, to proceedings pending in the House or to any matter of administration for which he is responsible. I recognise that the question raises a very serious matter. It is a matter which is being discussed rather widely in the community at the present time. It is in the interests of the Minister that he should be confronted with this matter and be able to respond to it. If we are not going to be provided with the opportunity to -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I interrupt the Leader of the Opposition and I suggest -

Mr Bourchier:

-That’s a lie.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Bendigo will withdraw that remark.

Mr Bourchier:

– I withdraw that remark.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-I think the Leader of the Opposition may have missed the point. There is no question about the right of the honourable member for Fremantle to pose his question. In making the imputation attaching to the term ‘secret’ he offended against the Standing Orders.

Mr DAWKINS:

-My question is directed to the Minister for National Development. I refer to questions I asked the Minister on Monday and yesterday concerning the lunch he had with representatives of oil companies in Western Australia. He said yesterday that he wanted to go back and check his correspondence concerning the question I asked him yesterday. I now ask: Did the Minister attend a lunch at the Parmelia Hotel on 20 April at which representatives of various oil companies were present. Prior to going to the lunch was he told that the finance committee had had support from some of the companies represented but wished to impress the overseas groups especially of the necessity to support the Government and free enterprise?

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for National Development · BASS, TASMANIA · LP

– Let me begin by saying that there is absolutely no doubt that the honourable member for Fremantle is trying to make mountains out of molehills. Let there be no question about it: I did go to a luncheon at the Parmelia Hotel. Let me also make the point- although it has now been taken to a point of order- that it was not a secret lunch. Let us have that clear. I was invited to go to that luncheon by the President of the Liberal Party in Western Australia to talk with a group of businessmen, amongst whom there were people from oil companies, of course, who were interested in the area covered by my portfolio. The President of the Liberal Party was the only person with whom I had any discussions on the proposed luncheon.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– How much did you get? .

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Newcastle will remain silent.

Mr Holding:

– There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Melbourne Ports will remain silent.

Dr Klugman:

– Anthony says he should have got the money.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Prospect will remain silent.

Mr NEWMAN:

– The Opposition is obviously not interested in the answer.

Mr Uren:

– We have been waiting a while for it.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Reid will remain silent.

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Honourable members on my left will remain silent. I warn the honourable member for Newcastle.

Mr NEWMAN:

– All of the administrative arrangements were handled by my personal secretary in accordance with the usual practice in my office. I might mention that my secretary handled approximately 200 invitations and appointments during the month of April. In the conversations I had with the President of the Liberal Party the question of fund raising was not raised. My personal secretary has informed me that in the arrangements that were made advice was received that there would be no discussion regarding fund raising at that luncheon. I addressed that meeting on various aspects of my portfolio and I received questions about what I said to the meeting. I might say that during that meeting there was no discussion on fund raising at all.

page 2966

QUESTION

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister or the Minister acting for the Minister for Education. Is it a fact that generally most non-government schools are at Level 6 according to the Schools Commission, which is the lowest physical resources level? Does he appreciate that attempts to lift these Level 6 schools through public expenditure assistance cannot be accomplished by the Commonwealth alone, and that some States have dragged their feet for years? Will he therefore seek the co-operation of these States to accomplish this task in both recurrent and capital expenditure fields and ensure that the Commonwealth’s effort is made known to those schools, the students and their parents, and will he make known the fact that the States dragging their feet are New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

-The honourable gentleman is correct when he indicates that the Schools Commission has pointed out that the Level 6 schools have resources far below the national average and that the Commonwealth has introduced policies to try to redress that. As the honourable gentleman will know, the payments from the Commonwealth to independent schools are linked to a percentage of what it costs to educate people in a government primary or a government secondary school. Obviously Level 6 schools get a higher percentage from the Commonwealth than those independent schools that are better endowed.

In addition, of course, the Commonwealth has, in recent times, been providing some capital expenditure so that independent schools can have an opportunity to establish themselves in new and growing areas so that they might continue to provide educational opportunities for the children of those parents who would prefer their children to go to independent schools of one kind or another. I think that under these policies, for the first time in many, many years, independent schools of these categories are looking to the future with a much greater degree of confidence and with a capacity to expand of a kind that they have not had and would not have had without the Commonwealth’s policies.

Even in this year of financial stringency, of course, the payments to the lower level schools are going to be increased to provide some additional support in real terms. That is quite plainly justified on the resources comparison between independent schools and government schools.

It is also true, as the honourable gentleman points out, that there is a very great difference between the resources provided by States to independent schools. I do not think any of the States enter into the capital arena. If they do, they do so in a very, very modest way. I would like to see all States supplementing what the Commonwealth seeks to do in that regard. It would certainly expand educational choice and possibilities for a wider section of the Australian community. The dual system of government and independent schools is a very important part of Australian life, something to be maintained and very much to be encouraged.

A number of States do provide recurrent support to independent schools. In the last Victorian Government election policy speech, for example, a commitment was made to move from 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the costs of education in government schools to be paid on account of children in independent schools. But the States that the honourable gentleman mentioned do lag very far behind in this matter. They discriminate positively against children in independent schools. I do not believe that they meet their general responsibilities to that section of the community.

Governments have a responsibility to all children within their general boundaries. They ought to match that by making sure that some taxpayers’ dollars not only go to government schools but also are paid on account of children in independent schools. The States concerned could certainly do very much more than they do.

page 2967

QUESTION

LUCAS HEIGHTS ATOMIC REACTOR

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Does the Minister for National Development accept responsibility for an official minute circulated at Lucas Heights Atomic Research Establishment which seeks to justify escalation of security arrangements in the HIFAR reactor area? Does this minute claim that Japanese anti-nuclear activists are alleged to be in the country to train local activists in antinuclear activity? What evidence is there to support this claim? Are establishment employees or local residents under any threat or danger? Are any local activists being investigated as possible threats to the reactor or is this an unjustifiable innuendo, probably prompted to provide some justification for telephone tapping or some curtailment of civil liberties?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will not debate the matter.

Mr NEWMAN:
LP

– If the honourable member for Fremantle was making mountains out of molehills, he was just trumped by that question. I heard the speech that was made by the honourable member for Hughes last night. I sought to get the circular from him last night but his staff had departed although I asked to have it. I am having the matter investigated and I will let the honourable member have a reply.

page 2967

QUESTION

WAGE FIXING GUIDELINES

Mr BURR:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Do the wage increases that have occurred in recent months conform with the Con.ciliation and. Arbitration Commission guidelines? What effect will these demands have on economic recovery in Australia? Is there a correlation between rising wages and unemployment?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-There is obviously a correlation between wages that rise too fast and unemployment. At one point at any rate that was the bipartisan view of this House because a former Labor Treasurer, Mr Frank Crean, had made it perfectly plain that, in his view, one man’s wage rise was another man’s job. That remains very true. If we return to the time under Labor when in one year wages for males increased by over 25 per cent and for females by over 35 per cent, I think, that was also the time when a very significant rise in unemployment of approximately 200,000 occurred in one year. It is worth noting that under the Labor Administration, Ministers for Labour were encouraging wage claims within the Commission and outside the Commission. They were doing that in a way which was totally irresponsible and destructive of jobs and job opportunities in Australia.

Over the last two to three years the degree of compliance with the wage indexation guidelines has been quite high- about 90 per cent. However, there have been a number of work value cases which have been judged to be within the guidelines but which many would judge to have been outside the guidelines in the sense of being phoney work value cases. That might tend to depreciate the degree of compliance if a different view were taken of those work value cases. Most of the wage increase that has recently been recorded and which attracted some publicity yesterday would have flown through from the last six-monthly decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. That decision granted 100 per cent indexation, which the Government believed to be totally irresponsible and totally destructive of general efforts to achieve a better balance between wages and profitability and to establish circumstances where firms can be encouraged to take on more people. I heard of a number of firms which had been planning very directly to take on more people but had deferred that decision or postponed or cancelled it as a result of the Commission’s decision.

I think it is worth noting that not only the Government but also many sections of the Australian community regarded that decision as being one of very great irresponsibility in the circumstances of the time. We are to be faced shortly with another Arbitration Commission decision. It would be quite wrong to try to prejudice that decision, of course, but I hope the Arbitration Commission and trade union leaders will pay greater regard to the need to encourage greater employment. I do not believe that the industrial relations consequences of an economically more responsible decision are anything like as great as the Arbitration Commission fears. 1 believe it has been deterred by threats that have been made time and time again by a number of union leaders about what would occur if a responsible, economically based wages decision were made.

page 2968

QUESTION

FEDERAL NARCOTICS BUREAU

Dr JENKINS:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

-I direct a question to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. Did Mr Bates, the chief of the Narcotics Bureau, withhold from the Minister information concerning serious allegations against officers of the Narcotics Bureau? What decisions have been made about future communication between Mr Bates and the Minister as a result of past experience? Has the Minister now devised procedures which will ensure that he supervises the running of his Department and keeps himself informed about matters in relation to it?

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The allegations that appeared last Monday week in a report in the Melbourne Sun News-Pictorial concerning alleged leakages of information from the Narcotics Bureau were not brought to my attention. When I read the report I asked for advice and I received confirmation that that information was contained within the records of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs. I have asked the Secretary of the Department to ensure that information that is relevant to the conduct of the Department, particularly information regarding allegations against any member of the Department is brought to my attention.

page 2968

QUESTION

WORLD SUGAR MARKET

Mr DEAN:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Special Trade Representations. I understand that the Minister is not here but that the Minister for Trade and Resources will answer the question. I refer the Minister to the settlement which he reached last week in Australia’s bilateral negotiations with the European Economic Community in the context of the Multilateral Trade Negotiations: Has the question also been raised with Vice President Gundelach of the difficulties being caused on the world sugar market by EEC export subsidies and its non-membership of the International Sugar Agreement?

Mr ANTHONY:
Deputy Prime Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

-One of the virtues of having Mr Gundelach in Australia was for us to be able to impress upon him our concern at the attitude of the EEC towards the International Sugar Agreement. This matter was raised in discussions that he had with the Cabinet, and also in personal discussions that I had with him. I know that, when he visited Queensland, members of the Queensland sugar industry took the opportunity of impressing upon him their concern at the implications of the EEC’s dumping of large quantities of sugar on the world market and thus depressing it, and undermining the operations of the International Sugar Agreement. I was pleased with his reaction. He was more responsive than I had expected in that he expressed his point of view that the EEC should be a member, but he was having great difficulty in getting member countries to accept the recommendation of the Commission that they should look towards becoming members and making some quota arrangements under the International Sugar Agreement in order that some discipline might be imposed upon them.

As a result of comments that he made to the sugar industry and to the Government, I have written to ask him to confirm those remarks and to ask that they be brought before the Commission so that action can be taken as promptly as possible for the EEC to become a member. He has repeatedly said that he will have difficulty in getting the Commission to move on this matter until the United States ratines the International Sugar Agreement. There has been a longstanding dispute between the United States Administration and members of the Senate regarding the domestic pricing arrangements for sugar in the United States. I am hopeful that that situation has been resolved. They have said that it has been resolved on a number of occasions and yet they have failed to have it ratified by Congress. However, Congress has only another month to go before it rises and I have been given firm assurances that during this latter period of its session this will be ratified. Once that has been done, I hope that the EEC will live up to its undertaking and that it will commence negotiations with the International Sugar Council and work out an arrangement which is acceptable to the members of the ISA which will impose also some limitations on the amount of sugar which the EEC is dumping onto the world market.

page 2969

QUESTION

FEDERAL NARCOTICS BUREAU

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I ask the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs: What other allegations, apart from the allegations initially made by Donald and Isabel Wilson, have come to his notice concerning infiltration of the Narcotics Bureau by drug traffickers? Is the Minister satisfied that he has been informed of all such allegations and will be so informed in the future?

Mr FIFE:
LP

-The only allegations that I can recall that have been brought to my notice regarding other examples of alleged infiltration into the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs are those where investigations have been made, where charges have been laid and prosecutions pursued. As I indicated when answering the previous question asked on this matter, I have asked the permanent head of the Department to ensure that in future any allegation that is made relating to any officer of my Department, whether it happens to concern an officer within the Federal Narcotics Bureau or elsewhere, is brought to my attention. If allegations of the kind referred to by the honourable member- and of the kind about which I am sure every honourable member of this House is concerned- are brought to my notice, I will ensure that appropriate action is taken.

page 2969

QUESTION

WHEAT PRICES

Mr FISHER:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

-Has the Minister for Trade and Resources noted the recent increase in world wheat prices? What influence does he expect moves to improve co-operation between the major wheat exporting countries have had and will have on future wheat prices?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– Following the record wheat harvest in Australia, I think everybody is extremely gratified to see that the international wheat prices are firming up. In fact, the export price for Australian standard white wheat is now $A135 a tonne compared with $121 a tonne in February this year. Whilst I am not one to try to predict the future as to what the price for wheat might be, all the indications are that for the balance of this year the price will remain at these levels, or it might even strengthen. This year the world wheat crop seems to be down about 5 per cent or 10 per cent on the record crop of 441 million tonnes last year. Whilst stocks are at high levels around the world they are not considered to be exceptionally high in view of the food needs of the world. In fact, stocks in the United States of America, which has the major influence on international prices, tend to be down this year on what they were last year. Some other countries, such as Canada, which have substantial stocks have severe limitations on their capacity to export that stock. They have limitations on their transport systems, both rail and shipping. We have a similar problem in Australia, particularly in New South Wales, where disruptions to the loading of wheat have severely reduced our capacity to meet some of our export requirements. In fact, it seems as though we will be able to export only about 10 million tonnes of wheat this year, which means that we will have a carry-over of probably about six million tonnes. I think it is most unfortunate that these delays in the movement of wheat occurred in the earlier part of the year because they will deprive us of the very good market and price opportunities that exist at the moment.

Regarding the International Wheat Agreement, negotiations took place under the auspices of the United Nations. These negotiations did not result in unity. I visited Canada in April this year with a view to getting together all the major wheat exporting countries. There has since been a meeting of officials of those countries so that there can be a degree of co-operation and coordination in selling programs. It has been agreed that all these countries will meet together regularly to monitor the market situation and to see that there is no undue competition on the market which would depress prices. There can be unfair competition by countries trying to get a bigger proportion of the market which leads to traditional markets of countries being taken away by other countries. This only jeopardises the overall international price situation and, in the long run, does not in any way benefit any of the major exporting countries. Whilst I would not say that this is a price fixing arrangement, I believe that there is an understanding that people who have traditional markets will maintain them. I hope that the pricing arrangements that are now fairly stable can be maintained in the future.

page 2970

QUESTION

FEDERAL NARCOTICS BUREAU

Mr HOLDING:

– When did the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs first raise with the Federal Narcotics Bureau the question of the serious allegations contained in an article in the Melbourne Sun News-Pictorial of 28 May? Does the Minister recall that the Customs Amendment Bill giving vastly increased powers to the Narcotics Bureau was not debated in this House until the afternoon of 29 May and did not pass this House until one o’clock in the morning of Wednesday, 30 May? In view of the time which elapsed between the appearance of the allegations in the Melbourne Sun News-Pictorial and the passing of the Customs Amendment Bill, can the Minister state why he was not able to inform this house as to the truth or otherwise of those allegations before the legislation was passed?

Mr FIFE:
LP

– I repeat that these serious allegations first came to my notice early in the morning of last Monday week when a reporter from the Melbourne Herald telephoned me at my hotel and asked me whether I was able to comment on the report that had appeared on the front page of the Sun News-Pictorial on that day. I responded to the reporter and indicated that I would seek immediate advice from the permanent head of my Department and the Commissioner of the Federal Narcotics Bureau. I did that and I received advice. I received confirmation that those allegations had been made and that they were contained in transcripts of tapes that had been referred to in the Press article. The debate on this matter continued on the Tuesday, which was the day following the allegations. I did not believe that it was incumbent upon me to introduce that subject into the debate at the time for two reasons: Firstly, it was public knowledge that those allegations had been made. By that time, the report of the allegations had appeared in media other than the Sun News-Pictorial. Secondly, consideration was being given to what kind of investigation should be carried out.

page 2970

QUESTION

NOMAD AIRCRAFT

Mr GRAHAM:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Productivity aware of a report in the Canberra Times reflecting on the airworthiness of the Nomad aircraft produced in Australia? Will he advise the House whether he has any information in relation to this matter?

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Productivity · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · LP

– My attention has been drawn to an article which appeared in the Canberra Times this morning which does cast some doubt on the airworthiness of the Nomad aircraft. The article makes reference to a fatal accident which occurred at Avalon in 1 976. 1 might say that that accident occurred during an experimental flight with a tail-plane which had been modified and was different from that which is in the production aircraft in use around the world. The modification was designed to improve the short take-off capability of the stretched version of the Nomad, the N24. This modification work was not proceeded with as it has been established that the excellent short field characteristics of both the N24 aircraft and the standard N22 aircraft amply meet the requirements of operators. Honourable members on both sides of the House have long been proud of the Nomad and rightly so. The last three governments have given financial support to this aircraft. I am not aware of any request for funds having been made to government, as the article alleges, for the redesign of the tail-plane into a T configuration, let alone any denial of such a request.

Nomad aircraft are now flying in regular passenger carrying services and in a range of other applications in a number of countries including Australia. They have been certificated by the Australian Department of Transport and the United States Federal Aviation Administration as well as a number of other airworthiness authorities. All of these authorities regard the Nomad as meeting their airworthiness requirements in both the regular public transport and normal categories. These certifications were granted after critical and intense evaluation by the Department of Transport Flying Operations and Airworthiness Division of the aircraft’s flying qualities and design characteristics with particular attention to safety aspects. The certification process means that the design and manufacture of the aircraft, as well as its operation, are strictly controlled by the relevant national airworthiness authorities. The Nomad meets all relevant flight safety standards laid down by those authorities in the countries where it is operating. Nomads are in use by seven government departments and instrumentalities.

Mr Morris:

– I raise a point of order. I submit that the Minister is abusing the forms of the House. The information that he is repeating is readily available in public documents, or ought to be. Mr Acting Speaker, will you ask him to draw his answer to a close?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order. I ask the Minister not to protract his reply.

Mr MACPHEE:

-It is most interesting that the Opposition spokesman on transport is not interested in setting the record straight about a very great Australian invention. Nomads are in use by seven government departments and instrumentalities, both at home and abroad, and by 1 1 commercial companies. Several of the aircraft sold to date have been repeat orders from satisfied customers. Nomads are in use in Australia, Europe, Indonesia, the Philippines, Papua New Guinea, the Middle East, South America and the Pacific. Nomad has a very good operating record. Without exception, Nomad users around the world have given testimony to their satisfaction with its operational handling, maintainability -

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I raise a point of order. Whilst we welcome the statement by the Minister concerning the Nomad, I think he is abusing Question Time by reading a prepared statement which the Opposition would give him time to present to the Parliament as a ministerial statement. His action is an absolute and utter abuse of Question Time.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Newcastle will not debate the matter. The Minister is entitled to answer the question as he sees fit. His answer must maintain relevance and not be unduly long. I ask the Minister to bring his answer to a conclusion.

Mr MACPHEE:

-Within the responsibilities which I believe I bear, I will make my answer as short as possible. I have made it clear that there is testimony from customers to the Nomad ‘s operational handling, maintainability, ruggedness and overall cost effectiveness in use. I spoke this morning to the head of the Department of Transport’s Flying Operations and Airworthiness Division. He confirmed to me that the Nomad satisfies all the certification requirements of his Department and those of the Federal Aviation Administration in the United States. He further informed me that the FAA test pilots flew the Nomad and did not rely upon the Department of Transport’s certification when making their own certification. The Nomad has therefore passed all the standards laid down by two countries with outstanding civil aviation records.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will indicate to me whether he is about to conclude his remarks. ‘

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I take a point of order. The Minister indicated to you earlier that he was about to conclude his remarks. He is continuing. It is quite clear that this is not a spontaneous question and answer interlude. The Minister is making a statement. A more appropriate time to make a statement would be subsequent to Question Time.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The Chair has already taken that matter in hand. The Minister is required to bring his remarks to a conclusion forthwith.

Mr MACPHEE:

– Opposition members are delaying Question Time by their interruptions. I wish to add that my colleague, the Minister for Defence, also has informed me this morning that the Australian Army has purchased 1 1 N22 aircraft for special military applications and that these aircraft are performing most satisfactorily.

In the interests of brevity, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a document which contains a record of customer satisfaction. Whilst the journalist who wrote the article to which the honourable member for North Sydney referred said that he was not knocking the Nomad aircraft, I can only say that I wish he had gone to the customers who are using it. Had he done so he would have found a great demonstration of satisfaction contrary to the points that he was raising. Mr Acting Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a document which sets out customer satisfaction in support of the Nomad aircraft.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Hayden:

– No; he can make a statement.

Mr MACPHEE:

-Mr Acting Speaker, if leave is not granted, I will read two extracts -

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Acting Speaker -

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I move that so much of the Standing Orders -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I call the Leader of the House.

Suspension of Standing Orders

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

- Mr Acting Speaker, if the Opposition will not grant leave for incorporation of this document in Hansard I move:

I move this motion subject only to the document being one which Hansard believes can be incorporated.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Leave for incorporation is not forthcoming?

Mr Hayden:

– No, Mr Acting Speaker. This is a massive abuse of the forms of the House and I will -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

Mr Hayden:

– Wait a minute, Mr Acting Speaker. I have a point of order.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-I call the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order concerning the motion moved by the Leader of the House.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a general point of order about the conduct of the affairs of this House, your role in it, and the proper standards that should be applied.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the House has moved -

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I will speak to the motion to suspend Standing Orders.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-There is no question before the House yet.

Mr Hayden:

– As soon as there is, I will speak to it.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The question is:

That the motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

- Mr Acting Speaker -

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Acting Speaker -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Hindmarsh rose first, but he may wish to defer to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

- Mr Acting Speaker, I oppose the motion. I take the opportunity of saying something of which I believe the House ought to take note.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Acting Speaker -

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Just a moment. The Leader of the House does not know what I am going to say. He ought to listen.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Acting Speaker, might I ask, on a point of order, whether the honourable gentleman is speaking to the motion?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-It is the Chair’s belief that the honourable member is doing so. If he fails to do so, he will be required to resume his seat.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The reason I oppose the motion is to make this comment: During Question Time today there have been two very important questions which have taken up a lot of time. One related to the future of wheat prices, to which the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) replied. It was a reply that the Parliament should have heard. The reply that the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee) gave regarding Nomad aircraft was a reply that the Parliament was entitled to hear- but not at Question Time. Both of those replies should have been given to the Parliament by way of a ministerial statement. The two Ministers concerned, instead of sending their questions to the members who asked them, should have asked the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) whether he would be willing to grant leave to them to make a statement and, in so doing, indicated to the Leader of the Opposition the nature of the statement. Had that been done, and had the Leader of the Opposition refused to grant leave, there would have been an entirely different situation. That was not done.

I believe that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) ought to talk to his Ministers about the way in which they are abusing the forms of the House to draw out Question Time, thereby preventing members from asking questions. Where statements such as the two to which I have referred today have to be made, they ought to be made by way of a prepared statement to the House. I have been trying to get a question in all this week and it is pretty obvious from the way in which the Prime Minister is jumping from his place that it is not likely that I will get the question in tomorrow either. That is about all I want to say. The Prime Minister ought to do something with his Ministers. If that does not work and if the Leader of the Opposition proves to be unreasonable in preventing the Ministers from making statements on matters such as the two subjects to which I have referred, that is an entirely different question. But that has not been put today to the Leader of the Opposition. It should have been, and I hope it will be in future.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– Speaking to the point of order, the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) -

Mr Uren:

– It is not a point of order.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman was speaking to the question.

Dr Klugman:

– And don’t change it in Hansard later.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I warn the honourable member for Prospect.

Mr Hayden:

– Are you suggesting that he fabricates Hansard.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I call the Prime Minister.

Mr Hayden:

– We cannot even believe the Hansard record.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will remain silent.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-There is only one reason -

Mr Innes:

– It is case history.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I warn the honourable member for Melbourne.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-There is only one reason that the Leader of the Opposition tried to prevent the incorporation in Hansard of the evidence that the Minister wanted incorporated, and it is a very surprising reason indeed. Quite plainly, the Minister has a responsibility to come to the defence of the Nomad when inaccurate accusations are made about an aircraft which is a fine Australian achievement, well designed, well constructed and well received by the customers.

Mr Hurford:

– I raise a point of order. I understand that the Prime Minister is speaking in support of the motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders to enable a document to be incorporated in Hansard. I ask you, Mr Acting Speaker, which Standing Order is being suspended in order to incorporate that document, because I know of no Standing Order which allows incorporation in this way.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The motion has the effect of suspending all Standing Orders or any particular Standing Order which would prevent the incorporation, and that is the spirit of the motion.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The Minister was very properly coming to the defence of the Nomad, and the Labor Party quite plainly by its interjections and points of order does not want to hear that.

Dr Everingham:

– I raise a point of order. The Prime Minister has imputed motives to the Leader of the Opposition in relation to his reason for raising his point of order and the objection to the incorporation. I ask you, Mr Acting Speaker, to ask the Prime Minister to withdraw that imputation.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-There is no substance to the point of order.

Mr Innes:

– I raise a further point of order. My point of order goes to the substance of the motion moved by the Leader of the House. He has moved for the suspension of the Standing Orders to enable a procedure to take place. The Prime Minister is debating the issue that evolved out of the question that was asked and not the reason why the orders of the House ought to be suspended, and he is out of order.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-There is no substance to the point of order.

Mr Morris:

– Speaking in opposition to the motion, Mr Acting Speaker -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The Prime Minister still has the call.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– It is perfectly plain that the Opposition, and the Leader of the Opposition in particular, do not want to allow this Parliament to be used as a proper forum for the defence of a very fine Australian achievement. If it had not been for false points of order and phoney points of order which have been taken successively by the Opposition, this matter could have been concluded long ago.

Mr Holding:

– I raise a point of order. The issue before the Chair is the suspension of the Standing Orders and the Prime Minister is not entitled to deal with other substantive matters which were the subject of answers. The only question before the Chair is the motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders. The Prime Minister is out of order.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-There is no substance to the point of order.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar)

AYES: 71

NOES: 29

Majority……. 42

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent this House, without leave, incorporating in Hansard the testimony of purchasers of the Nomad as to its complete operational effectiveness, as presented by the Minister for Productivity.

The House divided. ( Mr Acting Speaker- Mr P. C. Millar)

AYES: 72

NOES: 29

Majority……. 43

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr MACPHEE:
LP

– I incorporate in Hansard a document in respect of customer satisfaction regarding the performance of the Nomad aircraft.

The document read as follows-

REPEAT ORDERS

A significant indication of the acceptance of the Nomad as a product can be gauged from those customers who have placed subsequent orders for aircraft after a period of sampling the capability of their first aircraft.

A list of these customers and the number of re-orders is set out below:

Douglas Airways (PNG)- Four separate purchases

Club Air (Australia)- Purchase of a second Nomad six months after the first

Provincial (PNG)- Second aircraft twelve months after first

Geosearch (Australia)- Purchase a second aircraft nine months after the acquisition of the first

RFDS, NSW Section- Purchased a second aircraft two months after first

Indonesian Navy- Initial acquisition- six Searchmaster B Nomads, repeat six Searchmaster B Nomads two years later (The Indonesian Government has recently requested the provision of a further six Nomads- to a total of 18- under Defence Aid; these last six to be Searchmaster L)

TESTIMONIALS

The following verbatim quotations have been extracted from GAF correspondence files:

Testimonial from Royal Flying Doctor Service, NSW Section:

At the handover of the first Nomad aircraft to the Royal Flying Doctor Service, NSW Section in mid 1978, Dr Golland, the Chairman, referred to the basis of selection of Nomad for this role. He indicated that the aircraft had been chosen entirely on its merits and the equipment selection did not have any relationship to the source of funding for the RFDS operations. A thorough evaluation was carried out of a large range of aircraft and the decision in favour of Nomad was made on the basis of economy of operation, maintenance record, the most suitable fuselage layout which was judged to be ideal for RFDS purposes and other capabilities available with Nomad.

Ken Simmelink, Vice President- Asia, Missionary Aviation Fellowship

Our Nomad N22B has been in operation in Irian Jaya, Indonesia for just over 13 months. During that time it has flown more than 1000 hours in some of the most rugged terrain in the world. It has flown in and out of 400 metre mountain airstrips with payloads of up to 3000 lb. Well over 800 hours were flown in emergency earthquake relief operations carrying more than 900,000 lb of food and other relief supplies to earthquake victims in the remote mountains and canyons of Irian Jaya.

I just want to report the Nomad has not let us down. It has, in fact, surpassed our expectations. Performance is all that you said it would be- and more. Our maintenance has been minimal. We in MAF salute the GAF. You have designed and built a truly rugged, high performing aircraft. It meets all our requirements. ‘

Peter Brown, Managing Director of the Wewak-based Independent Air Transport

The Nomad is basically an easy aircraft to maintain and, when necessary, repair. Most notable is its very good economy of operation. We mainly fly out of rough strips. Another plus for the aircraft is ease of loading. We don’t use the STOL capability-very few strips need that. But we like the aeroplane essentially for its economy, and because, for the size of the aircraft, it’s extremely easy to maintain. ‘

Dennis Douglas, Managing Director of Port Moresby-based Douglas Airways

This aeroplane is a good money maker now and will prove in time to be an excellent money maker. The Allison is an excellent engine. It’s perfect in this aircraft in the hot and high environment we have up here. We’ve had really big savings on fuel through its very low consumption, and we look forward to even more once avgas becomes even more scarce in remote areas. In the long term I think aircraft will all be powered by turbines, and the Allison’s consumption is way down on the PT6 on the Twin Otter. I’ve bought two Nomads and they are flying 1800 hours per year over all types of strips. I ‘ve got two more on order.

John Laffan, Ferry Pilot, Superior Air Service

I have delivered over 30 of the Nomads sold around the world- to Europe, the Philippines, South America and the USA, across both Atlantic and Pacific. I have not had one serious problem with the aircraft even at high ferry overloads, through severe turbulence, and in heavy icing during winter months around Iceland, Greenland, Northern Canada and Scandinavia. All delivery deadlines have been achieved on schedule.

The aircraft is reliability and safety personified. ‘

Swanson, Managing Director, Club Air Pty Limited

The following is an extract from letter to Mobil Oil, Libya.

I would find it hard to convey my total appreciation of the aircraft as there are many aspects that I will not be able to mention.

Although we have had a little trouble at the start I feel that the engine is in fact very reliable. We are conducting 12 sectors a day with one aircraft and after 700 hours we have had only two non starts. One was a faulty ignitor box and the second a faulty fuel control unit. I consider this very acceptable. The fuel control unit has caused some problem in the past, however, they now know what the problem is and it should be no real problem in the future (I might add that the problem is a slow start one and is evident a while before it fails totally.) Check valves also play up with the oil dripping out of the exhaust- we carry spares.

Airframe. Once again what aircraft has not any faults. The aircraft is built like the proverbial Brick Barn with only a few areas that require attention. The use of pop rivet in some areas is of doubtful merit as these work and require replacement. Undercarriage will take anything and only the micro switches can be a problem (we have had two go because of water) however, the new production aircraft, I understand, have had these removed and resited on the actuator in the stubwing- no more problem.

Pilot’s Aeroplane- Beautiful to fly, remarkable performance. However, if you are asking me for my opinion- I have now purchased my second Nomad. ‘

Mr Hurford:

– I raise a point of order. My understanding and advice is that such a procedure requires a resolution of this House. Mr Acting Speaker, I would like you to rule on that.

Mr Sinclair:

– I wish to speak to that point of order. If the honourable member cares to look at Standing Order 1 1 1 he will see why it is necessary to seek leave and why the motion is framed in the way it is. I know the Labor Party opposed the Nomad apparently -

Honourable members interjecting;

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The House will come to order. All honourable members will desist from conversation. The House will remain silent. I ask the Leader of the House to be not unnecessarily provocative in a difficult situation and to speak again to the point of order without embellishment.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I can assure you that I was speaking without embellishment. I want to refer to Standing Order 1 1 1 which requires that, if there be one dissentient voice on a matter that requires leave, the matter before the House should not be accepted. My motion, in respect of which the point of order was raised, was designed to see that my colleague, the Minister for Productivity, could have recorded in Hansard the testimony in favour of the Nomad aircraft. I also state that the Government has no objection to the Minister for Productivity making a statement in further support of the Nomad. If that is the wish of the Opposition, we will be quite happy, without having the suspension of Standing Orders, to enable the Minister for Productivity to do so.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Before Question Time can be terminated, it should be clearly understood that the Minister for Productivity has the document incorporated. I call the honourable member for Shortland.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

– I move:

Government members interjecting-

Mr MORRIS:

– I thought that you were concerned about the Nomad. That is why you have rejected it -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! Honourable members will remain silent.

Mr Sinclair:

– There is no need; we will make a statement if you want us to support.the aircraft.

Mr MORRIS:

– Let me finish moving my motion. The Leader of the House could have done that earlier or later in the day.

Mr Sinclair:

– But you are opposed -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the House will remain silent. I call the honourable member for Shortland.

Mr MORRIS:

-I move:

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Is there a seconder to the motion?

Mr Bryant:

– I second the motion.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Isit the intention of the honourable member for Shortland to speak to his motion?

Mr MORRIS:

-Yes. The history of this Government’s utilisation of Nomad aircraft is as abysmal as its record of air safety generally -

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. As I intimated a moment ago, the Minister for Productivity is quite content to make a statement in this House. We on this side of the House completely endorse the Minister for Productivity’s -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! No point of order arises.

Mr Sinclair:

– I am just pointing out that we are quite content for the Minister to make a statement. There is no need for the honourable member for Shortland to move for the suspension of Standing Orders to enable him to do so. If the honourable gentleman wishes to withdraw his motion for the suspension of Standing Orders, the Minister will make the statement.

Mr Hurford:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I wish to speak to the point of order.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the point of order taken by the Leader of the House. He made a statement relating to the matter without the consent of the Chair. The honourable member for Shortland is entitled to move his motion.

Mr MORRIS:

– As I was saying, the history of the Government with Nomad aircraft is an abysmal one. Where is the Nomad aircraft -

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) put:

That the honourable member for Shortland be not further heard.

The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar)

AYES: 69

NOES: 30

Majority……. 39

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I want to make it clear that this is not an argument about the Nomad aircraft. It is about reasonable parliamentary procedure. During Question Time it was reasonable for the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee) to give a short answer to the question he was asked. He could have made a more detailed statement later.

Government members interjecting-

Mr BRYANT:

– Honourable members opposite are attempting to intimidate me. The Nomad aircraft is the product of all governments and has the full support of the Opposition. It would not be in operation were it not for the actions of the Labor Government. The real question is whether honourable members opposite are to be allowed to continue to subvert and vandalise our parliamentary system and to obstruct the reasonable procedures that have been developed over the last 600 or 700 years to let all voices in this place be heard. The Minister for Productivity, who has been in this Parliament about five minutes, chooses to subvert Question Time to stop members of the Opposition asking questions. We know perfectly well that over the last two or three weeks every Question Time has been a time of great worry and anxiety for honourable members opposite. Every time Ministers, including the Minister for Productivity, answer questions, honourable members opposite sit there worrying about what sort of gaff” they will produce next. Every time we ask the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to account for his behaviour, for the promises he has made and has broken, honourable members opposite all sit there in terror. The honourable member for Canberra (Mr Haslem), who has now reached the stage where his party gets about 20 per cent of the vote in Canberra, may as well take his time now. If there are any nomads about, he is one of them. He is the first political nomad.

This morning, about 50 minutes ago, we suggested that the Minister for Productivity should take the opportunity after Question Time to make a statement which we could then debate. We want to put our point of view about how we should support and sponsor the Nomad. We want to know why this Government has taken steps in various areas to prevent the Nomad from being accepted as the aircraft for surveillance in Australia. Why were the specifications deliberately written so that in all probability the Nomad would not be the aircraft used for this work? These are the questions we want answered.

This Parliament is the debating chamber and the forum for all points of view. Over the last few months, and particularly the last two or three weeks, we have seen an increasing suppression of Opposition points of view in the House. I have been in this Parliament long enough to understand the Government and what it is doing. In all the years I have been here some pretty rough characters and people, who have been totally insensitive to parliamentary democracy and everything else, have sat on the other side of the House; but I have not seen a government behave towards an opposition in the way in which the present Government has behaved. From the Opposition side I have seen political censorship imposed on debates in this House. When the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) was talking a few weeks ago, two days before the election in Victoria, the Government moved to suppress the whole debate to silence him. Last year I remember that the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins) was silenced on an education question in the same area. On many historic occasions the Government has taken steps to silence political comment in this place when such comment was in order. When the honourable member for Reid spoke, points of order were raised by honourable members opposite and the Deputy Speaker, in accordance with his duty and with a proper understanding of the situation, said that the remarks were in order. Honourable members opposite- I think it was probably the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier)- moved that the question be put, and the whole debate was silenced.

If that state of affairs is allowed to continue this place will become another rump of a parliament such as those that exist in other parts of the world. This is one of the few free parliaments left and we will fight to the last ditch to keep it that way. We will take to the people the remarks made by honourable members opposite. Their comments and the interjections on occasions such as this will be circulated around their electorates. We will let their constituents know how they are treating one of the most important institutions in this country. The honourable member for Canberra who is occupying his seat only temporarily is barking like a small puppy because he has to try to impress the Prime Minister. We will let his constituents know what he is doing. It is time that we told the people of Bendigo what sort of man represents them. These are the people who will subvert every parliamentary and democratic institution in the country. They are turning this place into a bear garden. Under the leadership of the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair), who is a parliamentary disgrace when he gets warmed up, they did it when the Australian Labor Party was in office and they are continuing to do it now. Their time has come.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Mr UREN:
Reid

-Mr Acting Speaker, in support of the suspension of Standing Orders–

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar)

AYES: 68

NOES: 29

Majority……. 39

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2979

NOMAD AIRCRAFT

Ministerial Statement

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Productivity · Balaclava · LP

– I really must refer to the extraordinary behaviour of the Opposition half an hour ago, when this motion to suspend Standing Orders was moved and the Government said that I would be willing to make a statement. We have gone through an extraordinary charade of moving a motion to suspend Standing Orders to which we said that we would agree. The honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) told us that we have in some way destroyed the processes of this House.

Mr Armitage:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Minister for Productivity is to make a statement on a specific issue and not on the question of Standing Orders or the remarks of previous speakers. He is dealing with a specific issue. He is to make a statement on that, and I ask that you rule accordingly.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I ask the Minister to address himself to the question.

Mr MACPHEE:

– I am delighted to address myself to the question. A question was put to me at Question Time by a distinguished member of this House, who is a former airman, interested in a distinguished aircraft. It is legitimate for a back bench member, a private member of the Government parties, to ask a question at Question Time. The Opposition wanted to deny him the right to do that. When, in fact, the Opposition asked me to make a statement, the Government made it clear that I would be prepared to make a statement. We need not have gone through this charade that we have just gone through. I said at Question Time -

Mr Bryant:

- Mr Acting Speaker, I take a point of order. It is fair enough in debate to make all sorts of statements. The fact is that we did not try to stop the question. We tried to stop the lengthy answer so that we could get on with the job.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order. Before the Minister resumes his speech, I ask honourable members to maintain the decorum of the House, to settle down and to attend to the business of the Parliament.

Mr MACPHEE:

-The answer was lengthy only because of the number of interruptions that came from the Opposition. The question was in relation to an article in this morning’s Canberra Times. Amongst the matters raised in the article was the question -

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. We have had enough humbug from this Minister this morning.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Newcastle knows full well that if he wishes to raise a point of order it is not to be introduced in that fashion. I am not prepared to accept a point of order of that nature.

Mr MACPHEE:

– lt is interesting that the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) speaks on this debate because last night he was trying to deny the Australian public cheap air fares to the Association of South-East Asian Nations countries. He said that in this House.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Acting Speaker, I thank you for anticipating what I was going to do. The Minister is a liar.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Newcastle will withdraw that expression.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I withdraw the statement. What the Minister just said is completely and totally untrue.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

Mr MACPHEE:

– I have extolled the virtues of the Nomad aircraft on many occasions. Its versatility is well known to all honourable members of this House. It was designed to fill a gap in aviation, and this it did. The aircraft has a short takeoff and landing capacity. It has an Allison engine which has distinguished itself in helicopters. It has a great hovering capacity. As well as being a fast aircraft, it is able to hover in much the same way as helicopters were designed to do. Anyone who has seen the Nomad knows the capacity of the aircraft to land in difficult situations. It comes in several varieties which have been certified not only by the Department of Transport but also by the United States Federal Aviation Authority.

The basic certification for the Nomad N22 aircraft was granted in Australia by the Department of Transport in April 1975. The United States Federal Aviation Administration certification was awarded in May 1977. Certification in the Scandinavian countries will proceed as soon as the Department of Transport’s de-icing certification is completed, which we expect to be in the very near future. The certification for the N22 version to operate as a regular passenger transport was granted by the Department of Transport in January 1978 and by the Federal Aviation Administration in November 1978. Australian certification of the stretched Nomad N24 was granted on 21 October 1977. The Australian Department of Transport certification of the N24A, the commuter version, was granted in May, and the Federal Aviation Administration certification was granted in November 1978. The floatplane version of the N22B is now with Wipline in Minneapolis in the United States of America and has completed FAA certification trials. The FAA certification is expected very shortly.

I mention those certifications because they do indicate the versatility of the Nomad. I have referred to the floatplane version. Experiments are going ahead with an amphibious version. The Nomad is an aircraft of which we can be proud. I mentioned the hovering qualities, and the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) sought to construe that as meaning that it was like a helicopter. It is not like a helicopter but it has a remarkable capacity to slow down so that it can search the ground. It is, therefore, ideally suited for surveillance purposes as well as having a capacity to land on beaches or in rough terrain in a short distance. The important capacity of the Nomad for surveillance purposes has been recognised by this Government. We have made a decision that in respect of the experimental period there are three main roles of surveillance aircraft, and in each of those three roles the Nomad will be used. At the end of the experimental period, Cabinet will again consider the precise nature of our surveillance contribution and the precise role the Nomad will have in it.

In respect of marketing the aircraft, I think it is fair to say that we have a marketing concept which has established a world-wide network of distributors and agents. Distributorships and agencies have been appointed in Australia and overseas countries. We cover New Zealand, South East Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, Southern Europe, Pakistan, South and Central Americas, the United Kingdom, the Benelux countries, Scandinavia, India and the Philippines. We have a most extensive array of distributors. The Nomad has been exhibited at many overseas air shows, including a current one in the United States and one shortly to be held in Paris. The Nomad aircraft has aroused great customer interest from all over the world. I have mentioned before in this Parliament the number of countries in which the aircraft is operating. Time and time again the Government has showed its support for the aircraft. In fact, it has given approval to the production of a total of 145 aircraft, and we have arrangements in train for evaluating future requirements.

One of the points I was trying to make in Question Time this morning was in relation to customer satisfaction. It surprised me that the journalist in question did not seek to talk to people who have had experience in flying the Nomad. Most people who have been in Papua New Guinea or elsewhere in the Pacific know that the mission pilots are very skilled and experienced pilots who really test their aircraft to the full. They demand a great deal from their aircraft. Let me quote the words of Mr Simmelink, who is the Vice-President for Asia, of the Missionary Aviation Fellowship:

Our Nomad N22B has been in operation in Irian Jaya, Indonesia for just over 13 months. During that time it has flown more than 1000 hours in some of the most rugged terrain in the world. It has flown in and out of 400 metre mountain airstrips with payloads of up to 3000 lb. Well over 800 hours were flown in emergency earthquake relief operations carrying more than 900,000 lb of food and other relief supplies to earthquake victims in the remote mountains and canyons of Irian Jaya.

I just want to report the Nomad has not let us down. It has, in fact, surpassed our expectations. Performance is all that you said it would be- and more. Our maintenance has been minimal. We in MAF salute the GAF. You have designed and built a truly rugged, high performing aircraft. It meets all our requirements.

The only other comment I wish to make is to quote Mr John Laffan, the ferry pilot of Superior Air Services, who says:

I have delivered over 30 of the Nomads sold around the world- to Europe, the Philippines, South America and the United States of America, across both Atlantic and the Pacific. I have not had one serious problem with the aircraft even at high ferry overloads, through severe turbulence, and in heavy icing during winter months around Iceland. Greenland, Northern Canada and Scandinavia. All delivery deadlines have been achieved on schedule.

The aircraft is reliability and safety personified.

I believe that the confidence which this Government has shown in the Nomad is more than vindicated by those remarks. In addition, those remarks more than vindicate the certification granted to the aircraft by both the Department of Transport in Australia and the Federal Aviation Administration in the United States. Each of those authorities has an excellent safety record, and Australian civil aviation can be very confident that the Nomad satisfies all of their criteria.

I present the following paper:

Nomad Aircraft- Ministerial Statement, 6 June 1979.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-This morning in this House we have seen an exercise in obstruction by the Government and an exercise in abuse of parliamentary procedures which is wholly unjustified -

Mr Ruddock:

– I wish to raise a point of order.

Mr MORRIS:

– Are you going to take the time now? You are still disrupting.

Mr Ruddock:

– The first point of order taken on the previous speaker, the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee) came from a speaker on the opposite side of the House who said that the Minister was not speaking to the paper when he did not immediately start to discuss the Nomad aircraft but discussed proceedings that had gone on before. The Minister was called to order by the Acting Speaker. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you to ensure that the Opposition complies with the same standard that was set in relation to the Minister for Productivity and that the honourable member for Shortland speaks to the paper on the question of the Nomad aircraft and nothing else.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I naturally agree with the point of order that was taken on the previous speaker and with the decision that was given at the time. I ask the honourable member for Shortland to address himself to the statement.

Mr MORRIS:

-Might I also suggest that a short time ago the House supported a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. Within that motion for the suspension of Standing Orders was a very important motion that the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee) should explain the Government’s action in initially drawing aircraft surveillance tenders in a form that excluded utilisation of Nomad aircraft. It is significant that the Minister did not touch at all on the very important thrust of the motion that had been adopted by the House. The Minister responsible not only got the Nomad confused with helicopters- he thought it could hover like a helicopter on the basis of its having the same engine manufacturer- but he also could not even get around to the substance of the motion. Here we get back to the real story of the Nomad aircraft with this Government. The Nomad has been an orphan, an unwanted aircraft with the conservatives opposite. It was the subject last year of desperate ministerial brawls between the Minister for Productivity, the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) and the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen).

As I recall it, the Minister for Productivity carried out backroom briefings of the Press on how he was losing out, and how the aircraft surveillance guidelines and the tender documents which were being drawn would exclude the Nomad aircraft. The Minister responsible was unable to persuade his fellow ministers to utilise the Australian product. At that very time I was at the Farnborough Air Show. I inspected the Nomads on display. I was there on the afternoon that the Belgium and Netherlands police forces were to be given demonstration flights in the use of that aircraft for police surveillance work. I returned to Australia a week later and learned that there was a solid campaign in this country by the senior ministers of the Government- not by the junior boy, almost the lowest ranking minister, but by the heavies- to exclude the use of Nomad aircraft in aircraft surveillance around the Australian coast.

Let us put to rest the bleating and complaints of the Minister for Productivity about his Government’s attitude to the Nomad aircraft. The record shows that it was an unwanted aircraft. It was an orphan aircraft. It was not until the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) got involved as a result of pressure by the Opposition and the public and media attention that a compromise was made. The record shows that the tender document guidelines were changed so that the aircraft could be used whereas under the original guidelines it could not have been used. I say that the Opposition from the beginning has always supported the development, manufacture, marketing and utilisation of this fine Australian-built aircraft.

Mr Hodgman:

– You are its worst knockers.

Mr MORRIS:

– The honourable member is a disgrace to the Parliament. The safety, performance and the rebuttal of allegations against the aircraft’s performance are important and should have been the subject of a ministerial statement. A bleating statement has been dragged out of the Minister. He has been forced into making a report to the House. In the process he has got confused with helicopters. He did not know what he was talking about.

Mr Macphee:

– Rubbish.

Mr MORRIS:

-It is not rubbish. The Hansard record will show the Minister’s detailed explanation. For once he should be factual. The performance of the aircraft warrants a parliamentary debate. The back door method of writing a Dorothy Dix question, giving it to a back bencher and then trying to read the answer is an abuse of Question Time. That is what happened this morning. We saw a deliberate abuse of Question Time by a Minister without the courage or expertise in this subject to make a full and satisfactory statement in the Parliament on a very important issue. Is this not an important issue?

Mr Macphee:

– Of course it is.

Mr MORRIS:

-Why did the Minister not make a ministerial statement? Why did he use the back door method of answering a Dorothy Dix question, the cheapest and most paltry form of parliamentary procedure, to get a statement across and protect himself from any kind of response from the Opposition? That was the performance of the lowest ranking Minister.

Mr Bourchier:

– I take a point of order. The shadow Minister at the table is making comments that are totally incorrect. The Minister was trying to support a motion.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)Order! The honourable member for Bendigo will resume his seat. He has been warned by the Acting Speaker time and again about taking frivolous points of order.

Mr Bourchier:

– I take exception to your comments, Mr Deputy Speaker. I did not take a frivolous point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Bendigo has been warned time and again by the Acting Speaker about raising frivolous points of order. He is well aware that the attempt to take the point of order which he has just raised was not valid.

Mr Bourchier:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I am asking you -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I have ruled that there is no substance in the point of order. I ask the honourable member to address himself to the Standing Orders relating to points of order. The honourable member for Shortland was discussing a matter. It is not in order for honourable members to enter the debate by taking points of order.

Mr Ruddock:

– I raise a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to what I regard as a breach of your earlier ruling. The honourable member for Shortland is canvassing the debate and not speaking to the motion that the House take note of the paper.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Shortland will need to address himself strictly to the statement under discussion. I ask him to do that.

Mr MORRIS:

-It is quite clear that the Government is so sensitive on this issue that it does not want to debate it. That is why it is disrupting the debate on the statement. I return to the substance of the motion which called for an explanation of the Government’s action in initially drawing aircraft surveillance tenders in a form that excluded utilisation of the Nomad aircraft. Can somebody from the Government side- obviously the Minister is incapable of doing so- explain to the Parliament why this aircraft has suddenly become the subject of so much attention and why the Minister answered a Dorothy Dix question in the House today when the aircraft was rejected outright by the Govern,ment only a few months ago? Why the contradiction? Perhaps when the Government has enough courage and expertise we will get an answer.

I refer to the facts. The first major air order for Nomad aircraft was placed by the Whitlam Government. Those aircraft were to be used in the Northern Territory medical and health services. There was no mention of that by the Minister for Productivity. The Minister in his statement sought, firstly, to elude the main thrust of the question and, secondly, to try to score some petty political point. The other matters referred to in the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders which I moved included the quality and the economies of the aircraft. No one doubts the quality of the aircraft. No one doubts its economies. Yet the Minister told us nothing of those matters. This is an important subject. A detailed statement should have been made setting out those matters. The Minister did not make such a statement. We heard only a smattering of information about the advantages of the Nomad for the varying types of tasks at hand. The whole exercise was a ruse to get a little publicity for a Minister who cannot make a proper ministerial statement on a very important subject.

The crucial matter is the safety performance of the aircraft. I ask honourable members whether it is good enough when the safety performance of the major aircraft manufactured by Australian industry is under serious challenge in the media for the Minister to use a Dorothy Dix question to try to dismiss the matter. We say that that is not good enough. It underlines the cursory support of this Government for the Nomad aircraft. The Government did not want it. The Prime Minister forced the Government to order it and change the aircraft surveillance guidelines. Why did the guidelines change? That is the question that needs to be answered. We understand from the various statements and programmed leaks from the Government side that the Nomad was not considered fast enough. The Government wanted a faster aircraft to catch the baddies. When the baddies got a faster aircraft the Department of Defence would have asked for a faster aircraft still. As one writer who took this process to its logical conclusion said, we would have had to equip the surveillance force with Mirages. That would have been the only way we could have kept up.

From that kind of idiotic argument we come back to the fact that the guidelines were suddenly changed overnight to enable the utilisation of the Nomad aircraft. Why? Who stood on whom? Who was brawling with whom? I have outlined the concern of the Minister for Transport. I neglected to mention the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) who should have been included. I also referred to the Minister for Productivity and some input from the Department of Defence. Again, on this very important subject about which the Government pretends it has concern, we have been given no explanation. The most ridiculous statement of all was that of the Minister for Productivity in describing the engine capacity of the Nomad aircraft. He said that Allison engines which are used in helicopters because of their hovering capacity are admirable for the Nomad aircraft. My rough recollection is that a Nomad aircraft has a stalling speed of about 100 miles an hour. Unless the Minister for Productivity and the whizz kids in his research section have developed some method by which the Nomad aircraft can hover at 100 miles an hour, I am very sorry for the Minister. I would like him to try to hover in a Nomad aircraft with Allison engines just like a helicopter. It is not good enoughfor him to say that that is not what he said. The record will show what he said. He did not know what he was talking about.

I now refer to overseas marketing. I think it is a great feather in the cap of the Nomad aircraft and the Government Aircraft Factories that the certification of the aircraft by the Federal Aviation Administration in the United States will open up new avenues for the sale of the aircraft. We welcome that. We also welcome the Government’s efforts, although they were not as strong as they might have been, in developing a wider market acceptance of the Nomad aircraft on a global basis. We would have to agree with that. We would have to agree with the marketing of the aircraft abroad. But as I said earlier, it is a pretty poor kind of sales exercise to be trying to convince people at foreign air shows that they ought to use aircraft for the very purpose for which this Government has rejected them. Even though the Minister’s statement, forced upon him as it was, is some addition to public knowledge on Nomad aircraft and to the claims made in today’s Canberra Times, it is not a satisfactory response to the issue at hand.

Debate (on motion by Mr Graham) adjourned.

page 2984

DRAFT SESSIONAL ORDERS: ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

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

– For the information of honourable members I present a copy of draft sessional orders relating to the proposed establishment of Estimates Committees of the House. I am presenting the draft sessional orders now so that all honourable members may have an opportunity to study them during the forthcoming adjournment. Subject to any comments which members might have, I would propose to move a formal motion when the House resumes in August to enable the Committees to be operative in the Budget sittings.

page 2984

AUSTRALIA-CHINA COUNCIL WORKING GROUP

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Australia-China Council Working Group.

page 2984

LEGAL AID COMMISSION

Mr VINER:
Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs · Stirling · LP

– Pursuant to section 97 of the Legal Aid Ordinance 1977 I present the annual report of the Legal Aid Commission (Australian Capital Territory) for the period 1 1 July 1977 to 30 June 1978.

page 2984

GUIDELINES FOR EDUCATION COMMISSIONS

Mr STALEY:
Minister for Post and Telecommunications · CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the text of a statement by the Minister for Education on guidelines for Education Commissions for 1980 to 1982.

Motion ( by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Debate (on motion by Dr Cass) adjourned.

page 2984

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs · Wentworth · LP

– Pursuant to section 8 of the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act 1974 I present an agreement concluded on 30 March 1979 in relation to the provision of financial assistance to New South Wales for programs relating to the restoration, preservation and improvement of landscapes and buildings of special significance.

page 2984

NATIONAL WOMEN’S ADVISORY COUNCIL

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs · Wentworth · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report by the National Women’s Advisory Council entitled ‘Migrant Women Speak’. The report sets out a series of recommendations based on the views of migrant women themselves. I hope that the report will promote a discussion of the needs of migrant women, and I know it will be a valuable resource for the Government concerning our implementation of the Galbally report and our efforts to assist migrant women.

page 2984

INDICATIVE PLANNING COUNCIL

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Housing and Construction · Braddon · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Indicative Planning Council for the housing industry for 1979-80 to 1981-82.

Motion ( by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Debate (on motion by Mr Uren) adjourned.

page 2985

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the House today the Minister for National Development (Mr Newman) claimed that he had not seen a minute circulated at Lucas Heights which claimed that security had been tightened up because of an alleged threat by Japanese anti-nuclear activists. The Minister claimed that I had not complied with requests to make the minute available. That is not correct. Last night a member of the Minister’s staff agreed to call at my office to collect the minute. A member of my staff and I waited for 15 minutes after the House had risen, but no one from the Minister’s staff came to collect that document. This morning, at five past nine, I made a copy available to a member of the Minister’s office. Clearly the Minister needs another alibi for his incompetent reply this morning at Question Time.

page 2985

NORTHERN TERRITORY FORESTRY PROGRAM

Ministerial Statement

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs · Wentworth · LP

– by leave- In accordance with the procedure to be followed with respect to reports tabled by Parliamentary committees, as outlined by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to this House on 25 May 1978, 1 wish to make a statement on the report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure relating to the Northern Territory forestry program. (Quorum formed).

This report was tabled in the House of Representatives on 2 June 1978 and there was a short but informative debate on the subject. The report was very critical of the Northern Territory forestry program and recommended that it be substantially reduced, particularly in relation to softwood plantings.

As honourable members will know, responsibility for forestry matters passed to the Northern Territory Government on 1 July 1978 when the Territory gained self-government. The report has therefore been made available to the Northern Territory Government to assist it in the consideration of future forestry policies, and I am sure that it will find the report helpful.

There are a few points of detail about the report that should, I feel, be mentioned. In relation to the activities of the Forestry and Timber Bureau of the Department of Primary Industry, it should be noted that, although the initial survey was undertaken by a Bureau officer in the late 1950s, the Bureau ceased to have executive responsibility for the program in July 1967. Thereafter, the Bureau’s work in the Northern Territory was confined to research into the species that should be grown and the various problems that became evident.

The Standing Committee recommended a substantial reduction in funding for the Northern Territory forestry program in 1978-79. As honourable members will be aware, expenditure priorities are now determined by the Northern Territory Executive within the limit of the funds available, including the grant from the Commonwealth. In fact, the Northern Territory Government in its 1 978-79 Budget has diverted a significant proportion of the operational expenditure of the former Forestry Branch to parks and gardens operations in Darwin, Alice Springs and other locations. I am also advised that the Northern Territory Government has taken action to incorporate the Forestry Unit into the Northern Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission in recognition of the major conservation role of forestry.

The Committee also recommended that any future financial assistance to be provided by the Commonwealth for softwood plantation operations in the Northern Territory should be determined on the same basis as now applied to the States of Australia. The Softwood Forestry Agreement Act 1978 authorises loans to the States to cover maintenance costs of softwood plantations established with Commonwealth assistance under the three previous Acts. The Northern Territory was not a party to those agreements and does not qualify for assistance under the 1 978 Act. However, under the Memorandum of Understanding in respect of financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and a self-governing Northern Territory, it is open for the Northern Territory Government to seek a specific purpose payment for forestry from 1979-80 under similar conditions applying to the States. Under the Memorandum of Understanding such payments would be accompanied by a reduction in general purpose funds to the Northern Territory. Should further agreements be made with the States for financial assistance for softwood forestry plantations, the Northern Territory Government would have the opportunity to participate in the negotiation of those agreements.

The Government appreciates the value of the Committee’s report which, as such reports should be, was searching and, where it seemed necessary to the Committee, critical. In view of the highly technical nature of the matter, however, the then Minister for the Northern Territory considered it desirable to obtain further expert technical advice on some of the important matters raised. He therefore arranged through the Queensland Minister for Lands, Forestry and Water Resources for a technical evaluation to be undertaken by professional officers of the Queensland Department of Forestry. This report was duly received. It endorsed, with some qualification, findings of the Standing Committee regarding further research, but favoured the continuation of further plantings on Melville Island and some native forestry projects. The Government is grateful to the Queensland authorities for undertaking this task, and the report will be made available to interested parties on request. The Government believes that the two reports, although differing in certain respects, will form a valuable basis for consideration by the Northern Territory Government of its future forestry policies. Although, as I have said, the subject matter of the Standing Committee’s report relates to functions and responsibilities of the Northern Territory Government, the Commonwealth Government is grateful to the Standing Committee for its analysis and recommendations. I present the following paper:

Northern Territory Forestry Program- Ministerial Statement, 6 June 1979.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
Lilley

-As Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure and of the Sub-committee which inquired into the Northern Territory forestry program, I will respond to the remarks of the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott). I know that the Vice-chairman of the sub-committee and a third member, the honourable member for Perth (Mr McLean), also want to say a few words. The members of the Committee are very disappointed with the response that has been given to the work that the Subcommittee has carried out. First of all, we are disappointed that the urgency of the response has not been heeded by the Government or the Minister. The Minister mentioned that our report was submitted on 25 May 1978. He knows that the response to that report should be made within six months, according to the advice of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). The response came more than 12 months after the report was submitted to this House. The members of the Sub-committee feel that that fact deserves at least the barest of passing references, but it did not gain any from the Minister.

The history of the Sub-committee’s attitude to the Northern Territory forestry program needs to be recounted. We were informed in late March 1978 by a former member of the Expenditure Committee that this matter should be investigated. We knew that substantial selfgovernment responsibilities were to be handed to the Northern Territory on 1 July 1978. So within a short period and with very expert advice we made a report, not one word of which is in dispute. Where there is a pretence at dispute, such as by the Chief Secretary of the Northern Territory Administration, that pretence is shot down by a report of his own officers. I will read the words of that report into Hansard in a few minutes.

The upshot of the Sub-committee’s report is that, whilst its members are mollified with statements that the work of the Sub-committee was found to be useful, good, deserving of praise and so on, not one skerrick of our recommendation on financial restraint or financial consequence is to be put upon the Northern Territory Administration. That simply means that $25m to $30m has been wasted. In 1979 dollars terms that is not a small amount of money. All the circumstances exist for a waste of $25m to $30m to continue despite our report. That ought to concern this House. I know that it concerns all members of the Expenditure Committee, irrespective of the party to which they belong.

It is true that in the middle of last year an investigation of our report was commissioned by two Queensland foresters, a Mr Hawkins and another gentleman whose name escapes me. That report has been relied upon by the Northern Territory Administration to justify its attitude. I want to read into the Hansard the results of the investigation of that report by officers of Mr Everingham ‘s Department in the Northern Territory itself. They are significant. This has not yet been disclosed. In a five-page report they very substantially supported all the work that the Expenditure Committee had performed. I will quote from the report:

After 20 years in the forestry business we do not seem to have much to show. For example- no commercial forests; no approved species on areas of development; a large amount of research still required. A report from Queensland-

That is the report on our submission to this House-

  1. . does not necessarily justify what has been, or is being, done nor does it rescind the House of Representatives report on the economies of the venture.

It states that ‘still large amounts of research are required before doing anything else’. Yet funding is to continue from the Commonwealth Government for doing something else. One principal example is 400 acres a year of plantation on Melville Island for which there is no justification whatsoever from any scientific or rational authority. I will speak for only a few more minutes because I think this is a significant matter. The Forestry and Timber Bureau of the Department of Primary Industry cannot escape responsibility. There is the reference in the Minister’s statement to the fact that the Bureau ceased to have executive responsibility for the program in July 1967. That carries with it the impression that what has happened since that time is not of the Bureau’s doing. That is not quite correct. I want to deal with this at some length. A letter was written last year to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) discounting that disclaimer. I do not want to seek to incorporate that letter in Hansard, but I want to say this: The big leap forward in terms of Northern Territory forestry occurred from the late 1960s to 1975. The Director of the Forestry and Timber Bureau was on the interdepartmental committee which recommended that big leap forward. I suggest that the Minister ought to ask for the minutes of that IDC on that leap forward which is the time period which principally accounts for the appalling waste that has occurred. The disclaimer cannot be accepted. It was unanimously supported -

Mr Ellicott:

-What IDC is that?

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:

– The IDC on the Northern Territory forestry program on which Dr Cromer sat and which accounts for the expansion of activities in the period up to 1975-76. There was unanimous support for that recommendation and he was involved with it. I will comment on only one or two other points because the other members of the Sub-committee want to make some remarks as well.

The plain fact is that there was a forestry department in the Northern Territory. That department has now been incorporated into what is called the Northern Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission. Very little work was done and a lot of cover-up was involved. On our information the Forestry Section of that Commission consists of a larger number of personnel than worked in the Forestry Department which has been scarified and lacerated by our report, and justifiably so. How can governments claim a program of some austerity under those circumstances when there was one rule for some parts of Australia and apparently another in respect of the Forestry Department of the Northern Territory Administration? It is a ludicrous set of circumstances.

We agree with the report that if there is to be a commencement of activities it ought to be after adequate research. That is not the case now. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is carrying out research which should be appropriate to the situation. We believe that expansion or maintenance of softwood plantation activities should be pursued under the Softwood Forestry Agreement and that financial assistance should be provided at rates of interest which are acceptable to the Australian Forestry Council.

Nothing that has been said this morning, nothing contained in the report of the Queensland foresters and nothing discovered in the investigation of both reports by the Northern Territory Administration disputes the substance of what was submitted to this House over one year ago. Every skerrick of the sub-committee report is correct, and the members of that subcommittee are not inclined to retreat from it one iota. If every skerrick of that report is correct, there has to be and there should be financial consequences that flow from that fact. There is no point in saying: ‘What you said is correct, what you said is true and what you said is right, but let us ignore the economic, financial and money consequences that flow from it and pretend that nothing has occurred ‘. That is contrary to common sense, contrary to the procedures of this House and contrary to what we present to the Australian people.

The funding for the Northern Territory forestry program should not be included in the general grants for the Northern Territory so that we do not know how much it is. A waste of $25m to $30m has occurred. We should not allow this to continue. There is a sense of some anger. I know the honourable member for Perth (Mr McLean) has a welling, although subdued sense of anger about these matters. The same sense of anger wells up in the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown), who has a stoic-like face. I know those honourable members want to say something. We have the abiding impression that there is a sense of co-operation between bureaucracies trying to maintain themselves.

Debate interrupted.

page 2988

QUESTION

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MEMBER

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Yesterday in response to a question directed to me by the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Burns) regarding the implied allegation by Senator O ‘Byrne that a member of the House of Representatives was summoned to my office regarding a barbecue set allegedly missing from the Senate courtyard for several days I replied to the effect that there was absolutely no substance to the implied allegation. I am informed also by the Secretary of the Joint House Department that a barbecue set had not been removed from the Senate courtyard. The Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) requested that, because of concern felt by honourable senators and members, I in conjunction with Mr President inquire into the full circumstances of the alleged event and report to the House. I have to inform the House that, following the earlier raising of the matter by Senator James Cavanagh, Mr President conducted an investigation and reported to the Senate at some length. The essential element of Mr President’s statement, which, of course, is recorded in full in the Senate Hansard of 4 June 1979, was the report of the Secretary of the Joint House Department furnished in response to Mr President’s request. The report is itemised and I shall read it for the benefit of honourable members. It states:

Allegation by Senator Cavanagh

Departmental investigations have been carried out into the following aspects of the allegations by Senator Cavanagh. These investigations have failed to produce any evidence in support of the allegations made.

Medical Treatment

The record of medical treatment given in the first-aid room contains no entry to support the statement that Mr Pretty was doctored with bandaids, et cetera, in the first-aid room’.

Barbecue Fire

The foreman Gardener has reported there is no evidence of recent fires being set or lit in the Senate or House of Representatives Gardens.

Administrative Action

The senior administrative staff of the Department comprise:

The Secretary- Mr E. J. Donnelly

Security Co-ordinator- Mr W. J. McLaren

Chief Executive Officer-Mr R. L. Burrell

Senior Administrative Officer- Mr M. D. T. Niven

They first became aware of the allegations as a result of Senator Cavanagh ‘s statement and each has denied involvement in or any knowledge of any administrative action or threats directed against Mr Pretty.

Police

Enquiries have been made of the Commonwealth Police and the preliminary police reply indicates that the police patrols were not aware of any incident of the nature alleged.

It has not been possible to interview the female employee allegedly involved because she is not identified in the allegations and the Joint House Department has no information which would enable identification.

Signed E. J. DONNELLY, 4June 1979

It will be recalled that, in an earlier statement by the President to the Senate, the Secretary of the Joint House Department had advised him as follows:

The statement of events made by Senator Cavanagh has been read to and discussed with Mr Pretty by the Secretary, Joint House Department. Mr Pretty has denied knowledge of all the alleged events.

As undertaken to the House yesterday, I have had discussions with Mr President and we have jointly come to the conclusion that all proper avenues of inquiry have been explored. We are led to the conclusion that there is no substance in the allegations as originally raised by Senator Cavanagh and supplemented, to some extent, by the subsequent question in the Senate by Senator Justin O ‘Byrne. It is proper that I should add that, following the President’s statement to the Senate on 3 1 May acquainting the Senate of the result of his inquiries, Senator Cavanagh immediately apologised to anyone he had injured and to the Senate. In all the circumstances, it is not my intention to pursue the matter further.

Sitting suspended from 12.58 to 2.15 p.m.

page 2988

NORTHERN TERRITORY FORESTRY PROGRAM

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-In speaking to the response that the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) has made to a report of the Standing Committee on Expenditure I would like to start my remarks by suggesting to the Minister that the whole response leads me to wonder what parliamentary committees are for. I wonder whether they are set up only to be a sop to the back benchers on the Government side to keep them busy or whether they are really set up to provide objective, rational, critical analysis of government programs, their aims, objectives and performances. The Expenditure Committee under the chairmanship of the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) and formerly under the Deputy Chairmanship of our late lamented colleague, Mr Frank Stewart, exemplifies the real reason for the Parliament’s existence. Surely bipartisan investigation of public expenditure is one of the real reasons why all members are sent here by our electorates. We believe that the results which this Committee has produced in a number of subjects have been nonpolitical, bipartisan, honest assessments of expenditure of public funds.

The Northern Territory forestry examination was a classical example of that rationale being implemented. The three members of the subcommittee, the honourable member for Lilley, the honourable member for Penh (Mr McLean) and I, had the complimentary advice of Australia’s most eminent forester, Mr Kel McGrath, who is the former Dean of Forestry at the Australian National University and who has been decorated by the United Nations for his work in the forests of Brazil. There is nobody in Australia with a higher degree of expertise in the forestry area than Kel McGrath. We were very lucky to have his services.

I would like to reacquaint members of the House with the history of the project. The investigation into Northern Territory Forestry was promoted by a report which was made to the Parliament by the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins), who suggested that there might be some scope for forestry in the Northern Territory. The history of the report is that the Committee, after its short investigation, discovered that there had been a $30m waste of public money over 20 years. I would think that the report we issued should be a salutary warning to governments, and particularly to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, of how governments can be seduced and fooled by devious officials. The original Cabinet submission of 1959 which promoted the scheme was an exaggerated assessment of the Northern Territory’s forestry potential. These reports were provided by people either blatantly dishonest or lacking in the technical expertise they were supposed to possess. Their error was probably a combination of both factors, that is, poor advice provided by mediocre foresters with a more than acute sense of potential empire building. Over the years this web of deception and/or ignorance, inexcusable from highly paid people described as experts, has been allowed to spread until a pathetic situation revealed by our inquiry 20 years later was ultimately reached.

The sub-committee, on its visit to the Northern Territory, was appalled not only by what it found but what it did not find. The gentleman to whom I referred earlier, Mr Kel McGrath, spent days in the forestry areas looking for what he aptly described as the mythical tree, even one that was worth harvesting. The professional sense of Mr McGrath, a world renowned forester, was assailed and offended by what the Department was exhibiting as its precious resource. The native eucalypts have practically no commercial value and the pine plantations exhibited growth rates well below accepted levels. The scheme was originally set up with three high-sounding ideals; preserving the natural resource, providing youthful employment for Aborigines and conserving the soil, water and wildlife. On each count it has been a splendid failure.

In 1955 a report was published by an eminent forester named Mr Bateman which stated in unequivocal terms the limitations on forestry development in the Northern Territory. This report was a realistic assessment of the Northern Territory forestry resources and its little potential for development. The report gave due recognition to the realities of the Northern Territory environment. Despite the truth of this report a large forestry organisation was developed. The organisation was significant in terms of Northern Territory expenditure and personnel employed. This organisation completely overshadowed the meagre forestry resource. The forest itself had always offered mute protests. Despite paper expectations and peoples’ opinions, the resource remained as it was and always will be, a very poor and primitive one.

The simple figures of this 1955 report illustrate the overstatement of the Department’s view of its resources. For example, the Maningrida area had, according to the Department, a projected output of 2,245 super feet an acre. The real production and what was eventually produced was accurately nominated by the 1955 report as 100 super feet an acre. The 100 super feet an acre is a much different result from a projection of 2,245 feet an acre. That figure is something we cannot accept.

There are a few other interesting statistics which come from the report, but I will not bore the House with the lot of them. A few of them are these: The Department of Aboriginal Affairs admits to spending $870,000 since 1971 for Aboriginal enterprises in forestry. The total return has been $33,000. At Umbakumba, $45,000 was spent with no return. At Maningrida $370,000 was spent in 1 975-76 for a return of $ 1 ,500. Even that does not include a quarter of a million dollars spent on a defunct sawmill which we saw rusting away. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has spent $948,000 in less than three years on forestry research with such a significant lack of results that it is now withdrawn from the Northern Territory. One of the answers to one of the sub-committee ‘s questionnaires suggested that surveyed areas of natural timber on Melville Island totalled 695,000 hectares. As the total area of Melville

Island is only 570,000 we wondered where the area to plant the rest would be found. Overstatements like these are fairly typical of the figures that were quoted to us.

One simple fact emerges. Despite the idealism of the original concept, despite the great efforts over the years of many of the more devoted forestry staff to conquer the myriad of problems, the grant dream is in tatters. One telling statistic fully illustrates the history of this ill-conceived and disastrous venture. The Department in 1974 informed the Forwood Conference that the anticipated production of hardwood sawlogs in the Territory in 1980 would be 58,000 cubic metres. Despite criticism from foresters, this figure for 1980 production was raised again in 1977 to 82,000 cubic metres. The Committee is now informed that the figure has been revised in 1978 to zero.

The Minister, in his response to our report, does less than justice to the amount of work which went into the investigations and ultimate report of the Standing Committee on Expenditure. The Minister has virtually said: ‘Thanks for your trouble but the Northern Territory now has self-government and may use the money it gets anyway it likes’. This reply to the Committee’s report is certainly not good enough. The Committee was well aware of the approach of selfgovernment in the Northern Territory when it started the investigation. The Minister virtually tells us now that the Committee’s report is superfluous. Although the Committee’s investigation did not commence until 26 April, the report was tabled on 2 June, for the reason of the approach of self-government. That was stated, in fact, in the introduction of the report. Indeed, as the inquiry proceeded, the need for urgency became startingly evident so that necessary Commonwealth action could be taken before the Territory obtained self-government on 1 July.

As the Committee began to find, an estimated $30m in expenditure had been wasted. It was essential, the Committee decided, that the conditions under which the Territory obtained the money from the Commonwealth should be clearly understood by the Northern Territory Government to exclude the possibility of the continuance of this profligacy. In contrast, the Minister saw no urgency at all in the matter. Instead of treating it as one demanding immediate action, the Minister has not even observed the procedure outlined by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). The Prime Minister promised that all committee reports would be answered within six months. I refer the House to the fact that the Committee ‘s report was tabled on 2 June 1978 and the response has been made on 7 June 1979. Meanwhile the Northern Territory Government has comfortably settled into the new order which in the absence of any action from the Commonwealth relative to the Committee’s report is, in this matter of forestry, merely a continuation of the old order to which the Committee tried to apply the brakes.

The Minister’s statement indicates incorrectly that the Northern Territory has diverted a significant proportion of the operational expenditure of the former Forestry Branch to parks and gardens operations in Darwin, Alice Springs and other locations. He does not indicate that the expenditure of public funds has been reduced to the extent of a curtailment in forestry funds, but merely that they have found an additional way of spending the money. Surely the Minister does not imply that he believes this is compatible with the austerity the Government is attempting to impose on practically every other avenue of government expenditure?

The intention to continue planting on Melville Island is one of the more unjustified examples that the Northern Territory Government is now showing of its absolute lack of faith in our report. A decision to continue planting would rank with the decision to spend millions of dollars on resource inventory in the hope of a woodchip export, for which there never has been any possibility because of the constant burning of forests by the Aborigines in the Northern Territory. Since the Minister’s statement appears to accept the Queenslander ‘s rejection of the report for the cessation of Melville Island softwood afforestation, as was instanced by the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns), it is pertinent to examine this aspect of the report. It is worth noting that the Chief Minister s investigators asked the interesting question: If it truly believed that forestry can be an economicaal proposition in the Northern Territory, ‘why not try to attract private enterprise to undertake forestry production?’ Why not, indeed? Private investment in afforestation has been established elsewhere in Australia for half a century. Why should it not be established near Darwin, which is starved for local supplies and entirely dependent on costly imports? Perhaps private afforestation would make a killing there, although one should examine the rationale under which the Northern Territory forestry operates.

There are a number of cautions which private enterprise would consider before it put money into a forestry venture. It is justifiable that governments would expect to make less profit on their revenue than perhaps private industry would make, but when we look at the problems involved I do not think that stands up to examination. The Melville Island prospects are too low for even a government to accept a combination of impossibly low productivity, Northern Territory termites, floods, fires, climate problems, soils, cyclones, Aboriginal ownership and Aboriginal burning traditions. All of these add up to a formidable parcel. All but the last two are not unknown elsewhere, but each hazard is extreme under Northern Territory conditions. In combination, they add up to a pretty disturbing prospect.

The Queensland foresters saw three other ways of spending forestry money in the Northern Territory, and the Committee rejected all three without reservation. Particularly in relation to softwood afforestation, we felt that here was just another example of what an increasing number of expert examiners have concluded to be the reason for failure after failure in the Northern Territory, namely, the idea that all one needs to do is transplant the technology of the temperate regions to the Northern Territory and it is bound to succeed. Despite early promise, it has always failed when it develops to the point of putting stress on the slender resources of the site. This has been fully documented time and time again. As Heatley, who is a very eminent author, concludes in his scholarly work ‘The Government of the Northern Territory”:

Neither should the lessons of Territory history be ignored; too many failures have occurred in the past to discount the likelihood of others in the future. In that event, however, there would be one significant difference; for the first time (Le. since self-government) the responsibility for failure could not be attributed so easily to the shortcomings of a remote administration.

I hope the people of the Northern Territory bear that in mind, because so it has been in Northern Territory forestry- both failure and the passing of the buck to Canberra. Plantations of cypress pine on Melville Island were commended to the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science by the Northern Territory chief forester as the saviour of Darwin ‘s dependence for its timber on costly outside supply. That was in 1 97 1 , but almost at once the cypress started to fail to live up to its promise. His expectation of a growth rate of 1 50 cubic ft per acre per year almost immediately started to slide as the plantations developed and began to stress the limitations of the site. That figure of 150 slipped to 100, to 60, to 50, and now, within seven years of the figure of 150 being put forward, the Queenslanders put the growth rate at about 20 cubic feet.

Meanwhile, with the failure of cypress already recognised, the switch was made to pinus caribaea as the plantation species. Will it go the same way? The Queenslanders obviously hope it will not because they recommend that taxpayers’ money still go into it, despite all the risks and hazards. They estimate that hopefully it will grow 10 cubic metres per hectare per annum- a productivity figure one half of the figure that is still not good enough for afforestation in South Australia, the State with the longest and greatest development of plantations in the Commonwealth. Moreover, it is a figure which is only onefifth of that which pinus radiata plantations actually achieve on the average in that State. How the Commonwealth Treasury can now stop the Northern Territory Government spending Commonwealth money in a continuation of the practice that it inherited from its predecessor to statehood, which the Minister now defends, certainly poses a problem. As one rueful observer recently ruminated: ‘Well might the taxpayer ask: “When departmental expenditure has gathered full headlong momentum, can it ever be stopped?” Perhaps the bureaucrat always wins’. Certainly the Minister’s cavalier treatment of the Expenditure Committee’s report will not help. The Minister concluded that the Government believes the two reports will form a valuable basis for consideration by the Northern Territory Government.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Mr McLEAN:
Perth

-I want briefly to support the remarks of the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) and the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown). I also am concerned at the way in which the findings of the Expenditure Committee regarding the Northern Territory forestry program have been handled. As has been said, our report was brought down in May last year, over 12 months ago, and we have not had a response until now. 1 do not want to blame the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott). I am sure that he has many more urgent and important matters on his plate than this program, and he has had to await the result of other inquiries. But I do think that a serious precedent was set, in relation to the handling of our report, by a subsequent report being commissioned. If adverse findings of Federal parliamentary committees lead to the establishment of further inquiries by State or territorial officers, at the instigation of the Federal Government, then the integrity of our committees is being questioned with the obvious intention of justifying existing expenditure programs.

I think it should be said that our Committee had a detailed look at this program. We had expert advice available to us and we took a great deal of evidence. We inspected the program at first hand and brought in a very carefully considered report. It was not done off the top of our heads. It would appear, however, that the attempt to justify the expenditure of more than $30m over the past 20 years has failed. We know that the Northern Territory Chief Minister, Mr Everingham, instructed two officers of his Department to examine the operations of the Northern Territory Forestry Service following the publication of our Committee’s findings. Their conclusions, particularly as they related to the report of the Queensland foresters, were very interesting. They stated quite clearly:

After 20 years in the forestry business we do not have much to show, e.g.-

No commercial forests.

No approved species on areas of development.

A large amount of research still required.

Most important of all, they said:

A report from Queensland does not necessarily justify what has or is being done nor does it rescind the House of Representatives report on the economies of the venture.

It appears to me that efforts to question our original report have failed and that the Chief Minister, Mr Everingham, has been misinterpreting and drawing wrong conclusions even from the report of the Queensland foresters, which was commissioned presumably to form a second and opposing opinion regarding our report. In answer to a question in the Northern Territory Assembly only a matter of days ago, Mr Everingham made a number of quite incorrect comments regarding the nature of our inquiry, the extent of natural resources in the Northern Territory, the viability of plantation growth rates, and the export potential of seedlings of pinus caribaea

In my view, the findings of the Standing Committee on Expenditure remain valid. The conclusions from the Queensland foresters are very optimistic. In my view, if the grant to the Northern Territory is to continue on the basis of their recommendation to continue with further plantings on Melville Island, then I would suggest that this would be throwing good money after bad, even on the basis of a purely technical evaluation. It would certainly not be justified under any economic test. Page 6 of their report supports this planting recommendation, stating that such plantations would be capable of sustaining a mean annual increment of at least 10 cubic metres per hectare. Our advice is that this is just not an acceptable level of productivity. It is not commercially viable. The report of the Queensland foresters begins by admitting that it has not been possible to carry out an economic evaluation of the softwood planting programs. With regard to the Melville Island plantings, they also state that a detailed benefit cost analysis be carried out to determine the longer term future of this plantation project. I would have thought that the plantation business by its very nature was a long term project and should, therefore, not proceed until such an analysis was undertaken. The report of the Queensland foresters seriously understates the natural hazards of forestry in the Northern Territory. It ignores the fact that although these hazards may be separately and effectively countered elsewhere in the world, in the Northern Territory they occur together and with great intensity. We were told quite clearly that even billiard balls were not safe in the Northern Territory.

The report concludes by simply stating that in the aggregate all these risks may involve some additional costs and it does not state their magnitude. In my view their disregard for commercial viability is serious and should not be discounted by referring to the social gains of the program. Our evidence clearly showed that this activity had not been a successful long term employer of Aboriginals, quite apart from the question whether it is wise to train people for noneconomically viable enterprises. In summary, I can see nothing in the Queensland Foresters report which changes any of the recommendations of the initial report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure. There are differences between the recommendations of the Queensland report and the report of the officers of the Chief Minister. There are differences in the conclusions of the Queensland report and the statement of the Chief Minister in the Northern Territory Assembly. These inconsistencies only reinforced my confidence in our initial report.

I am particularly concerned with the statement by the Minister that, in the 1978-79 Budget, the Northern Territory Government diverted a significant proportion of the operational expenditure of the former forestry branch to parks and gardens operations in Darwin, Alice Springs and other locations. I would like some additional information in this regard. I am concerned at the diversion of these funds. It seems to imply acceptance of our Committee’s findings, but no reduction is made in the level of funding. I am not opposed to money being spent on parks or gardens. Street gardens have some value which is more than can be said of the forestry program.

The point which I make is that if the Northern Territory wants to have a parks and gardens program it should certainly have one but this should be within its own assessment of priorities and from its own resources. It should not be funded simply because previous levels of funding were over generous in supporting a poorly conceived and administered forestry program. I therefore hope that the Minister, in acknowledging as he did that the Northern Territory expenditure priorities are now determined by the Northern Territory Executive within the limit of available funds- including the grant from the Commonwealth- will recognise that to some extent this limit has a false base and that no new evidence has come to light which disputes this fact. I think this whole question raises very serious issues about the principles of Federal funding and I hope that the Minister will have a very close look at the Government’s funding response to this program and to our Committee’s recommendations

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Homes Affairs and the Minister for the Capital Territory · Wentworth · LP

– The problem in this debate is that the members who have spoken, whose comments I value very much and with whom I do not want to get into a heated debate, are in fact members of the Federal Parliament and not members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. I have not disagreed with these members at any stage because I believe it would be presumptuous of me to disagree with the findings of a committee that has gone to such a lot of trouble and has taken so much care in looking into this matter. Since 1 July last year, the Northern Territory has had self government and under that arrangement, in the practical sense, the Northern Territory Executive has control over what will happen to monies that are made available to that government the purposes of administering the Northern Territory.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– The Commonwealth makes the money available.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– The fact is that those amounts of money are made available not in a tied way as the honourable member for Lilley well knows. They are made available as a lump sum which goes to the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory Legislative Assembly members are responsible to their electorate for the expenditure of that money. If the legislators are wise administrators they will get hold of this report and read it very carefully- as I have done- to take note of it and see what they can do. They should also take note of the report that was received from Queensland. As I said in my report to this House, the fact is that the responsibility does not lie with me, nor did it lie with my predecessor. As soon as this report was received and tabled in this place on 2 June 1978, he acted quickly. He sought a report from Queensland, because as it was his responsibility and his right he felt that it needed further investigation.

On 1 July last year, the responsibility for these matters passed over to the Northern Territory Government. That is the complete answer to the questions asked by honourable members whose bona fides I do not dispute. Honourable members raise matters that they should have raised with the Northern Territory Government. Immediately this report was received, as I understand it, the report was sent on to that Government and I have no doubt that it took note of it. If it has not taken note of it, honourable members should tell some of the representatives in the Northern Territory to take it up in their Legislative Assembly in order to ensure that it is brought to the attention of that Government. So far as the Federal Government is concerned, the funds are not determined on the basis whether they should be put into forestry.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– That is not a correct statement. You allowed them to be transferred.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– It is correct.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order! The honourable member for Lilley has made his speech.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– It is all right for the honourable member for Lilley. He is sitting there making postulating statements about these things. He was not even involved in the negotiations with the Northern Territory. He knows quite well that those amounts are worked out on the basis of an overall sum. It has nothing to do with forestry. You know quite well, my learned honourable friend, that not one cent is passed to the Northern Territory Government for the purpose of putting into-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will address his remarks through the chair.

Mr ELLICOTT:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, tell the honourable member for Lilley that he will get the end of my tongue if he attacks me from the rear. Tell the honourable member for Lilley to be quiet. What I am putting to this Parliament is the fact, and the fact is that this money is not passed to the Northern Territory Government for the purposes of forestry. We have set up a self governing body to determine how those funds will be utilised. I can understand that the Honourable members who formed the subcommittee, having seen these things, felt disturbed about the fact that they were not able to press them upon a Commonwealth Minister. Needless to say, if I had the responsibility for these matters, I would be most disturbed if I had this report in my hand. I do not have it in hand as has the Minister who is responsible for forestry in the Northern Territory. I would like to make this clear to the House.

On the question of delay, this matter has taken a little bit longer than it should have taken. I apologise to the House. This was partly due to the fact- if not largely due to the fact- that there had been this change in responsibility. There was not only a change of legislative responsibility because the governing body was set up in the Northern Territory, but also a change in ministerial responsibility because the Department of the Northern Territory was abolished. On 1 October last, the responsibility came over to me as Minister for Home Affairs, well after these events occurred. At the same time, I was endeavouring to find some way of meeting the needs or demands of these honourable members who came to see me beforehand and raised the matter in other ways. The fact of the matter is that I cannot find a way as there is no way of achieving this end. It may be that at some stage the Northern Territory may seek a grant through the Grants Commission process. It could seek a grant for forestry purposes. If Mr Justice Else Mitchell is still the Commissioner, I would hope that he would take this report and the report of the Queensland officials into account. Before a grant is made for a special purpose, all these relevant matters should be taken into account. May I conclude on a pleasant note.

I reiterate that at no stage have I wanted to dispute either the bona fides or the judgment of the honourable members who formed this subcommittee. I do not dispute those things. I appreciate very much the work that they have put into the report. They would not be getting up in this place today unless they felt very strongly about it. I understand that, but I want the honourable members concerned to know that I, as the Minister who is responsible in the sense that I have been handed this report, do not feel any sense of conscience in relation to it. I cannot do anything about it, nor can the Government unless it stands over the Northern Territory Government and tells it that it will deduct say $20m from its grant because that money was provided for forestry purposes. In other words, it would have to pass some judgment on how the funds should be disbursed in the Northern Territory. As I understand it, that would quite contrary to the memorandum of understanding. Therefore, with all the goodwill in the world, I feel that the Government, through me as the responsible Minister, has dealt with this report- a little late I concede, nevertheless bona fide- with a view to trying to do our best with it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2994

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

– I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr BAUME:

– I do.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member may proceed.

Mr BAUME:

– I have been misrepresented on two occasions. The first occasion occurred in the Laurie Oakes Report which asserted that the powerful Government members Treasury Committee had, among other things, criticised the indexation of personal income tax and the indexation of pensions. I draw the attention of the House particularly to the assertion in this publication that the Treasury Committee had criticised the indexation of pensions.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Would the honourable member explain where he has been personally misrepresented?

Mr BAUME:

– My photograph appeared alongside that assertion. The implication -

Honourable members interjecting-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! It is impossible for the Chair to establish a personal reflection against the honourable member for Macarthur if it cannot hear.

Mr BAUME:

– My photograph appeared alongside that assertion which is incorrect. A list of the members of that Committee is appended. The implication is that I am opposed to the indexation of pensions. That is totally untrue and the record shows that to be so.

The second occasion on which I was misrepresented relates to page 2942 of yesterday’s Hansard. It was alleged last night by the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) that I had made insulting remarks about him and I was requested to withdraw them. I examined the Hansard this morning and could find no such remarks, which reinforces the view I stated at the time. I do not involve myself in the kind of personal abuse which requires such withdrawal. I did say that the honourable member for Chifley, a Deputy Chairman of Committees who is charged with maintaining the dignity of this House, was using a technique of continuing to talk while the occupant of the chair was speaking.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! No reflections against the occupant of the chair will be made, no matter who it might be.

Mr BAUME:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is vital to the point of misrepresentation relating to me that I state very clearly what I said. It was alleged that I had said something improper and that I had in fact made an insulting remark. I think it is vital that the record be restated so that you can see that there was no such insulting remark, that it is offensive to me that I should be accused of having made one. I put it to you that it is vital that I state clearly what was said.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member has stated his point of view. I request him to take the matter up with Mr Acting Speaker if he feels that any injustice has been done. In the meantime, I accept the first point that he made about being misrepresented.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

-I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-If the honourable member claims to have been misrepresented, he may proceed.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– In the debate last night I took exception to the remarks of the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume). As far as I was concerned, his remarks were insulting in that they imputed improper motives to my activities in this chamber. As such, I asked for them to be withdrawn. It was so ordered and they were withdrawn. Unfortunately, they have been compounded today by the honourable member for Macarthur, particularly in his reference to me as a Deputy Chairman of Committees. I would say that when I am in the chair I conduct myself with the utmost impartiality. That is my position whether I am acting as an Opposition member representing the Opposition or as a Deputy Chairman of Committees or Deputy Speaker. When I am in my place in the House I am in a different position altogether from that which applies when I am acting as Deputy Speaker. When I am no longer in the chair, I am the member for Chifley and, as such, it is my job to represent the electors of Chifley. I do that with whatever little ability I have.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Macarthur has just misled this Parliament. He said that he is opposed to the freezing of pensions. I draw your attention -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-I do not think the honourable member for Macarthur said anything of the sort.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– He did so.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-He used the phrase indexation’. I am only trying to be helpful.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– This honourable member voted on 12 October for the freezing of pensions. A division took place at that time. The man is a humbug.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable member to resume his seat. I am sure that the honourable member for Newcastle is not proposing to take up the issue with the honourable member for Macarthur.

Mr BAUME (Macarthur)- I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-If the honourable member claims to have been misrepresented, he may proceed.

Mr BAUME:

-The alleged point of order made by the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) is, of course, disgraceful. I am opposed -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I do not think the same accusation could be made about the remark made a little while ago by the honourable member for Newcastle. I do not think the House is getting anywhere by continuing this matter. It is my intention to move on to the next item on the agenda.

Mr Baume:

– I insist on the right to be heard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will not insist on anything. Does he wish to raise a point of order?

Mr Baume:

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Baume:

– I claim to have been misrepresented. I have on many occasions, which are well known to this House, opposed the removal of the indexation of pensions. I ask that that wellknown fact be recognised by the House.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– On a point of order -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I do not intend to accept any more points of order.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Newcastle does not have the call. The occupant of the Chair is on his feet and the House will remain silent. I repeat that the honourable member for Newcastle does not have the call.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg your pardon. You gave the honourable member for Macarthur the right to speak and I am entitled to do the same.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! While the occupant of the Chair is on his feet the honourable member for Newcastle will remain silent.

page 2996

GOVERNMENT’S BUDGETARY AND MONETARY POLICY

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Mr Acting Speaker has received letters from the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) and the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by Standing Order 107, Mr Acting Speaker has selected one matter, that is, the matter proposed by the honourable member for Gellibrand, namely:

The failure of the Government’s budgetary and monetary policy.

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-

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-Mr Deputy Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) put:

That the Business of the Day be called on.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr G. O’H. Giles)

AYES: 63

NOES: 30

Majority……. 33

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2996

INCOME TAX (RATES AND ASSESSMENT) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 2996

COMMONWEALTH INSCRIBED STOCK AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Bill presented by Mr Howard, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

-I move:

The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911 to enable certain of the Governor-General ‘s powers under that Act to be delegated to the Treasurer, or a delegate of the Treasurer, so that new arrangements for marketing Commonwealth securities, as agreed to by the Loan Council, may be introduced later this year. Honourable members will probably be aware of these new marketing arrangements, which were the subject of a Press statement issued following the Loan Council meeting on 2 April 1979, and have commonly been referred to as the ‘tap’ issue of bonds and the issue of Treasury notes by tender. Essentially, these new arrangements are designed to modernise the marketing of Commonwealth securities in a way which is appropriate to the changed funds markets in this country. Ultimately interest rates can only be determined in accordance with market forces. The increased sophistication of capital markets makes this more apparent. The arrangements introduced in this legislation facilitate the selling of Commonwealth securities at rates more in accordance with the forces of supply and demand.

In outline, the proposed new arrangements are as follows: Treasury bonds and associated inscribed stock, which are referred to simply as bonds’, are to be made available on a ‘tap’ basis, that is, with one or more securities available to investors on a more or less continuous basis throughout the year, in contrast to the past practice of issuing new Commonwealth bonds through periodic cash loans. Bonds will be offered to investors by the Reserve Bank of Australia acting as agent for the Commonwealth. The Loan Council will continue to determine the maturity date and coupon rate of the securities issued in the tap and will, from time to time, establish the limits within which the yields on the approved tap stocks on issue may be varied by the chairman of the Loan Council without further consultation with Loan Council. Treasury notes and associated inscribed stock, referred to as ‘notes’, are to be sold by periodic tender, through the Reserve Bank acting on behalf of the Commonwealth. This will replace the present system whereby notes are available on continuous issue at predetermined prices.

The advantages of selling bonds through a tap rather than through the occasional cash and conversion loans of the present system include the following: Firstly, having bonds on sale for longer continuous periods, with different stocks being issued from time to time and adjustments being made to prices to reflect market movements, will offer greater flexibility and scope for greater control over the quantity of securities issued and the maturity spread. Secondly, it should minimise the disadvantage of the present system of encouraging speculation associated with good and poor loan results, thus contribute to an unwelcome instability in bond rates and difficulties in marketing debt. Thirdly, the issue of bonds on a more or less continuous basis should also be more satisfactory from the point of view of institutional investors. Even with the instalment facility, the take-up of securities has in the past tended to be concentrated into a very short period which, given the large size of some past cash loans, and the large borrowing programs to be financed, itself contributed to instability in money markets. (Quorum formed).

I repeat that the third advantage of the new system is that the issue of bonds on a more or less continuous basis should also be more satisfactory from the point of view of institutional investors. Even with the instalment facility, the take-up of securities has in the past tended to be concentrated into a very short period which, given the large size of some past cash loans, and the large borrowing programs to be financed, itself contributed to instability in money markets.

Fourthly, sharp swings in liquidity, for example, as are associated with tax payments can mean that the maturity dates of existing bonds, which normally coincide with new cash loans, can be quite inappropriate for trying to raise large sums in cash loans, though of course, cash loans can be, and have been, held at other times.

The advantages of selling treasury notes by tender include the following: Firstly, the amount sold can be more precisely determined by the authorities but with the price more fully reflecting market views. Secondly, the advantages of that situation will be that the authorities will be in a better position to ensure that adequate volumes of treasury notes are taken up by the private sector in accordance with policy objectives, including the need for the private sector to be adequately equipped to finance seasonal contractions in liquidity.

For the new arrangements in respect of the marketing of bonds and notes to operate effectively, it may be necessary to make changes at short notice to the prices at which the securities are issued. It may also be necessary to make changes to the maturities, interest rates and other conditions of issue at short notice. With notes being offered by tender, the prices and hence the yields at which notes will be issued will, of course, depend on the terms bid by those participating in each tender. The tap issue of bonds will also entail adjustments to price in order to change yields so as to reflect market conditions. In addition, technical adjustments to prices will be required to maintain the existing pattern of yields as the period to maturity of the tap stocks shortens.

The Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act, which I note is a very old Act, presently provides for the prices and other terms and conditions of issue of Commonwealth securities to be determined by the Governor-General. To allow for the flexibility required for dealing with these matters under the new arrangements, it is proposed that provision be made to enable the Governor-General to delegate his relevant powers, and it is the essential purpose of this Bill to amend the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act accordingly. It is to be emphasised that these amendments to existing legislation will, if passed, in no way reduce the powers of the Parliament to authorise the borrowing of money by the issue and sale of stock, bonds or other securities. Such borrowing would continue to require the authority of an act of Parliament. The new arrangements for marketing Commonwealth securities represent essentially a modernisation of procedures in relation to the issue of Commonwealth securities in line with developments in capital markets which have become increasingly sophisticated since existing methods of marketing treasury bonds and treasury notes were introduced.

Finally, I mention that, whilst certain details of the arrangements in respect of bonds are to be the subject of further discussion with the State Premiers later this month, the new marketing schemes have been endorsed by all the State governments as well as the Commonwealth.

The Bill does not in any way pre-empt further consideration of marketing techniques in the Loan Council. Rather, it provides for flexibility in adopting methods of marketing of Commonwealth securities as agreed to by the Loan Council.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Innes) adjourned.

page 2998

QUESTION

BEHAVIOUR OF MEMBERS

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

-I am concerned at the behaviour today of a number of honourable members on both sides of the House. This is a responsible Parliament. I think that the people who elect members to this Parliament expect them to act responsibly. I ask them to do so. If, while I am in the chair, they do not act responsibly, I will take action against them very promptly.

page 2998

QUARANTINE AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1979

Bill presented by Mr Hunt, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

Honourable members will recall the legislation introduced earlier this year to increase penalties for breaches of the Quarantine Act. This Bill now provides for the amendment of the Quarantine Act 1908 principally to enable compensation to be paid when it is necessary to destroy certain goods or animals in order to prevent the introduction or spread of disease, and to give to quarantine officers powers of entry and search in carrying out their duties. This legislation provides a comprehensive range of legislation to ensure that the quarantine service meets the needs of the times. It is an unfortunate fact that the successful eradication of exotic diseases introduced into this country involves, in many cases, the destruction of animals, plants and goods of innocent persons. In some instances this could result in a primary producer losing his entire stock through no fault of his own. I am sure honourable members would agree that a person who has suffered losses under such circumstances should be entitled to compensation.

A quorum having been called for and the bells being rung-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman:

-The honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) was not in the House a few moments ago when I made a statement on the conduct of the business of this House today. I know that the honourable member for Hughes, in calling the attention of the Chair to the state of the House, is well within his rights, but I did say earlier, while the honourable member was out of the chamber, that the business of the House has been frustrated today. This creates a reaction on the other side of the House and it does not help the Federal Parliament generally. I suggest that in future all of us endeavour to see that the business of the House proceeds without interruption as far as possible.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I heard what you had to say, but, in my view, you have no justification for so admonishing me. I am acting in a responsible way as the Opposition Whip. I was, for a moment, outside the chamber attending to my official duties. It is the prerogative of any member of this House to call the attention of the occupant of the chair to the state of the House. I have done that on several occasions today and it is possible that I will do so again. I doubt that you have any capacity to admonish me for exercising such responsible behaviour.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I did make it clear in the remarks that I just made that the honourable member has every right to do what he has just done. I just wonder whether such action is really wise.(Quorum formed).

Mr HUNT:

– The present compensation provisions of the Quarantine Act only cover animals which are diagnosed as diseased, but which after destruction are found not be be diseased. The present limitations are unreasonably restrictive. For example, they provide no compensation where Australian animals are destroyed in a quarantine action to eradicate an exotic disease, nor where imported animals are destroyed after becoming infected through unavoidable contact with infected animals in a quarantine station. Similarly, there is no provision for compensation where it is necessary to destroy goods or plants of Australian origin.

I regard the lack of adequate compensation provisions unacceptable when the destruction of livestock or goods is undertaken in the national interest and where the owner of the goods or animals, birds, et cetera, is not guilty of any misconduct. The Bill now before the House will remedy these deficiencies.

Every effort is made to prevent the illegal entry of animals, plants or goods which could introduce exotic diseases. Our determination in this matter is reflected in amendments recently made to the Quarantine Act which substantially increases penalties for quarantine breaches. Quarantine controls over conventional entry of persons, animals, plants and goods are rigorously maintained at all first ports of entry into Australia. In addition, as honourable members will be aware, the surveillance of our northern coastal area has been increased substantially. A daily coverage of our northern coastline between Geraldton and Cairns has as its prime objective the highest practicable protection for our national quarantine interests.

However, I must stress that despite these measures, we cannot guarantee total exclusion of all material capable of introducing exotic disease.

A quorum having been called for and the bells being rung-

Mr Hunt:

– They are working to regulations. That is what they are doing. They are real old Tammany Hall unionists.

Mr Innes:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The Minister for Health has made imputations about the attendance of Opposition members in this House. I draw the attention of the Minister and your attention, sir, to the fact that it is the Government’s responsibility to maintain a quorum in the House. Indeed, it would be deemed an insult to the Minister not to have a quorum present to hear him speak. That is the responsibiity of the Government.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I know that point has been made many times. In my opinion it is the duty of every member of this Parliament to be in this chamber when they are required. They are all members of the Parliament and they should be here when they are required to be here, and that does not just apply to Government members.

Mr McVeigh:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, are you aware that there are only four members of the Labor Party in the chamber?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order. (Quorum formed).

Mr HUNT:

– With the level of travel and trade now occurring between Australia and overseas countries, the possibility that an exotic disease or pest may be introduced is increasing and it is necessary that appropriate legislative machinery be available to reflect these developments. I am not suggesting for one moment, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the return to this country of honourable members opposite should be placed in this category.

Mr Innes:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The Minister’s remarks are obnoxious. We take offence at them and I demand that they be withdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– If the remarks are considered obnoxious by the honourable member for Melbourne, then I suggest to the Minister that it might be wise to withdraw them.

Mr HUNT:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw, because any exotic disease is obnoxious.

Mr Innes:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, those remarks are equally as obnoxious and offensive. The imputations and the smart remarks of the Minister will not help the forms of the House this afternoon. If that is the attitude the Government is going to take, then, as you have said, there will be an equal reaction from this side of the House. Members of the Opposition will react.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– It has been most difficult today for any occupant of this chair to keep control of this House, and that applies to the Acting Speaker and to other Deputy Speakers. I suggest to members on both sides of the House that they are not helping with the image of this Parliament or the responsible position that this Parliament holds by carrying on in the way they are. I ask members on both sides to be aware of this and to act accordingly. I call the Minister.

Mr HUNT:

– In addition to regular law enforcement and surveillance activities, an important part of an effective quarantine service, and any disease eradication program, is public cooperation. This co-operation is particularly important in detecting all possible sources of exotic disease infection within Australia should the quarantine barrier be breached. The Government has recognised that an essential aspect of eliciting such public co-operation is the existence of a simple, expedient system for compensating owners for animals, plants or goods which it is found necessary to destroy in the interests of disease security.

I draw the attention of honourable members to clause 6 of the Bill which establishes machinery for the payment of compensation to innocent persons who may suffer losses because of quarantine actions. I point out that these provisions will not allow compensation to be paid for imported goods which are destroyed because of non-compliance with quarantine or other requirements prior to release to the importer. The provisions of the Bill specifically exclude these cases and cases where an illegal act by a person results in the destruction of his own animals, plants or goods. The Bill also provides in clause 6 that where there is a dispute as to the amount of compensation to be paid the matter shall be determined by an independent arbitrator.

Clause 7 of the Bill extends the powers of quarantine officers to include the power to inspect baggage which has come from an overseas vessel or aircraft. These powers are presently vested in Customs officers, and in practice Customs and quarantine officers work closely together in the clearance of overseas baggage. However, many instances arise during baggage clearance which have specific quarantine implications. It is reasonable and proper that our quarantine officers should have the power to inspect baggage in their own right to carry out their duties effectively under the Quarantine Act. In proposing these amendments, I point out that appropriate arrangements will be made with the Bureau of Customs to ensure that there will be proper co-ordination and no overlap with the responsibilities and duties traditionally carried out by Customs officers. The amendments will allow improved staff utilisation and will improve the efficiency of quarantine screening procedures at ports of entry in the face of increasing passenger volumes.

The Bill also extends the power of quarantine officers to search premises to detect animals, plants or goods that may be a source of introduction or spread of a quarantinable disease. In recent instances where breaches of our quarantine barrier have occurred it was necessary for quarantine officers to enter and search premises for animals and material likely to be infected with disease, treat or destroy items which could be a source of disease, and undertake all other quarantine measures necessary to prevent disease spread. These actions were taken under a general provision of the Act which allows taking of certain actions in emergency situations. However, this Government considers that as these actions affect property and the rights of individuals it is most desirable that where practicable the appropriate powers should be set out in specific legislation. It is also proper that where a search of premises is required it should be subject to clearly identified procedures set out in legislation.

I therefore draw honourable members attention to clause 8 of the Bill, which provides that a quarantine officer may apply for a quarantine warrant to enter and search premises and to carry out necessary quarantine functions. The issue of a warrant will also empower a quarantine officer to control an area to the extent necessary to prevent the spread of exotic disease and make inquiries concerning movement to and from those premises. Provision is also made for the issue of a separate warrant which will permit the search of premises for documents relating to goods which may be infected with a quarantinable disease. Inclusion of this additional procedure is to provide for the cases where documents related to infected goods may be sought from premises not suspected of containing goods actually infected.

Finally, the Bill repeals a section of the Act requiring all overseas travellers to report any illness or disease suffered within 1 4 days of arrival in Australia. With the volume of overseas travellers now arriving in this country it is not practical to use this provision as a means of disease detection and control. In all recent cases of exotic human disease in Australia, effective detection and treatment have been possible through our present public health systems. As a person not complying with this provision may be liable for a fine of up to $500 on conviction it is desirable that this provision now be repealed. The Bill before the House reflects the Government’s concern that the quarantine service must be capable of meeting the demands placed on it by changing world conditions. By providing compensation for innocent persons in the event of property loss through quarantine action.

A quorum having been called for and the bells being rung-

Mr Cadman:

– Only two members of the Labor Party are here.

Mr Uren:

– It is your responsibility to keep the quorum.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman:

-I do not know whether the honourable member for Reid was here when I spoke earlier, but I did say that it was the responsibility of every member of this House to be here when he is required.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Especially Government members.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Every member of this House. ( Quorum formed).

Mr HUNT:

-The Bill before the House reflects the Government’s concern that the quarantine service must be capable of meeting the demands placed on it by changing world conditions. By providing compensation for innocent persons in the event of property loss through quarantine action and by widening the powers of quarantine officers, the Bill will strengthen the capabilities of the quarantine service to protect this country from the ravages of dangerous exotic diseases. Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 3001

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Bill presented by Mr Ellicott, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for the Capital Territory · Wentworth · LP

– I move:

This Bill is a formal measure to change references contained in the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Act 1962, from the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly to the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly. The Act now requires one member of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority to be a member of the Legislative Assembly who has been elected by the Legislative Assembly as its representative. Because the title of the Legislative Assembly was changed earlier this year by territorial Ordinance to the House of Assembly, the references to the Legislative Assembly must be changed accordingly. The Bill provides for commencement on 2 June 1979, the date of the election for the House of Assembly. Its effect will be to enable the member of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority representing the Legislative Assembly to continue in office until the House of Assembly elects one of its members to represent it on the Authority.

In order to be consistent and to ensure that the term ‘House of Assembly’ is used, the necessary amendments are being made to two other Commonwealth statutes which presently contain references to the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly. These are the Ombudsman Act 1976 and the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973. They are expressed to come into operation at the same time, namely 2 June 1979, the date on which the election for the House of Assembly was held.

Debate (on motion by Mr Innes) adjourned.

page 3001

OMBUDSMAN AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Bill presented by Mr Ellicott, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for the Capital Territory · Wentworth · LP

– I move:

As mentioned in my speech relating to the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Amendment Bill 1979, this Bill is a companion measure the object of which is to substitute references to the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly for those in the existing legislation to the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly.

Debate (on motion by Mr Innes) adjourned.

page 3001

REMUNERATION TRIBUNALS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1979

Bill presented by Mr Ellicott, and read a first time. “

Second Reading

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for the Capital Territory · Wentworth · LP

– 1 move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

As mentioned in my speech relating to the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Amendment Bill 1979, this Bill is a companion measure the object of which is to substitute references to the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly for those in the existing legislation to the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Innes) adjourned.

page 3002

NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Housing and Construction · Braddon · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1 975 to facilitate the development of a township at Jabiru, which is located in the Kakadu National Park, consistent with the Government’s announced policies on uranium mining development. (Quorum formed). The Kakadu National Park was proclaimed under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act on 5 April 1979 and was a major step in giving effect to the protective measures which the Government announced would be established in the Alligator Rivers Region before permitting mining of uranium to commence.

The first stage declared covered an area of some 6,000 square kilometres. The area for stage II will as soon as practicable be declared a conservation zone under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act to ensure that the Park values are protected prior to its formal inclusion in the Park. In keeping with the recommendation of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry the Government decided that the mining town to serve mines developed in the region should be included in Kakadu National Park and should be a closed town with a limited population. The town will be developed on land leased from the Director of National Parks and Wildlife and will be subject to the plan of management.

The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act requires the Director of National Parks and Wildlife as soon as practicable after a park or reserve has been declared to prepare a plan of management in respect of that park or reserve. The Director has to follow a series of steps directed by the Act in preparing the plan of management, including the receipt of public submissions and making the plan available for comment by interested persons. There will also be close consultation with the Northern Territory Government and the Northern Land Council in the preparation of the plan of management. The Director then submits the plan to the Minister for Science and the Environment together with any representations made and comments by the Director on those representations. The Minister, when he is satisfied with the plan of management, will lay the plan before both Houses of Parliament. Either House of the Parliament, within 20 sitting days, may, in pursuance of a motion upon notice, pass a resolution disallowing the plan. If neither House passes a motion of disallowance, the plan of management then comes into operation.

It was the Government’s intention that by including the townsite in the National Park the town would be planned and managed in accord with the Park plan of management. Following the Government’s decision in November last year, to allow the Ranger uranium deposit to be developed, increasing numbers of people are moving into the mining areas adjacent to the Park. It is important that an early commencement be made on preliminary construction work in relation to the Jabiru town to ensure that a properly developed town of high amenity is established as soon as practicable so that workers and their families are not accommodated in temporary camps any longer than is necessary.

The Jabiru Town Development Authority, a statutory authority set up under Northern Territory legislation, has been established to develop the town.

Under the existing requirements of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act the procedures relating to the coming into force of a plan of management will take some time to complete. The amendment envisages a mechanism which would permit an early start to be made to preliminary construction work prior to the plan of management formally coming into effect. The proposed amendments will ensure that Park values are properly protected while such preliminary construction work proceeds. It is the intention that the major construction work in the town will take place within the framework of the plan of management. Construction in the Northern Territory is largely limited to the dry season- that is April to the end of Novemberand during this dry season the Jabiru Town Development Authority proposes a program to build the construction camp and access roads, and to provide temporary water-supply, sewerage, power and telecommunication services for the camp. Major construction work on the township is not scheduled by the Jabiru Town Development Authority in this dry season.

The amendments to the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act contained in this Bill permit the Director, before the plan of management is in effect, to approve, by instrument in writing, the performance within the park of such work as he considers necessary or desirable for the establishment of a township at Jabiru, upon such conditions as he considers desirable. Before granting a licence, the Director will be required to consult closely with the Jabiru Town Development Authority and the Chairman of the Northern Land Council. The Jabiru Town Development Authority will be the focus for co-ordination of the views of the relevant Northern Territory authorities.

In issuing such a licence, the Director shall specify environmental conditions to be a part of that licence to ensure that the Park values are preserved. The licence will be a ‘prescribed instrument’ within the meaning of the Environment Protection (Northern Territory Supreme Court) Act 1978, which enables the Northern Territory Supreme Court at the suit of the Director of National Parks and Wildlife, the Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission or the Northern Land Council to make orders for the enforcement of any requirement under a prescribed instrument so far as the requirement relates to any matter affecting the environment of the Alligator Rivers Region. The amendment will also enable the Director to issue a lease or licence for the land on which the Jabiru township is to be developed in advance of the plan of management. I would like to stress that, in proposing these amendments to the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, the Government is determined to protect the integrity of the Park. The Kakadu National Park is one of the world’s great national parks and will continue to be so. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Innes) adjourned.

page 3003

BOUNTY (INJECTION-MOULDING EQUIPMENT) BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 31 May, 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 would like to suggest that it might suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the Bounty (Books) Amendment Bill 1979 as they are related 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 the two Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman:

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

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-We are dealing with a cognate debate on two bounty Bills. I will deal first with the Bounty (InjectionMoulding Equipment) Bill 1979. This Bill gives effect to the Government’s decision on advice from the Industries Assistance Commission of assistance to manufacturers of injection-moulding machines, which recommendations from the IAC were contained in the report entitled Miscellaneous Industrial Machinery. Whilst this report is dated 12 December 1978 it has not been released. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) in his second reading speech to the Parliament when introducing this Bill sought to excuse this on the ground that the Government’s decision on other products covered by that report have not been announced. He will understand, and I am sure the House will understand, that without the benefit of being able to examine that IAC report, there are difficulties for members of the Opposition to examine this measure as closely as we would like and to be as informed as we would like.

However, the Minister did reveal that the IAC had concluded that it could not identify public benefits commensurate with the high rate of tariff protection, currently 55 per cent, for these particular injection-moulding machines and that reduced tariffs would lower costs to the plastic products industry, the users of injectionmoulders, so increasing that industry’s competitiveness in world markets, thus being able, we would hope, to create extra jobs in the plastics industry. We take the Minister’s word for this. I am sure that the information is correct because he knows that we will be able to check it when eventually the IAC’s report is tabled. The IAC recommended, therefore, that existing tariff protection, namely the 55 per cent which I have mentioned, should be reduced to 15 per cent. It also recommended that transitional assistance to eligible Australian manufacturers of injection moulding machines be accorded by way of bounty payments, initially at the rate of 45 per cent of value added, but reducing by 10 percentage points each year over five years. Such a phasing out of bounty over that period would allow the industry to restructure and to become, hopefully, more competitive at the lower tariff level. This is the view of the Government in reaching its decision.

The Government has accepted all the major recommendations of the IAC. The only recommendation that it has rejected is the payment of the bounty on equipment sold overseas. Tariff proposal No. 18 introduced into this House on 22 May 1979 has given effect already to part of the recommendation which reduces tariff. This Bill is to give effect to the bounty elements of the Government’s package. The cost of the bounty scheme is estimated to be approximately $4.2m over the five years, of which $1.5m will be spent in the first year of operation of this bounty Bill.

The Opposition does not oppose this Bill since we are informed that it conforms largely with the IAC’s advice. Our major complaint, however, is that the detailed reasoning underlying this IAC advice is not available to us and to the Parliament generally so that we can be absolutely confident in the decision we have made. Frankly, this is unusual as no draft report was released either in this particular case. I repeat that it does create difficulties for the Opposition and weakens the checks and balances which are the essence of this Westminster system. The absence of this report raises problems since this policy initiative is based upon a gradual reduction in assistance to the industry. I am on record at other times in condemning the use of general acrosstheboard tariff cutting alone to promote industrial development, particularly at times of high unemployment such as we are suffering today. I do not deny, however, the benefits of giving reasonably long advanced notice of future tariff cuts- I emphasise- in certain industries. I do not want to be dogmatic about this but I emphasise -

Mr Hyde:

– Why don’t you say ‘high cost industries’?

Mr HURFORD:

-One industry I have in mind which was a high cost industry was the domestic whitegoods industry to which tariff reductions have been given notice of well in advance and where, indeed, structuring is taking place. In answer to the interjection of the honourable member for Moore (Mr Hyde) I state that that is a case where I believe the policy is working. He will agree with me that plenty of notice has been given of the reductions and those reductions are gradual and phased and give time for the restructuring. I merely state at this point of time that I accept that as one of the methods to be used in certain industries to bring about the structural change, but I would not be dogmatic and state that it is the method that ought to be used to bring about that structural change in every case.

Appropriate industries for such action must satisfy certain criteria. I want to list those criteria which will also supplement the answer I have given to the interjection. The industry must be made up of large firms all with reasonable market shares. The potential economies of scale and economies of greater capacity utilisation must be sizable. Furthermore, the direction and nature of industry rationalisation must be apparent to all in the industry. The last of the criteria I want to mention- I do not pretend to be necessarily exhaustive- are that management must be progressive, which includes a progressive attitude to industrial relations, and management must be committed to adjusting to international market realities. Not many industries do satisfy these criteria. Whether the injection-moulding machinery industry is one of these I cannot say because, I repeat, we do not have the IAC’s description and analysis of the industry. Nor do we have the IAC’s views on the sort of rationalisation they would hope might occur within the industry.

The main reason we have not opposed this Bill on the grounds that I have stated is the Minister’s assurance that officers of the Department of Industry and Commerce will be monitoring developments in the industry. We look forward to the IAC’s report being tabled because without it we are putting more trust in the Government than perhaps the Government deserves. But I can only sum up by saying that we are coming in on a wing and a prayer.

I turn now to the Bounty (Books) Amendment Bill 1979, which is the other Bill before this House in this cognate debate. The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the Government’s decision to continue assistance to the manufacturers of books in Australia. The purpose of this assistance which is, and has been, provided in the form of a bounty for some time, is to assist local printers against import competition. The intention is for the bounty to be available only for books which, in the absence of assistance, would otherwise have been printed overseas. The Bill largely conforms with the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission contained in its report entitled ‘Products of the Printing Industry’ dated 31 July 1978. The IAC report pointed out that book production is a relatively small section of the Australian printing industry, employing about 1,500 persons and having an annual turnover of about $28m in 1976-77, the last financial year for which statistics are available, as far as I know. However, it is the section of the printing industry which currently records a relatively low level of profitability and experiences more and more import competition.

The Bounty (Book) Act 1969-75 has assisted the printing of books in Australia by providing for the payment of a bounty on eligible books on the basis of one-third of costs of production. The payment of the bounty under the Act had been due to terminate on 31 December last year but following the recommendations from the IAC, this bounty assistance is extended to 31 December 1979. The existing bounty is equivalent to an ad valorem tariff of about 55 per cent and affords an effective rate of assistance to book manufacturing of 45 per cent.

Having examined the background to the introduction of the bounty generally and its history and effects, the IAC concluded that the purpose of the bounty should remain to assist local book manufacturers to obtain work which, in the absence of assistance, could be lost to overseas competitors. To this end the Commission recommended, and the Government accepted, that assistance in the form of a bounty should continue for a period of seven years from 1 January 1980. There is already legislation in force to 31 December 1 979 and now the further seven years from 1 980 is to be covered. It was the Industries Assistance Commission’s view, however, that the present bounty is high. Further, the Commission considered that significant improvement in the international competitiveness of Australia’s book manufacturing was unlikely while the industry remained fragmented.

The commissioners of the Industries Assistance Commission who looked at this industry, and whose report which I mentioned is dated 3 1 July 1978, argued that at the original bounty rate of 25 per cent- the rate which applied between 1969 and 1974- some rationalisation had occurred in the book sector of the printing industry. However, since the increase of the rate to 33 Vi per cent in 1974, the assertion by the commissioners was that production had become progressively more fragmented. Therefore, the IAC recommended that the long term rate should be returned to the 25 per cent rate. Recognising the need for stability in business planning they also recommended that the bounty period be extended until 31 December 1986. The Government has accepted this advice. However, the

Government has decided to phase in the reduction in the bounty rate, that is, the reduction from 3316 per cent to 25 per cent, by leaving the bounty at the 33’/3 per cent rate until the end of 1982, then setting it at 30 per cent for the year 1983 and finally setting the rate at 25 per cent from 1 January 1984. This contrasts with the lAC’s recommendation that the new rate of 25 per cent be brought in on 1 January 1 982 .

Finally, the IAC argued that the various eligibility criteria employed since 1969 may have led to the payment of bounty for publications of a kind likely to be printed overseas. However, to avoid the need for a complex set of eligibility criteria, the Commission argued that the criterion which most determined the likelihood of import competition for book production was the size of the order. I will quote the argument of the IAC from its report:

Of 700 imports examined, only 0.4 per cent involved orders of less than 1,000. The Commission considers that, by setting the minimum order size at 1.000 copies, almost all books not subject to overseas competition will be excluded, and the need for a complex set of eligibility criteria will be avoided.

Based upon this reasoning, the Bill incorporates the revised eligibility criteria recommended by the IAC, incorporating a minimum order size of 1 ,000 copies if the particular bounty is to be applied. It is this last mentioned aspect of the Bill to which the Opposition objects. It is our view, based as I will show in a moment on representations and submissions made to us which seem to be good, that the rather arbitrary minimum level of 1,000 copies will be detrimental to the continued operation of efficient, more specialised smaller printers. The figure of 1,000 was first suggested to the IAC by the Printing and Allied Trades Employers Federation of Australia, a body which frankly represents the larger printing organisations, not the smaller ones. In our view, the smaller printers were not properly heard on this issue.

The IAC, having heard this representation, then rationalised this figure of 1,000 on what I consider to be a fallacious analysis that only 0.4 per cent of import orders involved less than 1,000 copies. But these figures were based upon import orders during the operation of a bounty scheme when local printers, both large and small, were being protected, more printing was being done in Australia than otherwise would be the case, and when only large orders may have been profitable enough to be handled by overseas printers. Thus the lAC’s evidence in support of a figure of 1,000 is quite inappropriate and irrelevant. It would have been appropriate only if it was based upon the import figure in the absence of any protection or assistance. For this reason, the Opposition rejects the 1 ,000 run requirement as being based upon a rather flimsy analysis.

I have a suspicion that the IAC was hoping to use the restrictive eligibility criteria to reduce the fragmentation in the industry by forcing out of business many smaller printers. However, we in the Opposition argue that the sudden exclusion of small orders from eligibility for bounty payments is quite unacceptable as an instrument for reducing fragmentation. I have already said something about their often being the need for rationalisation in many industries, but in many cases this way of going about things is the wrong way. This is especially so when the Government has been encouraging the smaller, more specialised printers, not only by the provision of a bounty hitherto, but also by the provision of the 4 per cent investment allowance. The reduction of fragmentation in this way is quite unacceptable as an instrument when the social and economic costs of this move involving bankruptcies and redundancies are compared with the small benefits as measured by the very small reduction in Government expenditure brought about by making the runs a thousand or more in order to attract the bounty.

The IAC estimated that if the more limited eligibility criteria had been adopted in the 1 976-77 financial year, bounty payments would have been almost $lm less-in fact, $920,000-with only part of this figure attributable to books printed in runs of less than 1,000 since eligibility is to be restricted in ways in addition to the 1,000 copies requirement. If a minimum order size is required, the Opposition suggests that the figure should be 500. We believe this would be far more appropriate, from what we have learned from those in the industry, than the 1,000 that has been included in this legislation. This figure was unsuccessfully put to the IAC by Craftsman Press Pty Ltd and the Australian National University on behalf of the Association of Australian University Presses and the Australian ViceChancellor’s Committee. It is also the substance of representations made to me by a small South Australian facsimile printing firm, Austaprint which has specialised in the reproduction of early colonial books, something which I believe ought to be encouraged and which we would like to continue to exist in this country. In addition, the Australian Book Publishers Association has made objections to any minimum order size requirement. I do not think it will be altogether happy with the 500 recommended by the Opposition. It certainly will not be happy with the minimum run of 1,000 set down in the Bill. For this reason I give notice of my intention to move a second reading amendment to the Bounty (Books) Amendment Bill requiring that it be withdrawn and redrafted. I am unable to move my amendment at the Committee stage because it involves an increase in government expenditure by the payment of an additional bounty to those who have book runs of between 500 and 1,000 copies. I am left with only one means of recording the Opposition’s objection to the requirement of 1,000. Therefore I give notice now that when we are considering the second reading of the Bounty (Books) Amendment Bill I will move:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: the House, whilst supporting bounty assistance for local printers, is of the opinion that the Bill should be withdrawn and re-drafted to provide such assistance for minimum runs of 500 copies instead of the present 1,000 copies in order to aid smaller, more specialised printers who have previously been encouraged to invest in facilities through, for instance, the investment allowance and who must bc encouraged to undertake structural adjustment in more equitable and less costly and disruptive ways.

We do not suggest that there should not be rationalisation; that there is not a need for economies of scale; or that the Government coffers are such that the amount of bounty available is limitless. We suggest that at this stage it would be far more equitable, less disruptive, and less likely to lead to bankruptcy in printing firms if the order was 500 rather than 1,000. In summary, the Opposition is not opposing the Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Bill 1979, but we will be moving a second reading amendment to the Bounty (Books) Amendment Bill 1979.

Mr ROGER JOHNSTON:
Hotham

-One of the two Bills that we are debating cognately is the Bounty (Books) Amendment Bill, the purpose of which is to continue to help the book manufacturing industry. The other is the Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Bill to give transitional help to an industry. Most book manufacturing and much of the injectionmoulding machine manufacturing is small business. This responsible Government has appreciated that small business is very much a part of our way of life in Australia. It is vital to our economy and, therefore, we have encouraged small business in many ways. The main approach has been the responsible economic policy of the Fraser Government with its top priority of reducing inflation. This responsible attitude has restored the climate for expanding business activity and investment. The bringing down of inflation has made Australian products more competitive with overseas products.

At this stage it is worth while noting some of the other responsible economic moves under the Liberal Government which have helped to bring small business back from the brink where they were under the Labor Government. Book manufacturers and injection-moulding machine manufacturers were helped by these moves. There is the additional investment allowance for taxation purposes on the purchase of new plant and equipment. (Quorum formed). Other measures are the increase of the retention allowance for private companies, the extension of the charter of the Commonwealth Development Bank, and the extension of the Reserve Bank guidelines to major financial institutions. These last two have greatly improved the finance facilities available to small business.

Let me turn attention to book manufacturing alone. The latest full figures, those for June 1976, show that the printing industry is large; in fact there are over 3,000 businesses employing 70,000 people. This accounts for over $ 1 ,500m worth of sales, with a profitability slightly above the manufacturing industry generally. However, book manufacturing is not a large part of the total printing industry. This sector employs about 1,500 people and another 300 are employed by supplying industries. In 1976-77 the turnover was about $28m and resulted in a lower level of profitability than that of the general printing industry. This represents 60 per cent of the total book market. In most cases books constitute a minor part of production of firms which produce them and no doubt this is one reason for limiting the bounty to books produced in a minimum run of 1,000 copies. This provision will overcome the arguments of the Opposition as stated in their amendment.

In 1973 the Tariff Board report said this about the industry:

The ability of the local book manufacturing industry to compete with its Asian counterparts has been impaired by fragmentation, excess capacity, high over award payments and union constraints on the operation of printers.

The Opposition forgot to mention those. The report went on-

The Board considers that the community should not be expected to bear, through bounty or other means of assistance, costs attributable to these factors.

In the ensuing six years fragmentation decreased somewhat as some small businesses were driven to the wall under the Labor Government. This is not the way to reconstruct an industry. Excess capacity has remained and high over award payments have increased. This has all made the situation worse. Union constraints have certainly not reduced. Therefore, the Australian people continue to maintain these companies in business and these people in employment when they refuse to do much, if anything, to help themselves. I wonder whether the Australian people really understand the nature of the help they are giving? How long are we prepared to pay the price? As will be seen, the Australian Government has started the process to make the two parties involved aware of the situation and thus reverse the trend.

Let us look at the help that these businesses and employees have been obtaining. This book bounty Bill is to amend further the original Act of 1969. This Act has already been amended in 1970; twice in 1973; in 1975; and in 1978. In May 1 969 the Government announced the introduction of an interim book bounty to operate immediately. This was to hold local manufacturers’ sales at the 1967-68 level. The initial bounty was 25 per cent of the cost of production. This cost of production factor is very interesting. It is the bounty base and was defined in the Book Bounty Act as the price paid, or payable, to a manufacturer, or manufacturers, by a publisher for the production of, or the production processes carried out in relation to, the book. If the publisher is the manufacturer, bounty is payable on the cost incurred in producing the book.

This statutory definition means, in fact, that the bounty is not based on costs incurred but on the cost, excluding some items such as outward freight and packaging, plus profit, less the bounty, of course. (Quorum formed). The initial bounty was 25 per cent of the cost of production. In 1973, on the recommendation of the Tariff Board, the Government increased the bounty to 33 W per cent. This has meant an increase in bounty payments from 1969-70 or $ 1.4m for 18 million books, with a production value of $7m, to a bounty of $8m for 37 million books, with a production value of $32m. This is a lot of bounty. The bounty was shared by 1,930 operations, although 10 of these accounted for 43 per cent of the $8m. The next 50 recipients of the bounty accounted for 33 per cent of the $8m. Thus we have yet to see a significant improvement in the fragmented structure of the industry.

The Industries Assistance Commission, after examining the industry fully, recommended continuing the bounty at 33!/3 percent of production costs from 1 January 1 980 for two years and to reduce the bounty to 25 per cent for the next four years until the end of 1986. However, the Government has decided to phase in the reduction more gradually. The 33½ per cent level will hold for two years as recommended, then 30 per cent will apply for one year and 25 per cent will apply for the remaining three years. This also applies to the cost of paper, but I cannot go into the details of that matter. Again the Government decided to phase in the reduction over a longer period. In keeping with the purpose of the bounty to protect against imports, certain types of books have become eligible for the bounty while other types will no longer be eligible for the bounty. The Government has shown that it is anxious to maintain employment and activity in the book industry. But it is also desirous of providing the opportunity and the incentive for the industry to restructure.

The IAC is to be congratulated on its report. However, it must be remembered that these investigations cost a large amount of money. A large number of witnesses had to bear their own costs. We must also consider the large bounty which works out at a cost of over $6,000 a year for each person in the industry. This responsible Government has again given help to small business, in this case, the book industry. It should protect employment in the industry but also it puts the onus of restructuring on both the managements and the unions. I hope they accept this responsibility.

The other Bill with which we are dealing in the cognate debate is the Bounty (Injectionmoulding Equipment) Bill. The Government’s decision to protect the injection-moulding equipment industry is based on the recommendations of the IAC in its report on miscellaneous industrial machinery. As the spokesman for the Opposition said, unfortunately this report has not yet been released because the Government has still to announce the decisions on some products covered in the report. However, a draft report was released. I hope the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) notes that point. In keeping with many of the IAC’s recent recommendations, a phasing down of assistance to help ensure a restructuring of industry was recommended. In this case, the decision has been made to reduce the rate of customs duty and to supplement the assistance with a bounty which will be phased out later.

When the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) tabled the Customs Tariff Proposals No. 18 on 22 May 1979, he reduced the customs tariff from 55 per cent to 15 per cent, to take effect on the next day, that was, on 23 May 1979. This Bill covers the other side- the bounty side. The bounty will be payable at the rate of 45 per cent of the value added by the Australian manufacturers, but it will be phased out over five years, reducing at the rate of 1 0 per cent a year. It must be noted that the bounty will not be paid on equipment sold for export. It is of interest that Australia’s largest injection-moulding equipment manufacturer, Johns Consolidated Ltd, is establishing a manufacturing base in Singapore which will presumably be making its new technology machines available for sale to the United States of America. (Quorum formed). However, it is expected that local manufacturers will be in a better position to develop their export markets as they become more competitive.

Again, the cost of helping an industry is high. For the first year the cost will be $ 1.5m and the total for five years could be over $4m. This is a responsible Government, and it has again demonstrated that with its help to this small industry. I am glad that the Opposition is not opposing these Bills. They are good Bills put forward by a very responsible Government. I commend the Bills to the House.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Deputy Speaker -

Motion ( by Mr Bourchier) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr V. J. Martin)

AYES: 61

NOES: 24

Majority……. 37

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3009

BOUNTY (BOOKS) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10 May, on motion by Mr Fife:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-I move:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I second the amendment. Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr Bourchier:

– I move:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The original question before the Chair was that the Bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Adelaide has moved an amendment to omit all words after ‘that’ with a view to substituting other words. The question now is: That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Honourable members:

Honourable members interjecting

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I support this amendment for the very good reason that we on this side of the House want to see the book industry in Australia remain prosperous. We think that the provision detailed in the amendment will allow this to happen. If the present ceiling that the Government has imposed of 1,000 books is maintained, it will preclude the production of many books that are important to the community, such as party reports, society reports and all sorts of academic -

Mr Bourchier:

– I move:

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I will ignore that remark.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I am in a dilemma. I should not have informed the House of the motion as I did. Until such time as the honourable member for Parramatta has finished his speech, I shall not do so. If it is the intention of the honourable member for Bendigo to ensure that the honourable member for Parramatta does not speak, he would have to use a form of the House other than moving that the question be now put.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The Bounty (Books) Amendment Bill, like the previous Bill, seeks to achieve some degree of rationalisation within the Australian industry. The book bounty was first introduced on an interim basis on 1 June 1 969 in order to assist the manufacture of books in Australia by protecting the manufacturers from overseas competition. Initially, the bounty was set at 25 per cent of the cost of production. However, in 1973-74 it was raised to 33.3 per cent of the cost of production. Since its introduction payment of the bounty has risen -

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) put:

That the honourable member for Parramatta be not further heard.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr V. J. Martin)

AYES: 63

NOES: 28

Majority……. 35

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr V. J. Martin)

AYES: 61

NOES: 28

Majority……. 33

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3010

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 5 June, 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 would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979 as they are related 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 the two Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-This is a debate on two Bills, the Customs Tariff Validation Bill and the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2). Let me say at the outset that the Opposition does not oppose either of these Bills. I mention with the indulgence of the House that the Opposition moved an amendment to the motion that the Bounty ( Books ) Amendment Bill be read a second time but we did not call for a division on that question because agreement has been reached that the time that has now been saved can be used to permit additional debate at the second reading stage of the Australian Federal Police Bill after debate is concluded on these Bills.

The purpose of the Customs Tariff Validation Bill is to provide for the validation until 31 December 1979 of duties collected under Customs Tariffproposals introduced into this Parliament during this session and not covered by the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1979 which was debated in this House last week. The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill which was passed on 3 1 May will consolidate Customs Tariff Proposals Nos. 1 to 15 in the Customs Tariff Act. However, the Government has also introduced Customs Tariffproposals Nos. 16 and 17 on 3 May, No. 18 on 22 May and No. 19 on 5 June, which Proposals were not contained in the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill that I referred to earlier. These Tariffproposals which were not contained in the earlier legislation relate to decisions by the Government on recommendations by the Industries Assistance Commission on four separate items. The first is the IAC report on nuts, bolts and screws- Proposals No. 16. The second is the report on the Australian citrus industryProposals No. 1 7. The third is the report on injection moulding machines- Proposals No. 18.

The fourth one is the report on acetyl products, oxo alcohols, butyl alcohols and vices- Proposals No. 19. However, Customs duty collected on these Proposals, namely Proposals Nos. 1 6 to 19, are protected from legal challenge only until the end of this session of Parliament which we of the Opposition understand from the Government, although we have not been kept fully apprised, maybe some time tomorrow. Because the Government is unable to prepare another Customs Tariff Amendment Bill before the House adjourns for the winter recess, it is introducing this Customs Tariff Validation Bill to give legal authority to Customs duty collected up until 31 December of this year. This Bill therefore enables the Government to cover itself temporarily.

Because validation Acts have a limited life, ultimately these changes will have to be incorporated in amendments to the Customs Tariff Act via a Customs Tariff Amendment Bill. We presume that that Bill will be introduced in the Budget session. This Customs Tariff Validation Bill is therefore an element of the procedure which allows the Government to implement tariff variations without first having to legislate for these changes. That is, this Bill is part of the special provisions which enable quick alterations to the tariff.

I remind the House that in the debate last week on the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill I set out the procedures relating to the enactment of tariff proposals which have been in operation for some 15 years. I will not go through that list again but I draw attention to that debate in which I set out the procedures. The consequence of these procedures is that individual tariff changes are not given the same scrutiny through full debate in the House as is given to other legislative changes such as assistance through bounties. I will not repeat the points that I made in that debate. I merely want to draw attention to them because surely the most feasible way of achieving proper consideration of tariff changes is to have a parliamentary standing committee examine and report on each change as soon as possible after the Government gazettes the tariff proposals. Such a standing committee could meet during the parliamentary recess when proposals are made known and much of the work could be done then. This would allow the representatives of the people to exercise proper scrutiny over proposals which are of immense importance to job creation and many other features of our economic life. I would be glad if the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) at some stage, as he has now had notice for a week or two of this, would give an opinion on this suggestion of mine. 1 am not suggesting he is able to do so in this debate because he has had the courtesy to tell me he has been called away on other business and is unable to take part in the debate. Unless, as I hope, the Government falls in the meantime there will be other opportunities for him to talk in tariff debates in the Budget session and perhaps he could then give me an opinion on this suggestion.

The procedures currently in operation may have been satisfactory during the 1960s and early 1 970s but they are not satisfactory today. With three-quarters of a million Australians unable to find a job- that is, the Australians who want one- and with enormous changes taking place in our trading patterns, and so on, each one of the IAC reports, as I have indicated earlier, and each one of the tariff proposals which flow from Government decisions about the IAC’s advice is more sensitive in nature and more important to our economy than previously applied and requires close scrutiny.

I turn to the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979. The purpose of this Bill is to increase the excise on naturally occurring liquid petroleum gas from $13 to $14 per kilolitre. The Minister for National Development (Mr Newman) announced this excise increase in a statement to the House on 2 May this year and the higher rate has been in effect since 3 May. At the time of this announcement my colleague, the shadow Minister for Minerals and Energy, did not oppose this move. Similarly, and for the same reasons, we do not oppose this Bill now before the House. We do not oppose the increase in excise, because it will offset windfall profits which accrue to the producers of liquid petroleum gas.

Since the last increase in excise from $ 12.60 to $13 a kilolitre in December last year, the Prices Justification Tribunal has allowed the price of LPG sold on the domestic market to increase by $27 to $1 10 a tonne. This increase has brought the domestic price almost in line with export parity, which on 1 May was $ 1 1 6.40 a tonne. Such an increase in the domestic price was necessary to encourage usage of LPG in Australia. If there had been a margin between the cost of LPG and the cost of natural gas, needless to say, natural gas would have been used and the LPG would have been flared. At the time that the domestic price was $27 a tonne less than the export price, the Bass Strait producers of natural LPG had no economic incentive to sell on the Australian market. There was far greater scope for increased earnings by exporting their production. Bringing the domestic and export prices into line will therefore create a more favourable economic climate for producers to develop a domestic market. This market for our own LPG is of great value to us. Our own energy should be used to the greatest extent possible in this country, particularly if the cost of that energy is marginally lower than the cost of energy available to our competitors. This should enable us to create jobs in this country.

In the face of rapidly increasing prices for imported oil supplies, liquid petroleum gas is the only fuel now available to the transport sector which can be used to decrease Australia’s consumption of motor spirit. In 1976 the Royal Commission on Petroleum recognised that LPG was the only available alternative to motor spirit in Australia before 1990. It is not that we are opposed to the export of Bass Strait LPG, but if steps can be taken to encourage domestic usage, then in terms of Australia’s energy needs this is the more desirable course of action.

The energy value of Australia’s reserves of LPG is equivalent to about 50 per cent of the remaining recoverable reserves of crude oil in Bass Strait. Therefore, this resource can make a considerable contribution to Australia’s liquid fuel requirements. Even with the $27 increase in price, LPG remains about 12.5c a litre cheaper than motor spirit. Although consumption per kilometre is greater than that for petrol, at this price differential a vehicle will save about $ 14 for every 1,000 kilometres travelled on LPG. A higher price was necessary to encourage producers to develop a domestic market, but even at this higher price LPG retains its competitive advantage over motor spirit.

Although raising the price to export parity was desirable, this does not mean that producers should receive substantial windfall profits by way of the $27 a tonne price increase, as this increase occurred without any corresponding increase in production costs. For this reason the Opposition supports the increase in excise by $ 1 a kilolitre provided that returns to producers are still sufficient to encourage the penetration of the domestic liquid fuel market. They are the reasons why the Opposition supports this measure. I repeat that the Opposition support not only the Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1 979 but also the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill ( No. 2 ) 1 979.

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 Ellicott) read a third time.

page 3013

EXCISE TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1979

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 5 June, 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 Ellicott) read a third time.

page 3013

AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10 May, on motion by Mr McLeay:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

-The Australian Federal Police Bill represents just one more about-face by this Government from the time when the coalition parties were in opposition. In 1975, the creation of the Australia Police by the Labor Government was vehemently opposed by the conservative opposition. In 1979, a conservative Government has decided that there are benefits in the amalgamation of the Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory Police Forces. For our part, we have never been in doubt about the advantages which amalgamation would bring, particularly in the area of operational efficiency. However, the creation of a two-component force, with a general police services component and a protective services component, is an aberration which is totally inconsistent with the purposes of amalgamation. Of course, this amalgamation would never have been brought about if it had not been for the tragic Hilton Hotel bombing. The fact that Sir Robert Mark was appointed to inquire into the allocation of police resources in the Commonwealth area was an admission by the Government of the inadequacy of the security arrangements for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting in Sydney in February 1978.

Apart from the suggested amalgamation of the two existing forces, we do not find very much of value in the Mark report. Much of it is unhelpful rhetoric about Sir Robert Mark’s perception of the role in society of the police or commentary on the Australian Constitution. It needs to be made clear that the creation of a protective services component is not in any way related to counter-terrorism. Counter-terrorist activities will be undertaken by members of the general services component. The members of the protective services component will, in the main, be involved in static guard duty at Commonwealth places of low security risks. The creation of two components will create a two-class force and second class police officers. Under this Bill, members of the protective services component are not even to be called police officers. We are to have commissioned and non-commissioned police officers, and commissioned and noncommissioned protective services officers. Understandably, the Commonwealth Police Officers Association is very concerned about the creation of a two-component police force. We share its concern. This move will have a considerable detrimental effect on police morale and efficiency. We are totally opposed to this splitting of an amalgamated police force into two components and will vote against it both at the second reading stage and in Committee. Any comparison of the 1 975 Australia Police Bill and this Bill can lead only to the conclusion that police are getting a raw deal under this legislation.

Firstly, let us take the question of the general terms and conditions under which the members of the Australian Federal Police will be employed. Under the 1 975 legislation, the terms and conditions of employment were determined by the Secretary to the Department of Police and Customs with the concurrence of the Public Service Board. The Public Service Arbitration Act was applied without exception to police officers. Under this legislation, the Minister alone will make these decisions. There are provisions requiring the Minister to consult with various people, but these are not worth a pinch of salt. Of course there are elaborate provisions enabling agreements to be made between the Minister and police associations, and for police associations to submit questions relating to terms and conditions to the Police Arbitral Tribunal. We do not object to these provisions, but we do object to the fact that any matter not covered by an Arbitral Tribunal determination will be decided by the Minister alone.

Regulations made under clause 40(a) will have to be scrutinised carefully. The clause allows regulations to be made which will shackle the rights of the police to organise into associations which are in their best interests and which protect the future of their total membership. It also theoretically allows for the Government to refuse police the right to be heard by the Tribunal by not making regulations at all. We want an undertaking from the Government as to what regulations are intended to be made under clause 40 (a). I understand the framing of these regulations is well under way. I ask the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr McLeay) to confirm or deny this. Those regulations already framed should be tabled in the Parliament during this debate. Clearly they are of relevance and should be taken into account. Access should be allowed to members who are going to participate in the debate on the Bill and eventually vote on this Bill.

Next, there is the question of promotions. Under the 1975 legislation, provisions were spelt out by which appeals could be made to Promotions appeals boards by police officers who considered that they should have been promoted in preference to others. This legislation employs the same criteria to be used in the consideration of promotions, that is, efficiency and seniority. Seniority is relevant only if efficiency between officers is equal. However, there are no provisions in the Bill apart from clause 40 (c) governing the question of appeals to a promotion appeals board against decisions as to promotions. Clause 40 (c) is simply not satisfactory in that it simply provides that regulations may- I emphasise ‘may’- be made to provide for these matters. This sort of government by regulation is quite unacceptable. Regulations should be concerned with matters of detail, not matters of substance. We consider the question of promotions and associated appeals to be of great importance, and something which no proper legislation should omit.

Clause 40(d) allows for early retirement at the age of 55 years to be introduced by regulation for the members of the Australian Federal Police. This is a totally dishonest provision. If the Government intends to bring in provisions allowing for management-initiated retirement along the lines of the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill, which the police will no doubt oppose, then it should have the guts to legislate for it, instead of taking the coward ‘s way out and doing it by regulation. We will be moving for the deletion of clause 40 (d) at the Committee stage.

In clause 39 of the Bill, the Commissioner is given power to transfer to a lower rank or retire members of the Australian Federal Police on the grounds of overstaffing. There is no appeal from these decisions. We would propose to allow such matters to be referred to the Arbitral Tribunal.

There are other aspects about this matter that the Opposition feels are most unsatisfactory and go to the principles which we opposed in the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill. If a perfectly fit officer is capable of carrying on in a position, then once staff ceilings are imposed, these officers can be disposed of. If it were in the legislation then it would at least have shown more courage than the introduction of it by regulation.

The Bill is also unsatisfactory on the question of retirements. As far as the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner are concerned, there are no legislative provisions governing the resignation of people in these positions. Clause 37 does not apply either to the Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, as there are no substantive provisions governing resignations of people from these provisions, we are left with the fall-back position of clause 17(4). It provides:

A person appointed under this section holds office on such terms and conditions (if any) in respect of matters not provided for by this Act as are determined by the Governor-General.

In every Act of Parliament creating positions of statutory office holders, provisions are made for the resignation of the people in those positions. Clearly, there must be some limitation of the right of a Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner to resign, so that undue disruption is not caused. However, everyone is entitled to resign, and simply to say that any question of resignation will be left to the Governor-General to decide is absolutely absurd.

The procedure governing the retirement of ordinary members of the force is also unacceptable. Under clause 37, a member of the Australian Federal Police cannot resign unless he has given between three and four months’ notice. Whilst the Commissioner is given power to vary this period, it is a ridiculously long period in the first place. Whatever reasons may motivate a police officer to retire, it is not either in his interests or in the interests of the police force as a whole, to require him to wait around for between 3 and 4 months until his resignation takes effect. We will be moving in Committee that this period be reduced to one month, in line with the 1975 Bill.

We believe that any legislation which does not establish procedures for complaints against the police is so totally defective as to be unacceptable. This question, with the related matter of ensuring that the rights of suspects and accused are not abused by police, is matched in importance only by the question of accountability of the police force to the Minister. The time to provide for these matters is when a force is being established. Entrenched practices die hard. Public confidence in any police force is vital to the success of that force. Accusations of police corruption or malpractice can and do arise. If the only mechanism to investigate these accusations is an internal investigation by the police themselves, the public simply cannot be expected to have confidence in the impartiality of such investigation. One must speak bluntly about this. I refer, the Government to what was done in the recent past in an investigation of one of the forces in this country. It seems to be a contradiction in fact when we read about the mechanisms involved in this Bill.

As I have indicated, one must speak bluntly about this matter. Whilst the vast majority of policemen and policewomen are totally dedicated, hard working and underpaid, there are and perhaps always will be a minority unwilling to use properly the power given to them by society. Such people must be weeded out for the good of the force and for the good of the community. The Australian Capital Territory Police Force, by an administrative arrangement, established an internal affairs branch in January 1978. The Opposition commends it for establishing that branch, but that was as far as it was possible for the Australian Capital Territory police to go without legislation. In his second reading speech, the Minister said:

The Government anticipates being able to introduce legislation upon complaints procedure later in the year.

Clearly the Government will take heed of the advice of Sir Colin Woods in this matter. One should bear in mind the extraordinary performance of Sir Robert Mark in relation to the English Police Act. Sir Robert Mark resigned prematurely in 1 977 in protest against this legislation. He had been responsible for the creation of the A- 10 unit to deal with complaints against the police. Whilst this was a significant advance on what had been the position before, the system allowed only for internal investigation and hence was full of pitfalls. As the report of the Law Reform Commission in 1 978 points out, there is evidence that in some cases A- 10 did not investigate complaints because police commanders sometimes too readily came to the defence of their subordinates. Sir Robert Mark’s petulant retirement meant that Sir Colin Woods was in line for the job of commissioner. The fact that he was passed over gives rise to the suspicion that he shared Sir Robert’s views about the legislation. In an article on Sir Colin Woods in the Australian on 1 1 May, John Phillips, reports:

One of the ideas he is considering is to start a section modelled on Scotland Yard’s A- 10 branch’.

It is most unlikely that Sir Colin would make this statement unless he had the support of the Government. If internal investigations, as proposed by Sir Colin Woods, have the Government’s imprimatur it would appear that a major departure from what everyone expected to be Government policy is being heralded. On the other hand, if he did not have the approval of the Government to make this statement, Sir Colin should be carpeted. We make it clear that the setting up of an A- 10 style branch alone is not sufficient. We have had two reports from the Law Reform Commission on this matter- in May 1975 and in June 1978. In addition to the establishment of an A- 10 style branch, the Commission on both occasions has recommended two additional elements necessary to ensure independence and impartiality in the investigation and determination of complaints against police.

The Law Reform Commission at page VIII of the summary to its 1978 report, spelt out the role of and the need for these additional instruments in the following terms:

The Ombudsman as ‘neutral territory’ for the receipt of complaints, as investigator of last resort and as public guardian to require certain public complaints to be scrutinised in a public forum.

A police tribunal, whose President is a judge, which cun sit to hear charges brought based upon breaches by police of the discipline code. Criminal charges against police will continue to be dealt with in the criminal courts. Many publiccomplaints against police, whilst not involving criminal conduct, arc nevertheless serious matters that should be publicly dealt with.

These proposals have been accepted by the Australian Capital Territory Police Force, although not, it would appear, by the Commonwealth Police. A rather watered-down version has been introduced into the Northern Territory. We are convinced that the Law Reform Commission’s proposals are the best way of ensuring that a proper balance is struck between the need to ensure impartiality in the investigation and determination of complaints on the one hand, and the need to ensure that police morale and efficiency are maintained, on the other hand I shall make reference in the Committee stage to an addendum that should be considered in relation to the point I am making.

It is outrageous that this legislation should be introduced without provision for complaints against police procedures being incorporated in the legislation. The current furore over the Narcotics Bureau demonstrates that there must be a guaranteed method of independent investigation and determination of complaints against police.

Indeed, in its 1978 report the Law Reform Commission stressed the need for such a system to apply also to the Narcotics Bureau. The Government has simply sat on that for a year and done nothing about it. The half-baked inquiry initiated by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) would never have been necessary if the Government had acted on the Law Reform Commission’s report. Now we find the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr McLeay) fobbing off the whole question in this legislation. Despite two reports from the Law Reform Commission, the Minister apparently believes that Sir Colin Woods has the answers on this. The Opposition does not believe that he has.

The other matter which came in for passing mention by the Minister in his second reading speech, was the question of the Criminal Investigation Bill. The Law Reform Commission reported on this matter in September 1975. A Bill was introduced into the Parliament in March 1977. However, that Bill lapsed and nothing further has been introduced. Now the Government, through the Minister, promises us another long delay. In a country without a Bill of Rights, legislation such as the Criminal Investigation Bill is essential. In the recently introduced Customs and telecommunications legislation, the Government decided simply to ignore the Law Reform Commission’s proposals. Fortunately, some Government back benchers voted with the Opposition at a legislation committee to prevent the Government riding roughshod over civil liberties, and perhaps that was to its credit. We fear that the Criminal Investigation Bill, if and when it is ever introduced, will resemble the Law Reform Commission’s report and draft Bill in name only. Much of the criticism of this legislation was the result of a failure to understand it, and what it did and did not do. The proposals provided for certain general rules by which the police were to abide. If they did not abide by these rules, then the evidence obtained in contravention of the rules would be excluded unless the police could justify the departure from the rules. The legislation did not provide for the automatic exclusion of evidence.

I want to deal now with what is always a controversial subject in relation to any police forcethe question of ministerial responsibility and direction. This question, which in the State sphere is often bubbling not far from the surface, came to a head in South Australia in 1 977 in the events which lead to the sacking of the Police Commissioner, Mr Harold Salisbury. We have since been treated to a book on the subject by a member of the Adelaide establishment, Stewart

Cockburn. There are two separate questions involved in this. The first is the extent to which Ministers are accountable for the actions of the police. If they are accountable to Parliament, then they must be in a position to obtain full knowledge of those actions. The second question is the extent to which Ministers may direct the actions of the police force. Mr Salisbury took the view that he was responsible to some vague, undefined higher authority called the Crown, not to elected politicians. That is a view which has no place in a democratic system. The upper echelons of the South Australian Police Force from 1971 had continuously misled the South Australian Government as to the nature and extent of Special Branch files. Mr Salisbury, sworn to uphold the law, was acting in defiance of it

In South Australia the position as to the relationship between the Police Commissioner and the Minister is absolutely clear as a result of the 1972 amendments to the Police Regulation Act. A Commissioner is subject to government direction, full stop. There is no qualification on this whatsoever. These amendments followed the 1970 moratorium demonstrations and the Bright report into police handling of those demonstrations. There is absolutely no doubt that in South Australia police commissioners must supply whatever information is required by the Minister. In our view, that position is absolutely correct. Sir Robert Mark, in his report, made a fairly glib distinction between administrative accountability and operational autonomy. What appears to be the traditional British view on the relationship between Government and the police, of total independence from the elected government, is rejected in Australia. Yet we find Sir Colin Woods importing the British view into Australia. Our view is fortified by a comment that he made on 1 1 May. He said:

Every chief of police in Britain is a very proud, very independent man. He maintains his independence by proclaiming it on every occasion. I think it is of the greatest importance that chiefs of police should have that independence. I would be very sorry if there were some idea that the development of the Federal Police Force in any way threatens that.’

We, on this side of the House, believe that the total independence of the police force from the Government of the day and, in particular, the need to answer to, and inform that Government, is very dangerous. It cannot be accepted. We do not see Clause 13(2) in its present form as being acceptable. The meaning of directions as to ‘general policy’ is vague and uncertain. We believe that a government should be able to give to a police commissioner such directions as to the performance of his duties as the government sees fit, provided there is ministerial accountability, the Minister is then responsible to this Parliament. As we have pointed out in relation to the Australian Security Intelligence Organization and Customs legislation, there can be no real ministerial accountability unless there is disclosure.

The South Australian legislation provides the model for this. It requires both the tabling and the gazettal of any instructions to the Commissioner. In that way, a government must answer for whatever it does. We would place no limits on the ability of a Minister to direct a police commissioner, provided that there was public disclosure. Of course, the Queensland Government has interfered with the police in order to ensure that it carries out government policy, as abhorrent as that policy is. However, there is no principle of freedom of information in Queensland, nor is there any procedure for the public ventilation of complaints against the police.

Provided that there is an independent review of police actions, the question whether the actions of Ministers in giving police commisioners directions is proper or improper must be decided in the political arena. I stress that, on the South Australian model, which we will be seeking to have incorporated into this legislation, Ministers can give no directions unless they are prepared to answer for those directions publicly. In some siege situations where demands are being made for the release of hostages, surely Ministers must be able to direct commissioners. If hostages were killed, it would be too late for a Minister to say that he was unable to give directions to a commissioner as to how such a situation should be handled. That is absurd.

People elect governments to make decisions. Governments must answer for those decisions. Our amendments will ensure that the power of governments to make decisions is not limited. They will ensure also that governments answer for those decisions by requiring immediate disclosure of directions to the police. We will also be moving in Committee that all provisions relating to the appointment, promotion and termination of commissioners, deputy commissioners and commissioned officers, should specify that it is the Governor-General in Council, not simply the Governor-General, who is to make these decisions. While we believe that it is a desirable practice always to write ‘Governor-General in Council’, rather than simply ‘GovernorGeneral ‘, into legislation, that is not the reason that we propose it on this occasion. It is rather to reinforce the view that the police are accountable to the elected government of the day, and not to some vague notion, as I have indicated before, of a higher authority called the Crown.

In this legislation, for some reason best known to the Government, a very purposeful attempt has been made to try to establish the Salisbury relationship between the Police Commissioner and the Government of the day. The purpose for this legitimisation of the Salisbury attitude fascinates me. It appears to be the action of a conservative establishment framework adding another cross member to its superstructure to inhibit and to frustrate attempts at progress and change in our society. For those reasons it is totally unacceptable to the Opposition. Of course, I would be delighted for the Minister to illuminate the Parliament with his reason for the adoption of the Salisbury attitude. I hope that he will respond to that in his reply.

I also make reference to clause 1 8, sub-clause (3) which I would compare with clause 17, subclause 4. I mention clause 20, sub-clause ( 1 ). I would like the Minister to respond not only on all of the aspects of the Bill to which I have made reference but also on the aspect of the legislation to which I will now refer. Why is it that an acting commissioner shall have not only terms and conditions but also his or her remuneration and allowances set by the Minister? That does not mean that an acting commissioner can receive more or less remuneration than a permanent occupant of the office. Why should not an acting Commissioner receive the same terms, conditions, remuneration and allowances due to a permanent commissioner with the exception of those terms and conditions normally peculiar to an acting occupant of the position? Why should not terms and conditions for the position of acting commissioner and acting deputy commissioner be set in the same way as those for the permanent occupants of the positions?

Finally it must be said that we are disappointed at the appointment of Sir Colin Woods. Sir Colin has had a distinguished career in England, but his appointment reeks of the colonialism to which conservative governments in this country still cling. The appointment should have been from a State police force or the judiciary. Surely the appointment of Sir Colin is an insult to the dedication of the people serving in the police forces in this country? However, we are faced now with a fait accompli. We should ensure that never again is there an appointment as insulting to both Australian police and Australians generally, as that of Sir Colin Woods. The Opposition cannot accept this Bill in its present form. For the reasons that I have mentioned, I move:

Mr Jacobi:

– I second the motion.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-I regretand I believe the Government and the majority of members of this Parliament would regretthat in the concluding minutes of his address the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes) saw fit to make critical comments with respect to the appointment made by the Commonwealth, an appointment which is now accepted. I would have thought- recognising the realities of life - that it is not the best way to launch a new venture for the Opposition spokesman to persist in this extraordinary attack on the appointment of Sir Colin Woods. I feel that the Opposition showed itself up in a somewhat petty light when dealing with this subject. The Government’s main objective was to obtain the best person available for the establishment of the new Australian Federal Police Force. Whether that person came from Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada or any other part of the world, I believe the Government was duty bound to appoint the best person available. Contrary to the comments made by the honourable member for Melbourne who preceded me in this debate, I have not heard one word of complaint from a serving officer of the Commonwealth Police Force or the Australian Capital Territory Police Force with respect to the appointment of Sir Colin Woods. I have not heard one complaint.

Mr Innes:

– They could not trust you.

Mr HODGMAN:

– The honourable member makes an insulting comment. He might be interested to know- and if he want to behave like a ratbag, that is his right- that I have acted for a large number of police officers who quite happily trusted me. Indeed, I was honorary legal adviser to police associations when the honourable member was not even a member of this Parliament. The point I am making is a substantive one, that it does nothing to the credit of the honourable member for Melbourne that he can stand in this Parliament and say the sorts of things that he said a moment ago about Sir Colin Woods. If the honourable member is challenging the integrity and ability of Sir Colin Woods, I would be interested to hear the basis for his charges. What the honourable member has done is to scream ‘colonialism’. He has smeared a man who has been appointed to be the initial Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police Force. I think it is a matter of great regret that the speech which the honourable member delivered, which was not a bad speech, was completely marred by the fact that he behaved like a larrikin in his concluding remarks and attacked the appointment of Sir Colin Woods.

Mr Innes:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Two remarks that have been made by the honourable member for Denison I find offensive and I want them to be withdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

The honourable member for Denison will withdraw the remarks he made regarding the honourable member for Melbourne. I remind the honourable member for Melbourne that he has made his speech and that he was heard in silence.

Mr HODGMAN:

– I withdraw the remark and, if I may say so, I seek no withdrawal of the remarks that the honourable member for Melbourne made about me. I invite him particularly as there will be a Federal election next year- if he wants to help me retain my seat, to come to Hobart and campaign on behalf of Senator Wriedt. The purpose of the Bill is to establish the Australian Federal Police Force. I compliment the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr McLeay), who is at the table, and indeed the Government, on the manner in which they have gone about this task. It has been in marked contrast to the incredible performance of the Whitlam Government during its years in office when it endeavoured to establish in this country what in essence would have been a police state kind of police force. There are three very important differences between the way in which we went about this operation and the way in which the Whitlam Government went about the operation. Of course, the source of my information is basically the officers themselves. In the Whitlam Government’s attempt to establish its own secret police force in this country, the operation was carried out in this way: Persons were detailed to go overseas to make arrangements, not in consultation with serving officers of the Commonwealth or the Australian Capital Territory Police forces. There was an attempt in the Whitlam Government’s period of office to establish a political police force in this country. This Federal Police Force which we are establishing is, of its very nature, apolitical. I cannot understand the amendments moved by the honourable member for Melbourne because he has failed to note in the Bill that the police force that we are establishing cannot be politicised.

He has failed to note that the Minister cannot give a direction to the Commissioner as to the operations of the Australian Federal Police Force unless he does two things: First, he has to confer with the Commissioner- in other words, he has to explain the direction to him- and secondly, he has to put the direction in writing for the record. That would not have been so under the Whitlam proposals. A telephone call would have been made in the middle of the night; no record would have been made; and a direction would have been given by one of Mr Whitlam ‘s political henchmen that the force was to take action in relation to a certain person. No record at all would have been kept. Not a skerrick of evidence would have been available upon which the truth could have been nailed home and upon which political intervention could have been established.

One should examine the provisions of the Bill and consider how on earth they can be reconciled with the remarks made by the honourable member for Melbourne. The power of the Minister to give a direction is restricted. He can do so, as I said, only after he has conferred with the Commissioner and if he is prepared to do so in writing. I ask: What Minister of this Government would be prepared to give a political direction in writing? What Minister would put his reputation on the line by putting in writing- as the Bill requires- the direction to the Commissioner? The honourable member for Melbourne obviously has not been talking recently to officers of the Commonwealth Police Officers Association. I would have thought, if he had, that he would be well aware that following a number of meetings with the Minister and with back bench committees, practically every single objection to this legislation in fact was ironed out. Unlike the fruitless efforts of the honourable member for Melbourne -

Mr Jacobi:

– That is a different story from the one that we have.

Mr HODGMAN:

– The honourable member ought to talk to Mr Pat Curtin, to give one example. He ought to talk to the people who spoke to the back bench committees. He ought to see the amendments that went through after the police officers had had discussions with the Minister and with the back bench committees. The fact of the matter is that the Opposition is talking about a situation which existed six months ago when it talks about a single component police force. It has been accepted that, providing the rights of the individual officers are protected, a double component police force will in fact be implemented. As I said, the honourable member is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. There is nothing to support his contentions in relation to a single component police force. As at this moment, I suggest to the honourable member that he is completely without instructions, that he has not been receiving the right information or that he is simply making up what he is saying. It was accepted in the report of Sir Robert Mark that the proposed Australian Federal Police should be a dual component police force, one section of it involving general police functions and the other involving police protective service functions. What is so extraordinary about that? Why is it that the honourable member for Melbourne contends that this is not an efficient way to run a police force? It seems that he knows very little about the operation of State police forces, which are not single component forces. There are three, four or five separate components. I shall draw some of these components to his attention. There is the uniform section and the non-uniform section, the racing and gaming section, the vice squad section- the honourable member would have heard of thatand the licensing branch. A number of separate sections -

Mr Innes:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The imputations of the honourable member continue on and on. I am not thin skinned about some of the remarks that have been made but the imputation in his last remark was such that if he made it outside the Parliament he might find himself in different circumstances. I demand that it be withdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:

The honourable member’s point has been made. I ask the honourable member for Denison to rephrase that last part of his speech.

Mr HODGMAN:

– I was simply endeavouring to point out the separate sections. I will go through them again. I shall deal with the Tasmanian police force. It has the uniform section -

Mr Innes:

– I demand a withdrawal.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I feel that the honourable member for Melbourne is being over-sensitive about the matter.

Mr Innes:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I can recall the words that were used by the honourable member for Denison, he said that I knew something about the vice squad section of the State police force.

Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– He did not mention you at all.

Mr Innes:

– He made direct reference to me during his remarks and an examination of Hansard will show it. It is offensive to me and I ask for a withdrawal.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:

The honourable member for Melbourne Ports has made his point. The remarks are offensive to the honourable member and I would ask the honourable member for Denison to withdraw that imputation.

Mr HODGMAN:

– If it please you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will not talk about the vice squad. I will remind the honourable member about the traffic branch.

Mr Holding:

– You will withdraw it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Denison will withdraw the remarks.

Mr HODGMAN:

– Just a minute; the honourable member for Melbourne Ports is laying down the law. He is accusing himself. I have not accused him of contact with the vice squad.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The remarks that have been repeated by the honourable member for Denison have offended the honourable member for Melbourne Ports. I ask the honourable member for Denison to withdraw those remarks.

Mr HODGMAN:

– At your request, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will withdraw them. I will now talk about the drug section. We have the traffic section, the racing and gaming section, the licensing section and the vice squad. It is well known in the operations of police forces that these sections have to be put into separate components to obtain the best efficiency. A team of detectives who are experts in the subject of vice particularly look for, search out, apprehend, arrest and charge people involved in vice. Similarly, in relation to the traffic section, one would not put a man from the vice squad in charge of the traffic operations for the city of Melbourne. The fact that the honourable member for Melbourne Ports is up and down on the question of whether it is a single or double component indicates that he does not have the faintest idea what the Bill is about. The Bill seeks to establish what will be an efficiently operating Australian Federal Police Force, bearing in mind the duties which have to be performed. I invite the honourable member for Melbourne Ports to turn to the Bill for, what I imagine will be the first time. He will find that the functions of the Australian Federal Police Force are set out in clause 8 as follows:

  1. the provision of police services in relation to the Australian Capital Territory;
  2. the provision of police services in relation to-

  3. laws of the Commonwealth;

    1. property of the Commonwealth (including Commonwealth places) and property of authorities of the Commonwealth: and
    2. the safeguarding of Commonwealth interests: and
  4. to do anything incidental or conducive to the performance of the foregoing functions.

It is clearly recognised that there is a different function to be performed by those who are interested, for example, in the protection and safeguarding of Commonwealth property than the function which will be performed by those who are involved in the investigation of crimes against the Commonwealth, such as the planting of bombs on aeroplanes, the destruction of Commonwealth property, acts of sabotage, terrorism and the like. To come back to the example which I gave before, one would not put a man from the vice squad in charge of the traffic section or a man who has been spending many years guarding an airport in charge of an inquiry into a proposed act of terrorism at one of the naval bases or at some other place. It seems to me that the honourable member has failed to appreciate the purpose of the Bill.

He has his wires crossed because he believes that if somebody who is currently in one section is transferred into another section of the proposed new force, that person will be disadvantaged. I want to nail that one right on the head here and now. If ever there was a Bill which protected the rights of incumbent members of the Australian Federal Police Force it is this Bill. The honourable member talks as if he had not read the Bill when he talks about the creation of rights of appeal in relation to transfers, promotions, discipline demotions, retirements and dismissals. I invite the honourable member to look at the Bill. There is a right of appeal in respect of every appointment other than that of commissioner. Because the honourable member -

Mr Jacobi:

– They are going to declare them by regulation.

Mr HODGMAN:

-That is the position at the moment. When the Australian Labor Party was in Government -

Mr Jacobi:

– You would not know; you were not here.

Mr HODGMAN:

-Labor did nothing to put such a right of appeal in an Act of Parliament. The Opposition accepted that this could be done by regulation. The honourable member can blandly say that there is nothing in the Bill in relation to rights of appeal. But he is completely wrong. The present status quo is in fact preserved and maintained.

Mr Jacobi:

– That is right, there is none. What happened in 1975?

Mr HODGMAN:

– The honourable member for Hawker says that there is no right of appeal at present. That is not correct.

Mr Jacobi:

– There is, but not in the Bill.

Mr HODGMAN:

-If that is correct, I invite the honourable member to look at clause 78 of the Bill. Clause 78 of the Bill preserves the existing rights–

Mr Jacobi:

– You are going to put them in regulations.

Mr HODGMAN:

– The honourable member for Hawker seems to be suggesting that there are no such rights.

Mr Innes:

– That is right.

Mr HODGMAN:

– The honourable member for Melbourne Ports says that we must create rights of appeal. What a lot of poppycock that is. If the honourable member reads clause 78 of the Bill he will find that it preserves the existing rights of appeal.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr HODGMAN:

– Before the suspension of the sitting I was dealing with the role of the Minister in relation to the Australian Federal Police. I think it is important that the situation be clearly understood. The Minister is responsible as a Minister of the Crown but his right to intervene in the operations of the Australian Federal Police is very limited. He must confer with the Commissioner but only on what are described as the general functions ofthe Federal Police. If he considers it appropriate to give a direction it is essential under the legislation that he do this in writing. This, I think, is the great protection against the fears raised by the honourable member for Melbourne in that whatever the Minister does will be a matter of record.

I refer also to appeals and the protection of the rights of existing members of the Commonwealth Police Force and the Australian Capital Territory Police Force. I refer again to clause 40 (c) of the Bill. It deals with the regulation making power with respect to the promotion of members, including the right of members to appeal against promotion of other members and the establishment of a promotion appeals board to hear and determine such appeals. I fully appreciate what the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) will say when he follows me in this debate. He will say that that provision ought to be in the Act itself. This is what the honourable member for Melbourne said. Normally, I would accept the argument that if there is a choice between something going in an Act and something going into regulations I would lean towards the Act. But there is a very good reason in this case why it ought to be done by regulation. Firstly, the current position is that the appeal rights in respect to existing members of the Commonwealth Police Force and the Australian Capital Territory Police Force are laid down in regulations. Secondly, we are starting on a new concept. 1 believe it would unduly fetter the Executive Government, the Minister and the new Commissioner who is to set up the Force. (Quorum formed). The honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones), in breach of an agreement, has cut short my time. I now have the opportunity to refer with approval only to clause 73(2). That is an amendment which was introduced as a result of the discussions between the Minister and the Government members committee.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

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

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

– Whilst the Opposition may support the concept of the Australian Federal Police Bill, it will oppose and resist a number of provisions. I approach this legislation with a deep sense of cynicism which is soundly based on this Government’s political duplicity and outright hypocrisy. Throughout the period of office of the Labor Government I was a member of the Caucus legal and constitutional committee which was largely responsible for the structure of the Australia Police Bill which we introduced on 30 October 1975. That Bill was thoroughly discussed and examined. As I recall, we had lengthy discussions with the Commonwealth Police Officers Association. I honestly admit that the Bill was predictably unpopular, particularly amongst police officers. Any drasticchange was then, as it is now, a bitter pill to digest. Despite what the honourable member for

Denison (Mr Hodgman) said, the Bill raised, as the present Bill does, the thorny question of restructuring, reclassification and the status of police officers. We ought to understand that that was the kernel of the problem.

For the reasons that we enunciated at the time, I believe that the 1 975 legislation was sound and necessary, as the present Bill is, if the federal law enforcement agencies were to be both effective and efficient. But what do we find? The political duplicity and outright hypocrisy of the Government, both now and when it was in opposition, is utterly deplorable. I strongly contend tonight that the shortcomings that led to the introduction of the legislation in 1975 were thrown up following a comprehensive study into the Commonwealth Police and the Australian Capital Territory Police forces in 1973. The measures contained in the Bill we introduced in 1975 and those in the present legislation attest at least to our foresight and credibility. But they speak volumes for the Government’s fork-tongued approach in this critically important area. In 1 975 the then Opposition opposed the Bill. It claimed it be a plank of socialist philosophy. As I recall only too vividly, in the run up to the 1975 elections two current Ministers attended a meeting of police officers. They gave an unequivocal and categoric undertaking that there would be no repetition of the 1 975 legislation and no amalgamation of the police forces. This reminds me of what an old Scotsman once said to me. He said: Never let politics bother you, Ralph. After all, the capacity for human intelligence to absorb garbage is unlimited’. That happened in 1975. 1 wonder how gullible the police forces would be today.

This legislation is another glaring testimony to the Government’s duplicity, hypocrisy and total lack of credibility. The legislation was necessary in 1975. It is necessary now. It is my intention, as I said earlier, to compared the Opposition’s policy and its constructive approach to this much needed reform with the Government’s restrictive and negative approach. Had this Government implemented the important provisions in the Bill that we as a government introduced into this House in 1975 and had the amalgamation of the police forces taken place in 1975, it would undoubtedly have been of far greater benefit to both the Australian Police itself but more importantly and beyond question, to the police officers. It is my personal view- I sat on the committee then, as I do now- that our legislation would have made the force more effective and efficient.

This piece of legislation falls far short of the comprehensive and necessary legislation needed if this arm of the law enforcement agency is to have the checks and balances so critically important, if it is to achieve the aims and the ends that the community expects and deserves, and that goes for both the officers and the community. I say advisedly, and I have known this for the last 20 years, that regrettably, throughout the length and breadth of this country, law enforcement officers, whether they be police or law retention officers- we call them prison officers, or officers of what is known as correctional services- are too often used as scapegoats by politicians, political parties, governments both federal and State, and, I hate to say, on a number of occasions Opposition parties. Police officers deserve a lot better than they get. Equally regrettably, all too often- I know this after being involved with correctional services in South Australia for 20 years- when Cabinet, whether it be State or Federal, starts to carve up the budget allocations for police or prison services, these services suffer cuts in government expenditure. They are sacrificed. They are at the end of the rung. Nonetheless, the public still demands a high standard of effectiveness and efficiency.

Let me take up some of the time of the House to canvass some of the provisions we envisaged in 1 975 and contrast them with the current provisions of this Bill. The Bill in 1 975 provided for the amalgamation of the Commonwealth Police Force, the police forces of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, and certain sections of the Department of Customs into a single law enforcement agency to be called Australia Police. This move followed a comprehensive study carried out in 1973. It revealed that the operations of existing agencies contained a number of shortcomings. These included: A lack of co-ordination of enforcement effort in areas of common interests; duplication of effort by officers from the various agencies; wastefulness and inefficiency arising from the maintenance of separate information and intelligence systems; varying standards of training and recruitment for the various agencies; lack of highly trained capacity to deal with white collar crimethat area badly needs an overhaul, but there is nothing in this Bill to update that capacity- the need to refer the investigation of some federal offences to State police agencies; wastefulness deriving from the maintenance of separate pools of equipment and the inability to justify separate use of computer facilities. Based on the knowledge gained from studies that had been undertaken, including a close examination of overseas law enforcement agencies, it became obvious in 1975 as it is obvious now that the wastefulness and inefficiencies deriving from the multiplicity of federal law enforcement agencies in the country could best be overcome by integration of these agencies. The then Opposition, the present Government, bitterly opposed such a socialist proposition, but it is now the proposition of a Tory government. It is marvellous!

There was and still is scope for specialised training, including that necessary to provide a higher level of expertise to detect white collar crime. One can understand why that is one arm of the police force that the Government will not update to give any semblance of expertise. One can appreciate that. The national and international training courses at present provided for State and overseas police will be expanded. We envisaged that in 1975. On the basis of existing Customs facilities, computer services currently under development include police computer systems with instant access to data by means of visual display units located throughout Australia. We wanted that too in 1975. At the moment that matter is under discussion. These services, whether maintained manually or by computer, are a necessary part of any police force and are being developed at a national level within the Australia Police. Then there is the possibility of developing a national information unit. The unit will have links with Interpol and other international agencies. This Government opposed that concept in 1975. On 16 May 1975 the Law Reform Commission reported on the question of the appropriate legislative means of safeguarding individual rights and liberties in relation to the law enforcement process of the Australia Police. So rights and liberties ought to be safeguarded, but such a provision is not contained in the legislation.

The Law Reform Commission brought down two reports. The first report was tabled in the House on 2 September 1975 and related to a system to investigate complaints against members of Australia Police. The report is a seminal document in the development of police integrity and public confidence in the police of Australia. The Commission’s second report is devoted to the difficult issue of the proper balance between police powers, which respect the right of the individual, on the one hand, and the community’s need for practical and effective law enforcement on the other. Nothing in this legislation buttresses that and it is critically needed. Part I of the Bill as we envisaged it contained the usual formal provisions and, in addition, preserved existing police powers in federal laws and territorial ordinances. We provided for that in our Bill in 1975. It also provided an interim measure pending the introduction of legislation arising out of the Government’s consideration of the second report of the Law Reform Commission. The Government has not yet responded to that report.

Part IV related to appointments and terms and conditions of service, including such matters as promotion, resignation and retirement. It also provided for the making of regulations in relation to police discipline, which has not been provided for in this Bill. Parts V and VI would have established the system of dealing with complaints against police, as recommended by the Law Reform Commission. I should have thought that the police would have wanted that themselves. Central features of these parts are the provision of an oversighting role for the Ombudsman; the establishment of an internal discipline section responsible to the Chief Commissioner to investigate complaints and the creation of an Australian Police Tribunal.

Part VII was based on the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission in relation to torts by police officers. It provided for Australia to assume vicarious liability for the actions of an officer taken in the course of his duty. So he ought to be protected. Where are the provisions in this Bill that adequately protect him? It also provided that Australia may take proceedings to recover contributions from the police officer, and so it ought to. Part VIII provided for transitional provisions in relation to the appointment of and preservation of rights of police officers automatically transferred to the Australia Police.

The other thing which we envisaged and which I must confess was overlooked by many police officers, but which was important, was the establishment of a national police college at Bathurst in New South Wales. Courses were designed to cater for all levels of police recruitment and training appropriate to the high levels of management. Following the Labor Government defeat in 1975, the college was not established, yet the recommendation for its establishment is contained in the Mark report. The establishment of that college was another promise given by the then Opposition in 1975, and it is another broken promise of this Government. It is part of another set of lies.

Before I conclude my remarks, I wish to make passing reference to a number of matters contained in the legislation that are of concern to police officers. Police officers are concerned, as well they might be, with the provisions contained in clauses 38 and 39. Clause 38 deals with the retirement of members by reason of mental or physical infirmity. It appears to us that the Commissioner has sole discretion as to whether or not he considers a person unfit to discharge or incapable of discharging his duties. The clause confers on the Commissioner certain options. I would like the reflections of the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr McLeay) on that. Whilst there may be a benefit to the member to be retired from the police force before obtaining the age of 60 years, under the proposed legislation, the Commissioner would have the sole discretion of transferring that person to a rank lower than the one he presently holds or he may transfer him to another position in the same rank. One notes that there is no provision for a member to appeal against such a decision by the Commissioner. Therefore, the Opposition feels that it would be in the best interests of all members for an appeal provision to be contained in the Act rather than the regulations. I might say that I have an utterly cynical regard for provisions which protect members of an association or a union being placed in regulations. I have had 20 years’ experience with it, and I believe that the argument put forward for including clause 38 in the Bill simply was that the same provision already exists in the Australian Capital Territory Police Ordinance 1927 as amended. In my view, it is an archaic provision and one which the force could well do without. There is no need for it.

Clause 39 of the Bill deals with retrenchment. We on this side of the House, and certainly police officers, I would think, take the firm view that this clause ought to be deleted in its totality. Again, the Commissioner has the sole discretion as to whether or not a member may be retrenched. It appears that no restrictions are placed on the Commissioner as to when or how he may embark upon such a course without consultation. There is also no provision for a member to appeal against the decision of the Commissioner, although a member may have recourse in some other industrial arena. I would like that situation explained, and we will see whether we can drag out an explanation during the Committee stage because it is important. Police officers and the Commonwealth Police Officers Association, feel very strongly that this clause ought to be deleted from the proposed legislation.

I come back to the point that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) raised. The clause should be deleted from the proposed legislation but, failing that, a protection clause in an appeal provision should be included in the Act rather than in the regulations. I agree with the honourable member for Denison. I ask the Minister for Administrative Services to explain why a provision should not be included in the Act. It is important in that if there is to be harmony in the force such a provision ought to be inserted in the Act, not in the regulations. I confess that I intend to give the Minister a rough time in the Committee stage on that clause. The Government’s argument for including clause 39 in the Bill was that it is already contained within the provisions of the Australian Capital Territory Police Ordinance. I point out that although this sort of provision exists in respect of Australian Capital Territory police, the administration has never sought to enforce it. It is archaic, outdated, and it ought to be deleted.

There is another area of the proposed legislation that I believe causes police officers less concern, and I refer to clause 37, which deals with the resignation of members. It is noted that three months notice must be given before a member may resign unless the Commissioner otherwise allows. We feel that three months is far too long and suggest that a period of 28 days is more in line with the provisions that at present exist in police forces throughout Australia. I would like some clarification of this point. Is the Government still standing fast on that provision or has it in fact reached agreement with the Police Officers Association and conceded that the period will be reduced to 28 days?

I want to conclude on this simple note. I thought that the legislation proposed in 1975 was a logical, rational and effective way to amalgamate the police forces so as to give the community the efficiency and effectiveness it deserved, but that proposal was hypocritically opposed. It is a disgrace that in 1975 this Government when in Opposition was able to dupe, if you like, the police forces on the specious ground that once it got into office it would not amalgamate those forces. It is just another nail in this Government’s coffin and an example of its utter lack of credibility. It is no credit at all to the Government or to many members in the police forces, who were gullible enough to fall for this promise. I support the concept of the legislation because I thought the amalgamation was warranted in 1975 and I think it is warranted in 1979. But I make this plea to the Minister: If the Government wants an efficient and effective police force it should ensure that the provisions for the welfare of the members in respect of promotions, appeals and transfers, whether they are written into the Act or made by way of regulations, safeguard the rights of the members. If that is done, the Government will have a much happier police force. This Bill will not give them that protection.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

-The Australian Federal Police Bill now before the House is designed to establish the Australian Federal Police. That force is to be given certain functions, and they are specified in clause 8 of the Bill. They include the provision of police services in relation to the Australian Capital Territory, the provision of police services in relation to laws of the Commonwealth and the property of the Commonwealth, the safeguarding of Commonwealth interests, and anything incidental or conducive to the performance of the foregoing functions. Under this legislation the Parliament is authorising the Crown, the Executive that governs this country, to establish a force to fulfil those functions. In the past when Parliament authorised the establishment of a department, authorised the establishment of an institution such as a police force, it set out the functions and conferred the powers.

I have a very deep concern that, not only in relation to this Bill but also in relation to other pieces of legislation that have passed through this chamber over recent decades, the Parliament has conferred upon the Executive very wide powers, powers that, except in one limited sense to which I will refer to in a moment, are beyond the control of this Parliament. Because they are beyond the control of this Parliament, we have conferred upon the Executive and upon the institutions that this Parliament has authorised the Executive to establish the capacity to abuse the powers that are so conferred. I recognise the need for a police force in the sense of law enforcement in the Territories of the Commonwealth and in regard to the enforcement of the Commonwealth laws throughout Australia. I want the police force to have the widest possible powers to ensure that it can discharge the duties that this Parliament has in mind for it. But I am concerned that we should ensure that there are adequate safeguards, guidelines, parameters within which that force can operate- parameters that are not to limit it in the discharge of its duties, but parameters that are to limit its capacity, the capacity of any individual member of the force, the capacity of its Commissioner, the capacity of its ministerial head, to abuse the powers in a way which could erode the authority of a democratically elected Parliament and destroy the possibility of that Parliament being democratically elected again in the future.

I have chosen to raise this matter in this debate, but I reaffirm the view that my concern relates to many of the institutions to which this Parliament gives authority. There is a growing concern within the community among informed people who understand how the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, based on the principle of ministerial responsibility, is developing. The principle of ministerial responsibility to parliament is seen by many as becoming increasingly ineffectual. I think it is necessary for us to look at some of the historic origins of this House. How is it that we are being asked tonight to vote on a piece of legislation that gives to the Executive a power to govern this country in terms of the running of its police force? It was decided long ago in the Case of Proclamations in 1611 that the King, who was the Executive then, could exercise legislative authority only through Parliament. In part the decision was in these terms:

The gist of the Case of Proclamations is that the King is the Executive and his business the enforcement of the existing law; his prerogative is under the law and Parliament alone can alter the law which the King is to administer.

The Bill of Rights in 1689 and the Act of Settlement in 1701 embodied in legal terms the settlement of constitutional government between Parliament and the Executive following the 1688 Revolution. These statutes mark a victory for Parliament over the Executive, over the King. From that time on, in place of government by royal prerogative government was to be by and through Parliament. Since that time, Parliament has given to the Executive, the King, the Crown, increasing authority to govern and has handed over in many areas what I regard as a blank cheque. It has not put within the legislation in which it authorises the setting up of institutions sufficient restrictions to prevent the abuse of power.

I believe that Parliament over the next decade will need increasingly to ensure that, in the ultimate, it is Parliament that protects the rights of individuals and the very democracy which brings us as elected representatives of the people to this chamber. This legislation, therefore, is a case where we can examine the manner in which ministerial responsibility operates. In the view of many, the meaning of the term ‘responsibility’ has come to be interpreted very narrowly. Ministers, though accountable to Parliament for any of their faults and shortcomings insofar as they are obliged to answer to Parliament with respect to such matters are not themselves held culpable and, therefore, bound to resign or be subjected to dismissal unless the action which stands condemned was theirs.

There are two forms of ministerial responsibility- the one for which the Minister is directly legally responsible and the other which is the operation of the convention where the Minister is responsible to this House to account for his own actions and the actions of his own Department. The Minister’s responsibility is a responsibility to administer the law for the Australian Constitution states in clause 6 1 :

The powers and duties of the Commonwealth Executive Government relate to the execution and maintenance of the consultation and the execution and maintenance of the laws of the Commonwealth Parliament.

If a Minister or a government comes to this House and asks that we authorise the establishment of an Australian federal police, this Parliament is entitled to lay down the laws under which that force is to operate. In one major and significant respect, this Parliament is not sufficiently defining the manner in which it believes the Australian federal police should operate, that is, the manner in which there is a lack insofar as the disclosure of information is concerned.

I spoke earlier in this session on the Customs Amendment Bill and drew attention to this very problem that Parliament is authorising a federal police force that is to have responsibility to fulfil the functions that I outlined, to have authority to enter into agreement and to have computer and other information banks, but we impose upon the members of that force no legal prohibition with regard to the use of that information. We leave it to the general law and to the Crimes Act. Yet when we look at the legislation that governs the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation we say that it: shall be an offence for officers of that Force to disclose information except in circumstances defined by Parliament.

Without in any way inhibiting the discharge of its proper functions the Australian federal police should have within its legislation a restriction that indicates the manner in which the information can be used. Insofar as it is used beyond the specified manner, it should be an offence for police officers to disclose that information. To achieve this, I would have liked to have moved an amendment. I have discussed this amendment with the Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence (Mr McLeay). It is an amendment somewhat similar to an amendment that I moved to an earlier Bill. It is designed to incorporate in this legislation guidelines similar to those contained in the ASIO legislation. It is designed to include in this legislation limitations about the supply of information similar to those imposed upon the Treasurer (Mr Howard) with regard to the information gathered by the Commissioner of Taxation. I cannot understand why we do not specify these restrictions within this legislation. The time is coming for this Parliament to look at the Crimes Act and to review the legislation that governs the circumstances in which officers of Commonwealth Government departments, and members of Commonwealth Government instrumentalities are required by law to keep confidential information that is gathered by them. There is no doubt that a police force must gather a huge amount of information about hundreds and thousands of law-abiding citizens as it goes about its job of finding those who are the law breakers. None of us who believe and endeavour to comply with the laws of the land should be concerned that our names may happen to come on to information collected by police forces, security organisations and customs authorities because, of necessity, we cannot tell when we park our car in a particular street, when we walk down a particular street or go to a particular meeting whether we are in an area or a place that the law enforcement authorities have under surveillance because they suspect that someone else may be there. The innocent should not be condemned by their association. They should only be convicted if the law enforcing authorities believe that they have sufficient information to lay a charge and bring that charge before the courts of the land. To show how diverse are the provisions that govern the disclosure of information, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a list of the provisions of Commonwealth legislation which restrict the access to information.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

PROVISIONS OF COMMONWEALTH LEGISLATION WHICH RESTRICT ACCESS TO INFORMATION

COMMONWEALTH ACTS

A: Provisions prohibiting or restricting the disclosure of information

Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, 1976 s.23E

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act, 1975 s. 66

Atomic Energy Act, 1 953 ss. 44-48 (s. 5 ‘restricted information’), 52, 53

Audit Act, 1907 s. 14c

Australian Capital Territory Taxation (Administration) Act, 1969 s. 7

Australian Film Commission Act, 1975 s. 43

Australian Science and Technology Council Act, 1978 s. 26

Broadcasting and Television Act, 1942 s. 106B

Census and Statistics Act, 1 905 ss. 7, 24

Commonwealth Banks Act, 1959 s. 15

Commonwealth Electoral Act, 1918 ss.93(l)(c), 155 (ii)

Crimes Act, 1 9 1 4 ss. 70,79

Defence Act, 1903 s. 73a

Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1 949 s. 9

Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act, 1978 s. 3 1

Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act, 1974 s. 85

Export Incentives Grants Act, 1 97 1 s. 8

Export Market Development Grants Act, 1974 s. 37

Family Law Act, 1975 s. 19

Financial Corporations Act, 1974 s. 27

Gift Duty Assessment Act. 1941s. 10

Health Insurance Act, 1973 s. 130

Home Savings Grant Act, 1974 s. 13

Home Savings Grant Act, 1 976 s. 4 1

Hospitals and Health Service Commission Repeal Act, 1 978 s. 9

Housing LoansI nsurance Act, 1 965 s. 43

Income Tax Assessment Act, 1 936 s. 16

Industrial Research and Development Grants Act, 1967 s.23

Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act, 1976 s. 22

Insurance Acts, 1973 ss. 74, 126, 127

Life Insurance Act, 1945 s. 57

National Health Act, 1953 s. 135a

National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1975 s.17e

Ombudsman Act, 1976 s. 35

Patents Act, 1952 ss. 19(a), 131

Pay Roll Tax Assessment Act, 1941 s.11

Pay Roll Tax (Territories ) Assessment Act

Port Statistics Act, 1977 s. 7

Postal and Telecommunications Commissions (Transitional Provisions ) Act, 1 975, s. 37

Re-establishment and Employment Act, 1 945 ss. 70, 7 1

Reserve Bank Act, 195 1 s. 16

Sales Tax Assessment Act (No.1), 1930s. 10

Science and Industry Research Act, 1949 s. 3 1

Social Services Act, 1 947 s. 17

Social Welfare Commission (Repeal) Act, 1976 s. 8

State Receipts Duties (Administration) Act, 1970 s. 21

Stevedoring Industry Charge Assessment Act, 1947 s. 10

Structural Adjustment (Loan Guarantees) Act, 1974 s.11

Supply and Development Act, 1939 s. 25

Taxation Administration Act, 1953 s.14f

Telecommunications Act, 1975 s. 82

Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act,1960 s.5(3)

Tobacco Charges Assessment Act, 1955s. 10

Trade Practices Act, s. 149

Wool Tax (Administration) Act, 1964 s. 8

B: Provisions restricting publication of information

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act, 1975 ss. 28 (2), 35 (2), 36, 36a, 46(2)

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, 1977 s. 14

Atomic Energy Act, 1 953 s. 62

Aliens Act, 1947 s. 6

Australian Citizenship Act, 1 948 s. 46a ( 5 )

Australian Industry Development Corporation Act, 1970s. 8a (3)

BankingAct, 1959 ss. 31,59,61 (3)

Bounties Procedure Act, 1907 ss. 6, 9

Census and Statistics Act, 1 905 s. 20 ( 3 )

Commonwealth Electoral Act,1 9 18 ss. 93, 155

Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1904 s. 186

Copyright Act, 1968 s. 163

Courts-Martial Appeals Act, 1955 s. 18

Crimes Act1904,s. 85b.

Defence (Special Undertakings) Act, 1952 s. 3 1

Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. 1974ss. 11 (5), 14(2)

Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act, 1978 s.15(l)(d)

Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act, 1 974 s. 32(3)

Family Law Act, 1975 ss. 18, 121

Federal Court of Australia Act, 1976 s. 50

Financial Corporations Act, 1 974 s. 22

Fisheries Act, 1952 s. 17(3)

Health Insurance Act, 1973 s.106g(4)

Industrial Research and Development Grants Act, 1967 s.38(2)(c)

Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act. 1976 s. 40 (2) (c)

Industries Assistance Commission, 1973 s. 33 (5 )

Life Insurance Acts, 1945 s. 145

National Health Act, 1953 ss. 73(4), 134a (6)

National Labour Consultative Council Act, 1977 s.5(2)(c)

Patents Act, 1952 ss. 55, 131

Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act, 1967 ss. 86, 118(6)

Prices Justification Acts, 1973 s. 23 (5)

Primary Industry Bank Act, 1 977 s. 1 1

Public Accounts Committee Act, 1951 s. 1 1

Public Works Committee Act, 1969 s. 23

Racial Discrimination Act, 1975 s. 22 (5)

Royal Commissions Act, 1 902 s. 6D

Trade Marks Act, 1 955 s. 74 (7)

Trade Practices Act, 1974 ss. 21(3), 89(5)-(5e).

95 (3)-(8), 165 (3)

C: Provisions requiring evidence to be taken or meeting to be conducted in private

Broadcasting and Television Act, 1942 s. 19(2)

Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Act, 1971s. 81 (2)

Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1904 ss. 27 (6), 41 (g)

Customs Act, 1901 s.183G

Health Insurance Act, 1973 ss. 60(2), 76(2), 91 (2), 97(1), 118(1)

Home Savings Grant Act, 1 976 s. 42 (1 )

Industries Assistance Commission, 1973 s. 33 (2)

Insurance Acts, 1 973 s. 8 1

National Health Act, 1953 s. 123

Nursing Homes Assistance Act, 1 974 ss. 23 (2 ), 26 (1 )

Trade Practices Act, 1973 s. 21 (2)(cf.s.21 (3)(b))

Repatriation Act, 1920s. 121

Re-establishmentand Employment Act, 1 945 s. 86

Social Services Act, 1947 s. 141

Student Assistance Act, 1973 s. 29 (2)

Public Service Act, 1922 s. 60(2)

STATUTORY RULES

A: Provisions prohibiting or restricting the disclosure of information

Australian Broadcasting Commission (Staff) Regulations rr. 59, 60

Australian Capital Territory Representation Regulations r. 64

Broadcasting and Television Regulations, r. 25

Census Regulations, r. 9

Commonwealth Banks Regulations, rr. 33, 34

Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Regulations, r. 6 1

Commonwealth Police Regulations, r. 19

Electoral and Referendum Regulations, r. 34 ( 1 )

Family Law Regulations, r. 20

Gift Duty Regulations, r. 4

High Commissioner (Staff) Regulations, r. 88

Income Tax Regulations, r. 4

Life Insurance Regulations, r. 24

National Security (War Damage to Property) Regulations, r. 59

Naval Establishment Regulations, r. 39

Northern Territory Electoral Regulations, r. 127 ( 1 )

Papua New Guinea (Staff) Assistance (Terms and Conditions of Employment) Regulations, 44, 18, 19

Pay-roll Tax Regulations, r. 4

Public Service Regulations, r. 35

Public Service (Parliamentary Officers) Regulations, rr. 23, 24

Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve) Regulations, r. 18

Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Regulations, r. 18

Reserve Bank Regulations, rr. 4, 6

Sales Tax Procedure Regulations, r. 35

Statistics Regulations, r. 4

Supply and Development Regulations, r. 56

Telecommunications (Telecom Australia Stock) Regulations, r. 26

Wireless Telegraphy Regulations, r. 36

Wool Tax (Administration) Regulations, r. 8

B: Provisions restricting publication of information

Air Navigation Regulations, rr. 107 (3), 283 (1), 291 (7), 295

Australian Citizenship Regulations, rr. 78 (5), 7c

Australian Military Regulations, r. 770

Australian Military (Places of Detention) Regulations, r. 11 (2)

Marriage Regulations, r. 70 (4)

National Security (Industrial Property) Regulations, r. 5

Naval Forces Regulations, r. 130

Postal Services Regulations, r. 47

Re-establishment and Employment (Allowances and Loans) Regulations, rr. 35, 37

Repatriation Regulations, r. 45

Trade Practices Regulations, rr. 24, 27(3), 33

C: Provisions requiring evidence to be taken or meeting to be conducted in private

Air Force (Courts of Inquiry ) Regulations, r. 9

Commonwealth Teaching Service Regulations, r. 38

Customs (Quota Orders Review Tribunal ) Regulations, r. 15

Excise (Quota Orders Review Tribunal) Regulations, r. 13

Postal Services Regulations, r. 20

Sales Tax Regulations, r. 43 ( 2 )

States Receipts Duties Regulations, r. 17(2)

Taxation Administration Regulations, r. 7

Telecommunications Regulations, r. 20

ACT LEGISLATION

A: Provisions prohibiting or restricting the disclosure of information

Companies Ordinance, 1962, s. 7 (9)

Consumer Affairs Ordinance, 1973 s. 15E

Enquiry Ordinance, 1938 s. 5b(.3)

Fire Brigade (Administration) Ordinance, 1974 ss. 42, 63

Legal Aid Ordinance, 1977 s. 92

Legal Practitioners Ordinance (No. 2), I970ss. 65, 68

Liquor Ordinance, 1975 s. 17(6)

Police (Disciplinary Provisions) Ordinance, 1972 s. 16

Prices Regulation Ordinance, 1949 s. 8

Statistics Ordinance, 1929 s. 7

B: Provisions restricting publication of information

Adoption of Children Ordinance, 1965 ss. 49, 50, 59-6 1 . 65

Adoption of Children Regulations, ss. 10, 10a(5)

Agents Ordinance, 1968 s. 93( 13)

Child Welfare Ordinance, 1957 s. 14(2) (c), 14(3)

Companies Ordinance, 1962ss. 169(4), 177 (5) (b)

Evidence Ordinance, 1971 ss. 83, 85

First Offenders ( Women ) Ordinance, 1 947 ss. 3, 4

Inebriates Act, l900(N.S.W.)s. 12

Maintenance Ordinance, 1971 I9(3a), 20( 10a)

Mining Ordinance, 1930s. 55

Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages Ordinance, 1963 45SS.(3),51 (4)-(6)

Small Claims Ordinance, 1974 18(2)

Statistics Ordinance, 1929 s. 17

C: Provisions requiring evidence to be taken or meeting to bc conducted in private

Agents Ordinance, 1968 s. 88(4)

Landlord and Tenant Ordinance, 1979 s. 74

Liquor Ordinance, 1975 ss. 31(7) and (8), 57(2) and (3)

Milk Authority Ordinance, 1971 s. 18(4)

Poker Machine Control Regulations, s. 6

Remand Centres Ordinance, 1976 s. 25

Sale of Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1977 s. 49(4)

Venereal Diseases Ordinance, 1956 s. 14

APPLIED IMPERIAL LEGISLATION

A: Provisions prohibiting or restricting the disclosure of information

Naval Discipline Act, 1957 (Imp.) s. 34, applied by the Naval Defence Act, 1910 s. 34 and Naval Forces Regulations, r. 8

Army Act, 1881 (Imp.) s. 36, applied by the Defence Act, 1903 s. 55 and Australian Military Regulations, r. 9

Air Force Act, 1917 (Imp.) s. 36, applied by the Air Force Act, 1923 and Air Force Regulations, r. 13

C: Provisions requiring evidence to be taken or meeting to be conducted in private

Naval Discipline Act, 1957 (Imp.) s. 61, applied as above

Rules of Procedure (Army), r. 63, applied us above

Rules of Procedure (Air Force ), r. 63, applied as above.

Mr WILSON:

– When honourable members have an opportunity to read Hansard, they will see the large number of Acts of this Parliament that seek to restrict access to information. Honourable members will agree there is a need for a comprehensive piece of legislation that governs all the circumstances in which information is to be kept confidential and to ensure that innocent citizens are not in any way prejudiced by the misuse of information collected. It is true to say that police forces over the years have gathered information. They have had to. It is proper that they should. But one thing that now occurs that did not previously occur is that that information can be recalled at the push of a button. It is that capacity to retrieve information, information that is irrelevant but possibly compromising of an innocent citizen, that leaves this Parliament in a position where it does not adequately discharge its responsibilities if it confers upon law enforcing authorities and other instrumentalities the power to gather information but in no way restricts the capacity of those who gather it to abuse the trust that is placed in them by this Parliament.

Having spoken in general terms, I want to direct the attention of the House to what I regard as a quite significant gap in this legislation. It is quite clear that it is intended that the Australian Federal Police shall have a special branch. Sir Robert Mark recommended that it should have such a branch. He noted that the term ‘special branch’ does provoke in the minds of many an emotional and unthinking response. I believe the Australian Federal Police Force should have a special branch. A law enforcing authority of the Commonwealth like the law enforcing authorities of the States has a critical role to play in the general security of this nation and should gather and pass on information that relates to the nation’s security.

Mr Justice Hope also made it quite clear that State police special branches should remain an integral part of the overall intelligence system. If it is to be the case that the Australian Federal Police are to have a special branch, why is it that we impose upon Australian Security Intelligence Organisation officers a strict code of behaviour and make it an offence for them to disclose information about any person who is on their files. A person who in no way is a security risk and about whom there is no concern from a security point of view could find that, because of association, his name may quite properly have found its way on to a security file. What begins as irrelevant information can, in due course of time, for some people become quite relevant information in a security context. In like manner, in the case of an ordinary police file irrelevant information about an individual may, in the course of time, when the jigsaw is pieced together by the gathering of further information, become quite relevant. But, we say that it is an offence for an ASIO officer to disclose information unless he does so in a specified way on the authority of the DirectorGeneral of ASIO. Yet we put no such restriction on the disclosure of information by members of the Australian Federal Police acting in their role as general police officers or in their role working for the special branch of the Australian Federal Police. I am concerned that there is this gap and believe that the sort of amendments that I have discussed with the Minister would have overcome the problem. The Minister has indicated that he proposes to take a certain course of action. Included in that course of action is the reference- in the context of the reference by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs ( Mr Fife) to the Law Reform Commission of this whole question- of the way in which information gathered by Commonwealth Government instrumentalities can be used contrary to the intentions of this Parliament and in a manner which is designed to abuse free citizens about whom the police force, either in a security sense or a general police sense, has no concern. Therefore, I urge the Minister to take seriously this question of law reform.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-(Hon. Ian Robinson) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– I am very happy to participate in this debate because it is a subject to which I have been very close for some years. I believe that I had some influence on the Whitlam Labor Government when it endeavoured to merge the two police forces, the Australian Capital Territory Police Force and the Commonwealth Police. It was common knowledge to those of us who took an interest in police forces around Australia and overseas that there was a grievous anomaly existing here in Canberra. It came to my knowledge many years ago that the Australian Capital Territory Police were operating their radio cars on a different wave length from that of the Commonwealth Police. This meant virtually that a description of an evil-doer could come over the Australian Capital Territory Police radio and the Commonwealth Police would not get the information, lt seemed a grievous anomaly. Therefore, a diligent Commonwealth Police officer could drive past a person wanted for a serious crime because he did not have the information. On that fact alone, I endeavoured to influence my Party to adopt the view that the two police forces should be combined.

In those days the body resisting the amalgamation was the Australian Capital Territory Police Force. There was little or no resistance from the Commonwealth Police. Having some knowledge of police forces and having served in the New South Wales Police Force for 24’/2 years, I believe that the top echelon of the Australian Capital Territory Police Force could see slipping through their fingers the possibility of achieving the rank that they were striving to attain before retirement in order to make their pension more healthy. This would be in jeopardy if the two police forces combined. Of course, this attitude infiltrated down the line to the lowest constable who would have raised his voice with his little coterie of friends to suggest that the two police forces should not be merged.

I cannot understand really- and I try to be gentle in this submission- the philosophy of my political opponents who in 1975 used their numbers in the Senate to resist the amalgamation which would bring the two police forces together. I believe it was a proposal which, in the interests of the community, was long overdue. Government members used their numbers in the Senate to prevent this amalgamation of the two police forces in 1975. The only excuse that these honourable members have now for amalgamating them, as the Labor Party wanted to do, is that Sir Robert Mark has made a recommendation that there should be one police force in Canberra. I think that is a frivolous and weak argument. I believe that honourable members opposite did the wrong thing by society in general, particularly the citizens of Canberra, and the members of both police forces in not allowing the amalgamation which the Whitlam Government tried to bring about in 1975.

Mr Jacobi:

– It was different then.

Mr JAMES:

– The honourable member for Hawker made a very worthy submission. The honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes) and the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) have mentioned certain amendments which the Opposition would like to see made to this Bill with which I agree. There have been some grievous injustices imposed upon members of the police forces by their own administrative bodies. I would like to see a provision in the regulations if necessary, so that where a police officer during an emotional upset is persuaded by his senior officers to submit his resignation, the resignation does not become operative for at least three days.

Mr Martyr:

– Or until he gets into Parliament.

Mr JAMES:

– You are making fun of a serious matter, John. It does not become you. I wish that the Minister knew about this case in Canberra which still upsets me when I call it to mind. At the time, Mr Anthony was the Minister for the Interior. I believe that he had the sole power of dismissal of members of the Commonwealth Police Force. This case involved a very dedicated police officer, a man who would have been an attribute to any police force in the world. He was a qualified air pilot and motor engineer. He had three commendations on his police record for outstanding police work. He had a slight verbal altercation of a minor nature with a senior publicservant who reported him. The policeman’s superior officer said to him, ‘You have to resign or you will be dismissed and lose your superannuation’. This conversation took place after the Minister had been consulted about dismissing him. The Minister said, ‘No, I do not want to dismiss him. Get him to resign’. Then the pressure was applied to this police officer. In an emotional state, he resigned and lost his superannuation and furlough pay and forwent the right of appeal.

I know of other cases but time will not permit me to raise them. The case I have mentioned involved grievous injustice. Many members of the Australian Labor Party believe that an injustice done to one is an injustice done to all. I do not believe that the Minister at the table would have acted in the way that Mr Anthony acted on that occasion.

I recall another case in Liverpool, New South Wales, in which a dedicated police officer with over 20 years service had served the community diligently. One evening at 5.30, his finishing time, a lady was seen to get into his motor car. They then drove away. This happened after he had knocked off work. He was questioned about the identity of the woman. He said to his superior officer: ‘Pardon me, I was off duty. That woman is a friend of my family and she is known to my wife’. He was dismissed for insubordination. He then appealed to the appeal tribunal. At that time Mr Justice Perrignon had been appointed chairman of the appeal tribunal to tighten up police discipline. Both he and the police commissioner’s representative upheld the police commissioner’s action.

It was a grievous injustice. The policeman’s wife said at the hearing of the appeal tribunal that she knew the woman. She said, ‘She visits our home. She is a friend of the family’. But neither she nor her husband would disclose the identity of the woman. This happened when he was off duty. Such action should not be permitted by people in politics or by any administrative officer. I believe that this police force could become the show piece of the southern hemisphere if the members of this House take the interest in it that they should.

Crime is reaching an all-time high. Many of our criminals are going overseas. Members of the Australian Federal Police could well get trips overseas to extradite evil doers back to Australia. This would apply particularly to members of the Australian Capital Territory Police force when the amalgamation takes place. Such trips would expand the knowledge of the police officers concerned. It would also be an opportunity not otherwise available to them. Extradition of Australian criminals from overseas will become more and more common place. I wish that I was staying in the Parliament long enough to see the progress of the marrying of these police forces. I am not happy about the appointment of a commissioner from overseas. I do not doubt his ability but I know many men serving in the police forces of the States and the Commonwealth- Australian nationals- who could do just as good a job.

It is a pity that we have had to go overseas and persuade Sir Colin Woods to come to Australia to administer the new police force. I believe this is a grievous insult to the present Commonwealth Police Commissioner, Mr Davis, who was born and raised in the electorate of Hunter. He has been a dedicated, skilled, loyal commissioner to the government of the day irrespective of its political colour. I believe that he would have liked to have been head of the Commonwealth police force following the amalgamation and to finish his career in that position. I think it is a tragedy that he was not given this honour. During his long term as Commissioner of the Commonwealth Police at no time has he made any statements that would embarrass any Minister or any member of the government.

At this stage, I think that it is appropriate to refer to his great humane qualities. When Labor was in government, I recall the AttorneyGeneral sending for me because representations were made to him in Canberra about certain disciplinary action that was being taken against a Commonwealth Police officer. This officer had an affair with another policeman’s wife. Commissioner Davis in his humaneness and with the wonderful manner that he has, took disciplinary action which I agreed should have been taken. He transferred the offending or erring police officer to Brisbane. Political representations were made to have the police officer returned to Canberra. The Attorney-General asked my opinion. I said that I thought it was a very humane recommendation. The officer had not been demoted and I thought that he should be rejoicing in the fact that he had not lost rank or been dismissed.

In the New South Wales Police Force, for example, many police officers have been dismissed for lesser misdemeanours than the one committed by this police officer. In reaching his judgment Commissioner Davis took into account the cost to the taxpayers of training a police officer to the required degree of efficiency. He believed that for a minor act of indiscretion a police officer should not be lost to the community. However, in some police forces in the world more advanced steps are being taken than those being taken in Australia. We know that from time to time when the Press has no one else to condemn it turns its poison pen and its sadistic attitudes to a law enforcement body which is a disciplined body that can seldom answer back. In France the police force has a public relations officer. In Great Britain there is talk about appointing a police public relations officer. I refer to a book called The Police written by Ben Whitaker which paints a very good picture of police forces. In his book he says:

The police in other forces are trying different solutions to the same problem. In Paris, a magazine called Liaison has been started with the purpose of explaining to the public what are the problems of the police. The criminologist who was appointed head of the Munich force in 1963 has called in a psychiatrist to teach his men better relations with the public; the Japanese police take an annual survey of publicopinions concerning them. In November 1963 the Chief Constable of Brighton suggested that his force should appoint a public-relations police officer whose job would be to make everybody feel that the police were giving them a fair deal.

That should take place in Australia. I hope that the Minister will take steps to implement some of the advanced ideas which are being implemented in other countries. I want to end on this theme. I have been riled by the attitude of the police at times but I know the great good they do in the community. I conclude my speech with a quote from this book concerning police. It states:

They are doing the difficult and dangerous job society demands without any understanding by society of what their moral and professional problems are. The public use the police as a scapegoat for its neurotic attitude towards crime. Janus-like, we have always turned two faces towards a policeman. We expect him to be human and yet inhuman. We employ him to administer the law, and yet ask him to waive it. We resent him when he enforces a law in our own case, yet demand his dismissal when he does not elsewhere. We offer him bribes, yet denounce his corruption. We expect him to be a member of society, yet not to share its values. We admire violence, even against society itself, but condemn force by the police on our behalf. We tell the police that they are entitled to information from the public, yet we ostracize informers. We ask for crime to be eradicated, but only by the use of ‘sporting’ methods.

I hope that this legislation will be beneficial to both the police forces. I hope it will build a monument that will become the greatest, most efficient and humane police force in the southern hemisphere, if not the world.

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

-In order to enable the Australian Federal Police Bill to be dealt with this evening I shall be as brief as I can. First of all let me echo the remarks of the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) and also the honourable member for Hawker (Mr

Jacobi) about the hypocrisy of the present governmental action. I think it should be remembered that a similar amalgamation attempted by the Labor Government was ruthlessly resisted by the then Opposition in what, in many ways, was an example of irresponsible opposition. I hope that we, in criticising this Bill, are acting as a responsible Opposition. The first thing we want to say is that we do not oppose the concept of a federal police force, though we are critical of some of the detailed proposals presented in this Bill. In contrast with what happened in 1974-75, this is an example of a responsible approach to a major issue facing this country.

The key proposal in this Bill is the amalgamation of the present Commonwealth Police Force and the Australian Capital Territory Police Force into a unified federal police force embracing the present powers and duties of the existing forces, but itself internally divided into two components- firstly, a general police function component; and secondly, a police protective services function component. Sir Robert Mark recommended this amalgamation as the best option available in order to achieve three objectives- firstly, to overcome jurisdictional boundaries between police forces; secondly, to provide for more effective and economical coordination of federal police resources; and thirdly, to ensure more effective co-operation with the States in law enforcement matters.

When that is said- and of course it was said in the second reading speech by the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr McLeay)- it is important to note that Sir Robert thought this particular amalgamation merely the best option available. He displayed no particular enthusiasm for it, and was not overly keen on this amalgamation, but given the situation, this was the best choice available to him. Indeed one can say that he displayed no great enthusiasm for the outmoded federal system under which we in this country live and within which his recommendations for a federal police force had to be framed. Sir Robert Mark had this to say:

At the best, I am being asked to cobble an ill-fitting 19th century boot.

Let me say that I echo Sir Robert Mark on his views of the constitutional framework within which he has to work. It is clearly an inappropriate constitutional framework for this country in the late 20th century. Indeed, I share his ideal about police organisation in this country. He wrote: lt would in my view be perfectly possible to establish a police system for the whole of Australia, comprising operationally autonomous police forces and a national investigative agency democratically controlled in equal partnership, by central and State governments and the police themselves, not a jot less sensitive to the need to preserve civil liberty or the differing requirements of widely separated States but able to achieve uniformity of standards in manpower, training, leadership, specialist services, operational techniques, interchange and improved accountability, all at present unlikely of attainment.

That is an ideal which he placed before us. It is an ideal I share. Indeed, the possibilities of national achievement in the field of the police, and in many other fields, are being undermined in the late 20th century by an archaic Federal constitution.

Let me turn to the range of functions which this police force should perform. One of the problems we have with the Bill is that despite the rather bland assurances of the Minister, and the rather vague provisions of clause 9, the Bill will do little to dampen the rivalry, the jealously, even the feuding, that marks the present relationship between Commonwealth and State police. One has only to read the papers of last week to recognise the types of feuds that have surfaced. Contrary to the Minister’s assertion, this Bill will not ‘provide a basis for many of the current problems experienced between law enforcement authorities within Australia to be overcome or reduced ‘.

Let me suggest some of the specific fields in which this Bill does not contribute towards overcoming the kinds of clashes and conflicts that exist to the detriment of police services in this country. First of all, Sir Robert Mark made a number of proposals for secondments between the State police forces and the Federal police forces, but there is no evidence in this Bill as to what action the Government will take regarding these secondment proposals, which were designed to make the relationships between State and Commonwealth police forces more effective and more co-operative. Secondly, the Bill bypasses one of the central difficulties and that is the jurisdiction at airports. Nowhere in the Bill do we find any clarification of one of the central conflict problems that Commonwealth and State police find in Australia- a point noted in Sir Robert Mark’s own proposals. In fact, he suggested rather dramatic solutions to that problem. In the airport situation in Australia there is quite clearly a conflict over jurisdiction not only between the Commonwealth and State police authorities but also between a large number of other Commonwealth agencies and the Commonwealth police.

Recently there have been revelations about the conflict between the Commonwealth Police and the Federal Narcotics Bureau. Sir Robert Mark again suggested secondment arrangements between the Commonwealth Police Force, as he designed it, and the Federal Narcotics Bureau. Has the Government any view on these types of suggestions for trying to break down what is a rigid division of jurisdiction power which had led to feuding, in this case, not between State and Federal authorities but between two forms of Federal authorities. The other day I raised in debate the fact that the drug intelligence unit is within the Commonwealth Police Force and is rather jealously regarded by that Force. The Narcotics Bureau has its own very strong views about that unit being within the Commonwealth Police Force. In this Bill the opportunity to tackle some of these very difficult problems in the Federal area seems to have been bypassed, though the Minister may be able to assure me that the Bill will lay the foundations for tackling some of these problems.

We are faced in this country with an enormous problem of divided authority in relation to coastal surveillance- a problem touched upon in numerous reports to this Parliament. The whole problem of coastal surveillance in this country in relation to a wide range of issues is divided between a large number of Federal and State authorities. This kind of Bill offers an opportunity at least to look seriously at these types of problems, but the opportunity has not been taken. We are all concerned with the problem of white collar crime in this country- a responsibility which because of the type of constitutional authority given to the Federal Government lies very much within the Federal sphere. This Bill provides an opportunity for Commonwealth police authorities to take up that type of function but again the matter is being bypassed. An effort is being made to unify the forces, and yet we seem to have missed many of the opportunities to tackle some of the conflicts between State and Federal police, and also between various agencies within the federal sphere.

I turn to my second point of criticism, the internal division of the new force. Having provided a unified force, the Government proceeds immediately to divide it into two separate and distinct segments. Component No. 1 is the general police function component. Component No. 2 is the police protective service function. These functions are not defined in the Bill and the Minister’s single reference to them, from which I will quote, can hardly be said to be a statement which clarifies anything very much. The Minister stated: . . the Government was cognisant of the special requirements of the Commonwealth in the fields of protective security and the need to retain a relationship of this form of law enforcement with the other general policing functions within the Commonwealth area.

I am quite prepared to hand that statement over to experts in linguistic analysis to tell me what it means. But the Bill lacks any clear definition of these two components. This is not very helpful. One might argue very strongly against the notion of unifying the force and then dividing its members- I admit there are some transfer possibilities between the two components- and then bifurcating the force in this way. I think there are very powerful arguments for the establishment of a Commonwealth police force which is organised in a multifunctional way- a force with a range of functions. I do not find much valid argument for a simple bifurcation in the way that is suggested in this Bill. Indeed, I think it is true to say that this proposal will create, in status and in function, a first class component and a second class component in the Commonwealth police force. I know that police officers themselves are very fearful of this classification or division occurring between a first class and a second class component. Indeed, if one reads the Mark report, it is implicit in that report that this protective component is very much a second class component. Members of the Opposition would argue very strongly that we should abandon this bifurcation and this stark segmentation into two components within this unified force.

The third issue I take up concerns the relations between the Government and the Police Commissioner as proposed in this Bill. I ask for the permission of the House to include in Hansards brief comparative table which will illustrate the points that I want to make.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Plehwe, Rudolf and Roger Wettenhall. Reflections on the Salisbury affair police- government relations in Australia. Australian Quarterly, v. 5 1 No. I, March 1979: 77.

Dr BLEWETT:

– I do not think there is any need to emphasise in this House that the relationships between governments and police commissioners have been a rather vexed subject in Australian politics in recent years, quite independent of the party in government. There was the enforced resignation of the Police Commissoner in Queensland in the early 1970s. There was the dismissal of the Police Commissioner in South Australia at the beginning of 1 978. Yesterday there was the resignation of the Police Commissioner in New South Wales. This is a vexed issue. It is an important issue. We think that amendments should be included in the Bill in relation to this issue and in relation to three aspects of this issue. The first relates to appointment, the second to removal and the third to the power to give political directions.

Firstly, in relation to appointment and removal, the Bill refers simply to appointment by the Governor-General and removal by the Governor-General. It is understandable that my party might be somewhat oversensitive to the notion of the Governor-General having these powers. But I point out that in every State in

Australia the appointment of a police commissioner is entrusted to the GovernorinCouncil. We are simply asking for a provision which may anyhow be the Government’s intention. We desire a provision referring to the Governor-General-in-Council, thus making quite clear that the political executive has responsibility for appointment and renewal. In at least five of the six States, the right of removal of the police commissioner is given to the Governor-in-Council. We ask that those provisions be replicated in the present Bill. We should not leave this right to the GovernorGeneral. In South Australia an ex-governor had rather peculiar views of his authority in this field. We want to make it quite clear that the appointment and removal of a police commissioner is an Executive responsibility for which, of course, a government is accountable to the Parliament.

Secondly, I want to take up the issue of the Government’s power to give political directions. In the present Bill the power of the Minister to give directions is considerably limited. It is limited simply to general directions. The Opposition wants to carry this point further. We want to make it quite clear that the authority to issue directions lies with the Minister. Let me say that this is true of nearly every State. In New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania, the Minister has the power to direct the police specifically, without limitation. It is true that no such power exists in Western Australia.

However, we do not want to suggest that a Minister or a Ministry should have this power without limitation. I echo in many ways the point made by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson). We would rather copy the South Australian legislation in this field to ensure a balance. We do not want to see unnecessary restraint on the Minister. We want him to be able to direct the police but we also want to make quite sure that the Executive is clearly accountable to the Parliament for any specific direction that it gives.

Therefore, we want to see that the Minister operates within provisions for accountability. I think we have suggested that within 6 days he should report any direction to the Parliament and publish it in the Gazette so that it is open immediately to question and debate by this Parliament. We are trying here to balance the power of the Executive to give instructions, but, at the same time, to be accountable to this Parliament by immediately laying on the table of the House instructions that were given and putting them into the Commonwealth Gazette. Those issues, I think, need looking at in this Bill. In doing this we would be copying the South Australian legislation in this field which, in my view, flowing from the 1970 royal commission, is the most effective legislation in this country.

Briefly, I have two further issues which I want to raise. Firstly, I think more attention has to be given to the rights of the policemen themselves. We are worried about the rights of appeal. We believe they should be given adequate rights of appeal. We believe they should be given adequate rights of appeal in relation to transfers, promotions, disciplines and demotions. We also think, rightly, that the policemen should have a right of appeal against the retrenchment provisions which are provided in this Bill. There are certain industrial rights, in a sense, which the Bill neglects.

Most importantly, we want to follow the suggestions that Sir Robert Mark made about the accountability of the police force. We argue, in a whole series of amendments, that this is the chance to set up a model for Australia about police accountability. I do not think it is good enough for the Minister to say: ‘Well, we are going to look at this problem. We hope to introduce a Bill in some months to come’. We think the opportunity should be taken now. The Government is recasting the Commonwealth police. We suggest that, in the Bill which establishes a new police force for this country, the Government should also include within it a model of accountability to the public which will be something for the rest of Australia to imitate. I conclude by quoting from the report by Sir Robert Mark on this subject. It stated:

A police force discharging the duties assigned to the AFP- indeed, any police force in a genuinely democratic society- will not enjoy public confidence and trust unless it is accountable, and moreover, is seen to wish to be accountable. Accountability to the criminal law, the civil law and its own police authority, even though that be the government itself, is not enough. Nor should the object be to satisfy complaints, some of whom will never in any circumstances be satisfied. The object should be to satisfy the public that every complaint is investigated thoroughly and impartially, that if there is evidence of crime the decision whether or not to prosecute is taken by a member of the Attorney-General’s Department and that in the event of acquittal, a decision not to prosecute and all complaints not amounting to crime, the possibility of discipline proceedings should undergo the same meticulous examination.

We suggest that the Government should incorporate in this Bill the model recommended to it by the Law Reform Commission.

Mr McLeay:
Minister for Administrative Service · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– in reply- I thank all those honourable members who have taken part in the debate. I realise that we have a severe time constraint and that this is going to be a Committee Bill. At this stage there are only one or two comments that I would like to make. Firstly, the Australian Federal Police Bill only establishes a new Federal police force. It does not extend or create new powers for the Federal Police. It only brings together under Federal laws the existing powers of police in the Australian Capital Territory and the Commonwealth Police throughout Australia. The present powers of the Ombudsman to deal with complaints by members of the public against the two present Federal police forces will continue in relation to the Federal Police. New legislation will be introduced later to relate the Ombudsman’s role to an internal investigation unit of the police and an independent tribunal to deal with any charges arising from complaints.

In developing the major proposal for the provision of two components, a modification had to be made to Sir Robert Mark’s suggestion that much of the protective service work be done by civil guards. The Government could not afford to retain about 1,000 Commonwealth police who are presently providing protective security and at the same time employ 1,000 civil guards. More importantly, the Government required a police protective service in respect of embassies, airports, official residences and risk installations such as the Atomic Energy Commission and Defence munitions depots. The Government was of the view that it had to retain a relationship of this form of law enforcement with the other general policing functions within the Commonwealth area. At the same time, the Government has been concerned in respect of the police affected by this proposal and has provided in clauses 25 and 26, together with clause 73 of the Bill, for general mobility between the components, subject to the usual principles of competence and qualifications, as well as a preferential opportunity for mobility between components for present police as against new recruits. I think that this would dispose of the suggestion made by the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett) and one or two other honourable members that this could create a second class police force.

I thank all honourable members who have taken part in the debate. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the contribution made by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), as well as that made by the honourable member for Calare (Mr MacKenzie), who was listed to speak tonight but did not do so. He has been a big help in this area. I would also like to thank the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) and the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes), the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi), the honourable member for Bonython and the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James). I place on record my appreciation of the support given by the Government Members Law and Government Committee, of which the honourable member for Denison is the chairman, and by the Government Members Communication and Administrative Services Committee, of which the honourable member for Calare is the chairman. I thank those committees for the support they have given us. Both these committees, and many honourable members on both sides of the House, have been involved in the consultative processes. I thank them for their assistance.

I also acknowledge the work of the task force which commenced in August 1978, and upon whose recommendations the legislation has been worked out. It is appropriate to mention the senior officers who assisted the Task Force, one from the Australian Capital Territory Police and one from the Commonwealth Police. In addition, there was a significant input from officers of my own Department, the Attorney-General’s Department, the Department of Industrial Relations and the Department of the Capital Territory. I also acknowledge the personal interest of the Minister for Industrial Relations ( M r Street ).

I wish particularly to refer to the remarks of the honourable member for Sturt, especially as they relate to clause 1 3 (2 ) of the Bill. As a result of a number of discussions with him on this clause, and with other honourable members on the Government side, I take this opportunity to inform the House that I propose to give a written direction with respect to the general policy to be pursued by the Commissioner in relation to the dissemination of information by the Australian Federal Police. The direction will safeguard the rights to privacy of individuals. I propose to table the direction and it will be revised in due course in the light of the Australian Law Reform Commission’s report on privacy. This is consistent with the advice given to the Government by Sir Robert Mark in his report last year on the organisation of police resources in the Commonwealth area and other related matters. This will also remove any need to amend clause 13, as foreshadowed by the proposed Opposition amendments which have been circulated. I would like to make two or three remarks in conclusion. The honourable member for Melbourne, I believe, will remember saying before the suspension of the sitting for dinner that the regulations are already made. I think I quote him accurately.

Mr INNES:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

– The draft regulations are about to appear, but the decision is probably made.

Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I wish to assure the honourable member for Melbourne and the House that this is not so. The Commissioner does not yet really exist as a commissioner. The regulations cannot be prepared until we have the Bill and the commissioner. At the moment, the commissioner is a commissioner-designate.

Mr Innes:

– Can we be assured that the House will have the opportunity to debate the spirit of the regulations?

Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– The regulations will be processed in the ordinary way. When it comes to the question of debate, that is not in my hands. We would have to lean on the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) for that. One of the other points to which I wish to refer, because it is a matter of fact, is that the honourable member for Melbourne will remember stating that Sir Colin Woods was passed over- I think those were the words he used- when Sir Robert Mark retired as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Force in the United Kingdom. That is not correct. In fact, in answer to a question on 9 May I placed on record the fact that he was the deputy to Sir Robert Mark and British law prevents the deputy taking over as Commissioner. The Commissioner must come from another force. I just place that on record as a matter of fact.

I appreciate the remarks of the honourable member for Hunter in respect of a public relations officer. I can say that the Australian Capital Territory Police Force does have a public relations officer. I can assure the honourable member that the new force will continue with the public relations officer. We certainly understand the benefit of having one. This was a strong recommendation made by Sir Robert Mark. The only other point that I would like to make- it is just a small one- is in reference to the remarks made by the honourable member for Bonython. I think he said that we should follow the New South Wales arrangements in respect of dismissing a commissioner. The Commissioner in New South Wales can be dismissed only on the unanimous resolution of the combined meeting of the two Houses. That is a small point, but it is a matter of fact. Once again, I thank all honourable members for their contribution. I look forward to a comprehensive but, I hope, brief discussion in the Committee stage.

Dr BLEWETT ( Bonython )-I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Dr BLEWETT:

– Yes. I did say in my speech that five of the six police forces had this power. Of course, the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr McLeay) is correct about New South Wales, which was the sixth state, the one I noted where this power does not exist.

Question put:

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

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Hon. Ian Robinson)

AYES: 65

NOES: 28

Majority……. 37

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 5- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 6 (Establishment).

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

-I move:

During the second reading stage I canvassed all the amendments that the Opposition proposes to move to this Bill. However, two or three matters were raised during the debate which I feel it is incumbent upon me to answer. I wish also to say a few things about clause 6 and our amendment, which seeks to delete paragraph (d) from that clause.

The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) talked about the great consultation that had taken place between the Government and representatives of the Commonwealth Police Officers Association. In fact he said that the contribution of the Opposition was in conflict with the wishes of the representatives of that Association. For the record I point out that, as a member of the Opposition committee handling this matter, within the last two weeks I have discussed with the President, Mr Dowell, the Secretary, Mr Curtin, the Treasurer, Mr Thompson, and the Vice-President, Mr Dickinson, the whole of this legislation. I can assure the honourable member that the Opposition is voicing the opinions expressed before the committee by members of that Association. They totally oppose the proposition contained in clause 6(d). Whilst on behalf of the Opposition I indicated our total opposition to the proposal during the second reading debate, in any event, we had adopted the stance as a matter of principle. For the record, I say that we have carried out full and extensive discussions with representatives of the Commonwealth Police Officers Association and we were in complete accord in our opposition to this particular clause of the Bill.

As I have indicated, the provisions which we seek to delete relate to the splitting of the Australian Police into two components- a general police division and a protective services division. We are totally opposed to the splitting of Australian Police into two divisions, as are the police themselves. I have canvassed the situation on behalf of the police who sought an invitation to address the relevant committee of the Opposition. They carried out a series of discussions with me and with other Opposition spokesmen in this area. The reasons for their opposition to this proposal are quite clear. A two-component force means a two-class force in which there will be a group of second class officers going under the rather unflattering title of ‘protective service officers’.

Mr Haslem:

– Nonsense, absolute nonsense.

Mr INNES:

– The honourable member should try to tell police officers that it does not mean that. Under the provisions of clause 24, officers in the second class are not to be referred to as police officers but as ‘protective service officers’. The functions to be undertaken by the protective service division need to be made clear. It was the obsession of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) with the question of terrorism which caused the Prime Minister to introduce the recommendations contained in the report of Sir Robert Mark and to accept the proposal for the amalgamation of the two federal forces which the conservative parties so vehemently opposed in 1975. The protective services division has nothing to do with terrorism and very little to do with security. Its main task will be to guard Commonwealth places with low, and in many instances, nil security risks. That division is to be the static guard. The splitting of the force into two forces in this way is not only contrary to the principles which underlie the need for amalgamation in the first place but also it is bad for police morale and efficiency.

The reason for the Government’s proposing the splitting of the force is not clear. It is an aberration on the part of someone. We would not accuse the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr McLeay) of having this original idea because, in any case, the proposal was first mooted before the Minister was demoted or elevated, whichever way he likes to look at it, to his present portfolio. The proposal was not discussed with the Police Officers Association before the draft instructions were issued. Despite all the protestations of the police forces, the Government has refused to budge. If this static guard duty is to be undertaken, it can be done by people who are not police officers, or it can be done by police officers who are just normal members of the force, members who are subject to the same promotional opportunities and of the same status as any other police officer. They are trained in the same way and they present themselves for promotion in the same way, so they ought to be in the same promotional line. But they are relegated to a sub-level of occupation in the areas to which I have just referred.

It is for those reasons that both the Labor Party and the Police Officers Association oppose the provisions of this clause. There is neither rhyme nor reason to the Government’s proposals. That is why we have moved our amendment and why we will continue to move amendments to delete all reference to a two-component force.

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

– I really want to ask the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr McLeay) some questions about the allegation that the protective services component will in fact be a second-class division. It is no good just simply saying that it will not be.

Mr Haslem:

– It is no good saying that it will be, either.

Dr BLEWETT:

– Well, let us look at the argument. Sir Robert Mark suggested that a lot of the protective functions could in fact be carried out by civilian employees on a whole range of second level protective functions. Members of the Commonwealth Police Association are concerned about whether this notion will in fact be adopted by the Government, that is, that the protective services component will carry out tasks which Sir Robert Mark thought could be left simply to civilian employees. If that is true, if members are to be tied in to a particular pattern within the force, carrying out these kinds of low level functions, inevitably a distinction in status will develop within the force. Would it not be much better to have a unified force in which, according to age, qualifications and expertise, people perform different functions, rather than building into the force from the beginning these two separate components?

Frankly, I think the Minister has to answer those kinds of arguments. There is a real suggestion underlying the report on which this Bill is based that these types of tasks are second-rate or second-class functions. I hope that the Minister will be able to convince us, as he has apparently convinced the honourable member for Canberra (Mr Haslem), that there is no danger of this development taking place.

Mr McLeay:
Minister for Administrative Services · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– First of all, let me say that the Government and all of us on this side of the chamber reject the suggestion of second class police officers. I find the idea repugnant as I am sure it is repugnant to all members of the force.

Mr Innes:

– Can you guarantee that they will not be?

Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– Yes. No member of the present force will lose any status, salary or position whatsoever. That has been stated categorically by my predecessors and by myself. At the moment, many members of the protective services force are very highly trained. I think it is an absurd proposition to talk about low level functions, which I think were the words used by the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett), because many of these so-called low level functions are fraught with very high personal risks.

Mr Innes:

- Sir Robert Mark used those words.

Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

- Sir Robert Mark was talking about a civil guard, and we have been over that area before. There is full mobility between the two components. There is preference for existing members of the components. In response to submissions made by the Commonwealth Police Officers Association, the preference period was extended from two years to five years or longer, at the direction of the Minister of the day. The functions, which are really what this discussion is all about, will be decided by the Commissioner, and they will be decided in consultation with the Minister at the time. So I am afraid the Government cannot accept the Opposition’s amendment because it attacks the basic concept of the whole Bill, which is the two-component force.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7 (Components).

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

-The Opposition opposes clause 7, which is consequential upon clause 6. Clause 7 provides that the members referred to in clause 6 (c) shall comprise a component of the Australian Federal Police performing such of the functions of the Australian Federal Police as are determined, by general orders, to be general police functions. There is also a reference in clause 7 (2) to the persons described in clause 6 (d). I will not canvass again the reasons for our opposition. The Minister for Administrative Services (Mr McLeay) has given us guarantees this evening. But the test will be when the duties are defined by the Commissioner in the final analysis. The Minister has given a categorical assurance that there will be no differentiation between the classes of members of the force. I take it that he is also guaranteeing that all members will be trained fundamentally in the same way irrespective of the area in which they might finally be located in the course of performing their duties. This is the question about which the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) was confused, although I think everyone else understood what was being said. It was not merely a question of members receiving fundamental training and then going into specialised areas of police work. It was a question of members going into duties which would not allow them to compete for promotion with other members of the force. If that is the guarantee that the Minister has given to the Committee this evening, the Opposition accepts it for what it is worth. We hope that when the duties are defined he will ensure as the responsible Minister that the principle is maintained.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 (Functions).

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

– I move:

Clause 8, page 3, lines 36-38, omit ‘Commissioner and the Commissioner or Police (however designated ) of that State’, substitute ‘Minister and the appropriate Minister of that State’.

This clause deals with the functions of the Australian Federal Police and State police services in relation to the investigation of offences against Commonwealth places under the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970. However, the Bill enables these arrangements to be made by the Federal Commissioner of Police and State commissioners of police. Clearly there is a question of manpower and resources involved as well as a question of Federal-State relations. Such decisions ought to be taken at ministerial level. I will not canvass the Opposition’s proposal. There seems to me to be some confusion arising in the minds of some police officers. It is suggested that there is now some indication by State police that the States are about to take over some of the duties normally carried out by Commonwealth police officers. However, that confusion could be put to rest once again by the Minister replying to me in the way he replied to what I had to say about clause 8 (2).

Mr McLeay:
Minister for Administrative Services · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– The Government does not accept the amendment. This clause deals with the provision of police services. Subclause (2) reads: . . being services by way of the investigation of offences against the laws of that State . . . shall be in accordance with arrangements made between the Commissioner and the Commissioner of Police ( however designated) of that State.

The Government believes that these are operational services and therefore not matters for Ministers.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 (Powers and duties of members referred to in paragraph 6(d)).

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

-The Opposition opposes this clause. I hope that the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr McLeay) does not assume that because of our brief remarks we are not reinforcing what we said earlier in the debate. I point out that this is in line with an arrangement that the Opposition has made with the Government Whip. I am simply saving the time of the Committee by saying only that the Opposition opposes clause 10.

Mr McLeay:
Minister for Administrative Services · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I appreciate the remarks made by the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes). The Government has already given the reasons for the insertion of this clause.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 1 1 and 12- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 13 (General administration and control.)

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

– I move:

The Opposition’s reasons for moving this amendment were canvassed in the second reading debate. However, there are some matters I would like to refer to quickly in support of our amendment. The provisions in clause 13 as it stands are not satisfactory provisions for defining the relationship between the Commissioner of Police and his Minister, nor do the provisions provide for proper accountability of the Minister. The Opposition’s view is that whilst the police should enjoy a degree of operational autonomy from the Government, they should be subject to the control and direction of the responsible Minister. Under the Government’s proposal the Minister may give directions only as to general policy. The matter which we are most concerned about is the requirement by the Minister to the Commissioner to provide him with information. Under the clause as it stands the Minister cannot require the Commissioner to provide him with particular information. There can be no question of proper ministerial accountability or responsibility unless there is a disclosure. This requires two things. Firstly, the Minister himself must be able to direct the Commissioner to provide him with any information which he seeks. Secondly, if the Minister does not direct the Commissioner he must be publicly accountable for it. Our amendment is based on the 1972 South Australian amendments to the police regulations which stem from the Bright report into the police handling of the moratorium demonstrations, as I pointed out in my speech at the second reading stage.

The motion that there should be complete police independence from the Government is one which we reject. As was pointed out by Sir Robert Mark, the police should normally have operational autonomy. We do not question that. However, this is not to be attained at the cost of removing the principle of accountability to the elected government. There can be no prior restraints placed on the ability of Ministers to direct commissioners of police. Events in many States of Australia in recent years have demonstrated that. Our amendment cures two defects in the Bill: Firstly, the unnecessary restraints on Ministers when directing commissioners of police; and secondly, the lack of accountability to Ministers. If ever we have learned a lesson we ought to have learned one from the position in which the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) finds himself today. The disclosures that should have taken place were not made. Had they been made a number of lives may well have been saved. There is a heavy responsibility on the Minister. We believe that clause 13 as it stands is not satisfactory. Therefore I have moved my amendment.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

-I oppose the amendment moved by the Opposition. Whilst I do not agree that clause 13 is in a satisfactory form, the method being adopted in the proposed amendment, although it is said to be modelled on the provisions of South Australian legislation, really does not adequately cover the problems that have been raised and identified by honourable members on both sides of the chamber. In one sense the provision suggested by the Opposition could lead to the Australian Federal Police becoming a political police force because it proposes that the Minister be given power to give any directions he likes. He may have a compliant police commissioner whom he may ask to pursue inquiries about a particular individual. He may also ask the police commissioner not to pursue inquiries about a particular individual and the compliant police commissioner and his officers may carry out that request. The Opposition is suggesting that there should be the power to direct and that that direction be made public. But what of the present circumstances in which, without direction but on request, inquiries are carried out or not carried out, information is supplied or not supplied? I would have preferred to see an amendment in this form. In the light of the statement made earlier this evening by the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr McLeay), I am proposing to move it. The Minister, in being given the power to direct in regard to general policy should, I believe, be prohibited in these words:

  1. . but the Minister is not empowered to override the opinion of the Commissioner (a) on the question of whether the collection of information by the Australian Federal Police concerning a particular individual would, or would not, be justified by reason of its relevance to the performance of the functions of the Australian Federal Police.

I believe it should be for the police commissioner and his officers, acting with the sort of autonomy that the spokesman for the Opposition talks about, to determine whether or not information should be gathered about a particular individual. I would also like to see the amendment go on to prescribe: or (b) on the question whether a communication of information concerning a particular individual would be for a purpose relevant to the performance of the functions of the Australian Federal Police.

I do not believe the Minister should be in the position of either giving a direction and tabling it in this Parliament or, alternatively, through a compliant commissioner of police, getting information about a particular individualinformation off police files that may be totally irrelevant to the discharge of police duties but gathered by accident in the circumstances of pursuing people who are law breakers. It may also be information which, on its face, is today irrelevant but which next week, next month, next year or three years hence may become highly relevant because with the additional information that has been gathered in the meantime it indicates that the person about whom that information, originally irrelevant, was gathered is a person in whom the police force has some interest in the discharge of its proper functions. I would have liked to see the amendment go on to read:

The communication of information on behalf of the Australian Federal Police shall be made only by the Commissioner or by any other member acting within the limits of authority conferred on him by the Commissioner.

In other words, information should be made available off police files only if the commissioner gives authority for it to be supplied. He should give authority for the supply of that information only if it is to be used within the discharge of the functions of the police. For example, the police may wish to place the evidence before the court or in pursuing a person thought to be guilty of a crime it may find it necessary to give information to the Press about persons in the vicinity who might be of interest to them in circumstances where they can bring about a prosecution.

If a person makes a communication of any information or matter that has come to his knowledge or into his possession by reason of his being or having been a member of the Australian Federal Police he should be guilty of an offence, unless that communication is made to another member of the Australian Federal Police or is made within the limits of the authority conferred upon that member of the Australian Federal Police by the commissioner or with the approval of the commissioner or an officer having authority of the commissioner to give that approval. Of course, I recognise the need to specify circumstances in which information can be passed on to other agencies, to other law enforcement authorities, whether they are State or Territory police forces, to customs authorities and to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. I feel most strongly that the Opposition ‘s amendment is quite inadequate to achieve the purposes that have been outlined for it because it is wide open to the sorts of abuses about which I am talking. Those people who are guilty of supplying information should be liable to a charge themselves.

The Act should specify quite clearly that it is an offence to supply information about an individual to the Minister. That does not in any way derogate from the Minister’s ministerial responsibility and his responsibility to this Parliament in terms of the administration of the force. It is not right that any Minister now or in the future should be able to say to the commissioner of police: ‘Supply to me information on your files about a particular individual’. The information might be properly collected but might also be irrelevant but nevertheless compromising and damaging to the individual to whom that information relates. If the Opposition were trying to achieve the sorts of purposes it has outlined, it should be seeking to insert clauses similar to those that restrict the commissioner of taxation from supplying information to the Treasurer and restrict the Treasurer from seeking that information about particular individuals. I do not see any distinction at all in the circumstances in which an individual innocent of any offence or any breach can be seriously damaged by the supply of that information.

I emphasise that the sorts of amendments I would like to see do not reflect any wish on my part to inhibit or restrict in any way the capacity of the Australian Federal Police to carry out its functions as spelled out in the legislation, nor do I see the sorts of restrictions I am suggesting should be in the legislation in any way inhibiting the responsibility of a Minister to this Parliament. The danger of the Opposition’s amendment is that it will create a situation where a Minister may use a compliant police commissioner or, in the knowledge of the numbers the Government might have in this place and the time lags that might occur before notice has to be given, may direct a police commissioner to supply information about an individual which has not come before the courts to cast doubt under the law as to whether or not that person has been in breach of the law. I think that is one of these cases where one has to take account of the words of David Ogilvy who said:

How can Godfearing democracies maintain effective intelligence services without compromising civil rights? The answer does not lie in making these services subordinate to leaky committees of self-serving politicians, but in appointing men of integrity to run them, men who can be relied upon not to abuse their power.

We have to provide the bulwark that secures a commissioner of police in circumstances where the power and the authority vested in him cannot be abused by him or, indeed, by Ministers who seek to take advantage of the circumstances of the information that is available to those forces.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

– Firstly let me comment on the remarks made by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson). I do not think, in fact, that the arguments he has just advanced are in conflict with the Opposition’s amendment. The danger of a compliant commissioner, which is his real fear, is just as likely if the legislation is left in its present form as if it is amended in the way the Opposition proposes. Indeed, if I might point out to the honourable member for Sturt, the danger of a compliant commissioner is probably greater under the present legislation because there is no form of accountability to Parliament at all. Whereas the Opposition, in its amendment, though it makes the directions more specific, does provide for an accountability to Parliament which is not in the present Bill. I think that we on the Opposition side would agree with the specific protections for individuals that the member for Sturt is suggesting. Indeed, I think they could be built into the Bill without being in conflict with the proposals that we are making. I think our amendment moves somewhat closer to his own motion of protection of the liberties of individuals because we are providing accountability to Parliament for all directions given to the commissioner.

I wish now to take up the point of the Opposition’s amendment. At the moment the Bill states, in the critical clause 13(2), as follows:

The Minister may, after obtaining and considering the advice of the Commissioner and of the Secretary, give written directions to the Commissioner with respect to the general policy to be pursued in relation to the performance of the functions of the Australian Federal Police.

I think that phrase and the debate over exactly what is meant by general policy open up an enormous field of conflict between government and police which, I think, we saw in South Australia with such disastrous consequences in the 1970 moratorium. We want to remove that danger of conflict between commissioner and government. Let me say that in four of the six States there is this provision now for the Executive Government to give direction to the Police Commissioner. But of course we do not accept what exists in the States because we say that if this power is given, as we believe it should be given, to Executive Government, then we have to protect the people against any arbitrary misuse of this power by

Executive Government. So the Opposition does suggest a provision which is found in only one State in Australia at the moment, and that is the State of South Australia, where, in fact, a copy of any direction at all either general or specific, that the Minister gives to the Commissioner of Police, must be laid before each House of Parliament within six sitting days of the date of the direction and must be published in the Gazette for the information of the public. It does seem to me that in doing that we clarify the possibilities of conflict over this notion of general policy. We give the authority to the Executive but, at the same time- I agree entirely with the honourable member for Sturt- we have to prevent the misuse of that Executive authority. We do that by these two provisions.

I would be perfectly happy to go on from there and accept some of the individual protections about particular information on individuals which the honourable member for Sturt suggests. That is, I do not think we are in conflict. Indeed, I would suggest that the Opposition’s amendment, which envisages accountability to Parliament and publication in the Gazette, is more likely to prevent a compliant commissioner carrying out ministerial advice than, in fact, the Bill does as it presently stands.

Mr McLeay:
Minister for Administrative Services · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– The Committee will understand that this issue was canvassed during the second reading debate. I will not go into it any more except to place on record the statement I made then which resulted from discussions that we on the Government side have had, particularly relating to the affairs in South Australia. I note that South Australians seem to be taking an active part in the debate and, I would say, more on the suspension of Commissioner Salisbury than anything else.

I commend to the House the book written by Mr Cockburn and referred to by the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes). I would like to place on record that I propose to give a written direction with respect to the general policy to be pursued by the Commissioner in relation to the dissemination of information by the Australian Federal Police. The direction will safeguard the rights to privacy of individuals. I propose to table the direction and it will be revised in due course in the light of the Australian Law Reform Commission ‘s report on privacy. This is consistent with the advice given to the Government by Sir Robert Mark in his report last year on the organisation of police resources in the Commonwealth area and other related matters. I regret that we cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14 (General Orders and General Instructions).

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

– I move:

This amendment is consequential to the amendment moved to clause 6.

Mr McLeay:
Minister for Administrative Services · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I formally announce that we are unable to accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 15 and 16- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 17 (Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners).

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

– by leave-I move:

These amendments have the effect of making it quite explicit that the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners of Police are appointed by the Governor-General-in-Council- that is, Cabinet. It also makes it explicit that their terms and conditions are determined by the Government and that they are responsible to the Government. The need, as I have indicated in the second reading debate, was made clear by the notorious Salisbury case. It has had a decent airing today mainly by the South Australian members and me. Four South Australian members participated in the debate. As I have indicated, the Salisbury affair has had a decent airing. Mr Salisbury took the view that he was not responsible to the elected Government but to a vague notion, as I have indicated before, which he called the Crown. He was waiting for God to view the relationship between the Police Commissioner and a higher authority. The Mitchell royal commission made clear the position in South Australia that the Commissioner of Police was responsible to the Government of the day. It is also our view and our amendments seek to make that clear.

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

– I have just had given to me a suggestion by the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr McLeay) that I read Mr Cockburn’s book on the Salisbury affair, which I say that I have done. May I return the compliment by suggesting that the Minister read Reflections on the Salisbury Affair: PoliceGovernment Relations in Australia’ in the Australian Quarterly of March 1979. If there is a spirit of compromise abroad at all, I would have thought that the Government could agree with this proposal, which in fact is to put into form what is true of most of the provisions in this Parliament, that is, using the term ‘GovernorGeneral in Council’ and thus making it quite clear that the responsibility lies with the Executive Government, as it does in all of the States in Australia.

Mr McLeay:
Minister for Administrative Services · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– The Government is unable to accept these amendments. We are actually dealing with three amendments to clause 17. I am advised that this is a question determined by the Parliamentary Counsel in the drafting of Bills and that the term ‘GovernorGeneral’ is synonymous with the term Governor-General in Council’.

Amendments negatived.

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

-I move:

This amendment is to rectify what we regard as a quite stupid omission from the Bill. In Part IV, Division 1, there is no provision for the Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner to resign. This is an absurdity and our amendment corrects it. The amendment is a slightly modified version of the provision in the Australia Police Bill 1 974.

Mr McLeay:
Minister for Administrative Services · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– This is the nearest we will come to exchanging words. It is not a stupid omission or one of absurdity. As the Bill is framed, the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner already have the right to resign. This proposal would diminish that right and would mean than a government could hold a Commissioner against his will. We oppose the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 18 to 21- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 22 (Termination of appointment).

Mr McLeay:
Minister for Administrative Services · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– The Government is unable to accept the amendments for the reasons I gave in respect of a previous amendment.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 23 and 24- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 25 (Commissioned officers).

Mr McLeay:
Minister for Administrative Services · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– The Government cannot accept the amendments, for the reasons given earlier.

Amendments negatived.

Mr McLeay:
Minister for Administrative Services · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– Once again, the Government is unable to accept these amendments. They have been canvassed earlier. They thrust at the basic concept of the whole force having two components and we are unable to accept them.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 26 (Non-commissioned officers).

Mr McLeay:
Minister for Administrative Services · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– The Government cannot agree to these amendments, for the reasons given a few moments ago. This is a twocomponent force.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 27 (Special members).

Mr McLeay:
Minister for Administrative Services · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– The Government does not agree to the amendments, for the reasons given earlier.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 28 (Undertakings and oaths or affirmations).

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

– I move:

This amendment is in the same category as the other amendments.

Mr McLeay:
Minister for Administrative Services · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– This amendment, which deals with clause 28, the Government rejects for the reasons I have given before.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Consideration interrupted.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins)Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I shall report progress.

Progress reported.

page 3045

ADJOURNMENT

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order! I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I require that the question be put forthwith without debate.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 3045

AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE BILL 1979

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

Clauses 29 to 35- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 36 (Selection of members for promotion).

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

-I move:

I will canvass the argument for my amendment to clause 36 and for proposed new clause 36a. I understand that the questions on these clauses will be put separately but the same argument applies to both amendments. I will deal with them together to save the time of the Committee. These two amendments provide for the rectification of what is one of the most serious omissions in the Bill. This is the failure to provide explicit promotion appeal procedures. It is one of the issues canvassed very definitely by the Police Association and as we saw it its apprehension was fell founded. If those apprehensions are not well founded, I would ask the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr McLeay) to put our minds at rest and in particular the minds of those in the police forces.

In the 1975 legislation, there are specific provisions which enable a member of the Commonwealth Police to appeal to the Promotions Appeals Board where that member thought he should have been promoted in preference to another member. Such rights are considered basic to any people working in any area of the Public Service. All that is provided in this legislation is the criteria to be considered in promotions, that is, clause 36 and the quite outrageous provision of clause 40 (c) which enables the Government to do virtually what it likes in relation to promotion appeals by regulation. The Commonwealth Police Officers Association is understandably most perturbed about this matter, as I have indicated before. Wide ranging discussions were held with that Association before the introduction of the 1975 legislation and the police remain convinced, as does the Opposition, that the 1975 legislation is the best method of handling the question of promotion appeals. The regulations that might be made under clause 43 could be anything. There has been no undertaking that regulations will not be made without prior consultation with the Police Association. One can only suspect that the Government has something to hide in its intentions in this area. In the matter of the whole range of promotion possibilities and the matter that I raised earlier, the Minister has given certain undertakings in terms of what might be called the apprehension concerning the elimination of certain gradings of policemen. It goes to that fundamental question. It seems to me that the issue of the fundamental right of appeal should be spelt out by the Minister, giving the assurance to the Opposition and to the Commonwealth Police officers that their position will be preserved in the future.

Mr McLEAY:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– We reject this amendment also. The Government certainly has nothing to hide, nor is there any omission in the Bill. The appeal provisions are provided for under clause 40(c), on page 14, including the Promotions Appeal Board. This conforms with the present position in the Australian Capital Territory and the Commonwealth Police regulations. We oppose the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Proposed new clause 36A.

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

– I move:

Proposed new clause negatived.

Clause 37 (Resignation).

Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I confirm what the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes) has just said and I thank him for his assistance on the passage of the Bill. Clause 37 does explain that the three-month resignation period is not an arbitrary term and it can be shortened as the Commissioner determines, but has to be final after four months. The management of both police forces feels that the general provision of three months provides sufficient flexibility for an officer to be replaced. However, any variation is always subject to negotiation between the new commissioner and the association or associations.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 38 (Retirement).

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

– I formally move:

Clause 38, page 13, line 42, omit ‘If a member’, substitute If, on the basis of a medical report, a member’.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 39 (Retrenchment)

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

-by leave-I formally move:

Clause 39, page 14, lines 7-9, omit paragraph (a).

Clause 39, page 14, line 11, omit “in either component”.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 40 (Regulations may provide for certain other terms and conditions).

Mr McLeay:
Minister for Administrative Services · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I shall deal with Opposition amendment No. 42 which relates to the Promotion Appeals Board. The Government is unable to accept the deletion of paragraph (c) because the Opposition’s earlier amendment to clause 36 was rejected. Opposition amendment No. 43 acknowledges the Government’s belief that it should be possible for police to retire at the age of 55 years. Because of the implications of superannuation, the policy details have not yet been worked out. Also, we are unable to accept Opposition amendment No. 44. Paragraph (f) of clause 40 provides for regulations to include disciplinary offences. It also establishes a Disciplinary Board to determine appeals. Disciplinary matters concerning the two present police forces are covered under regulations similar to those provided for in this paragraph of the Bill.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 41 to 43- by leave- taken together and agreed to.

Clause 44 (Continuation of hearing of matters).

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

– I move:

This clause provides for the continuation of the hearing of matters by the Tribunal where the person who originally constituted the Tribunal is unable to continue with the proceedings. However, that provision simply states that the Tribunal, as constituted by another person, may decide to hear the matter under consideration. In other words it gives the Tribunal a discretion. We believe that there should be no discretion in this area and that the evidence that was given before the previous Tribunal should be taken into account. It should be incumbent on those people forming the Tribunal to ensure that due reference is paid to evidence that is given to the Tribunal up until that point in time when the new person may take over.

Mr McLeay:
Minister for Administrative Services · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– The Parliamentary Counsel has advised me that ‘shall’ was changed to ‘may’ so as to give a new judge of the Tribunal a discretion to take new evidence and argument as well as giving consideration to the earlier evidence and argument presented before the earlier judge was unable to continue because of ill health or for some other reason. We believe that the Government has actually improved the arbitral processes of the police Tribunal. This may be an appropriate time to report progress.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins)The question is that the Committee report progress and ask for leave to sit again.

Mr Innes:

– I am opposed to the proposition that we report progress. The arrangement was that we would continue to go through the stages of this Bill and complete it.

Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I withdraw my motion that the Committee report progress.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I put the question that the amendment be agreed to.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 45 agreed to.

Clause 46 (Determinations by Tribunal).

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I wish to speak to the amendment to clause 46 which seeks to change the term ‘Governor-General’ to Governor-General in Council’. Honourable members ought to be aware that when we talk about the Governor-General under the terms of our Constitution, we are speaking of a single Minister’s decision in this matter. The GovernorGeneral in Council is acting with the advice of his Ministers and therefore is effectively the Cabinet or the Executive Council. I would say that from my experience this means that more than just one just ministerial mind is brought to bear on matters when the Governor-General is deliberating upon a person’s future. I think that the House ought to support the amendment that has been put forward. This is a serious consideration of taking a power from a particular Minister and diluting or distributing that power or bringing a second mind to bear. The wordage in the Act simply means that the Minister does the job himself without proper surveillance on behalf of the victim.

Mr McLeay:
Minister for Administrative Services · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– The Opposition amendment No. 46 which happens to be to clause 46 is not accepted by the Government. Under clauses 38 and 39 which the amendment proposes to change the right of appeal exists already in the same form as in the present legislation which established the two police forces. If there were a wrongful retirement or dismissal under clauses 38 and 39, a member could test that dismissal in an ordinary court. However, the Government will give serious consideration to the possibility of the provision of an appeal to an appropriate tribunal, not necessarily the Federal Police Arbitral Tribunal to which clause 46 refers. Amendment No. 47 was dealt with earlier. I will not traverse the arguments in respect of it. As to Amendment No. 48, the Government does not agree to the previous amendment seeking appeal to the Federal Police Arbitral Tribunal under clauses 38 and 39. Therefore, it is necessary to retain the words in the clause.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 47 and 48- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 49 (Particular powers of Tribunal).

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

-The Opposition’s amendment No. 49 to clause 49 is consequential upon our amendments to give individual members of the Australian Federal Force the right of appeal to the Federal Police Arbitral Tribunal in relation to the decisions affecting them under clauses 38 and 39. 1 move:

Clause 49, page 16, line 38, omit ‘a party, being an association’, substitute ‘any party’.

Mr McLeay:
Minister for Administrative Services · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– This amendment seeks to change one word in line 38. Instead of saying ‘a party’ it seeks to say ‘any party’. We believe that this is absolutely unnecessary. It means the same thing.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 50 to 54- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 55 (Representation before Tribunal or Commission).

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

-This amendment to the Bill seeks the insertion of two parts that cover a set of procedures to deal with complaints against the police and vicarious liability. By arrangement with the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr McLeay) who is sitting at the table, I do not wish to canvass the whole range of issues that we would care to canvass. There are pages of them in this document. If honourable members want me to do so, we will be here all night. The arrangement has been made. I simply seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the summary and a section of the Australian Law Reform Commission report. The

Minister who is sitting at the table is aware of the two publications.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows-

Ninth Report of Law Reform Commission

SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT INTO COMPLAINTS AGAINST POLICE

Amendments to Include Part VII

Complaints Against Police

SUMMARY

Getting Priorities Right-

This Report supplements the Commission’s first Report, Complaints Against Police, produced in 1975. The purpose of the proposals contained in this Report is to strike a proper and fair balance between the needs of a disciplined force and the rights of the community it serves.

The police are in the vanguard of the administration of justice in our society. The honour and discipline of the force are integral to its effectiveness and must be maintained. Complaints do occur and are likely to increase with growing knowledge of and sensitivity to rights. Some will be vexatious. Others will be unjust. Still others will be justified and will require action. The machinery for action must be fair and just to the police and public alike. For the appearance of justice and for the protection of the standing of the police, the procedure cannot be left wholly to the police themselves. As much as possible should be.

Since the Commission’s first Report, a number of developments have taken place which have reinforced key elements in the Commission’s original proposals, particularly the Commission’s recommendations for the establishment of a special unit of the police force modelled on the A. 10 Section of Scotland Yard and the Commission’s recommendations with respect to the role of the Ombudsman:

The former Commissioner of the ACT Police has stated that the ALRC 1975 recommendations ‘were mostly accepted by the police forces concerned as being an impartial and effective way of handling complaints against police’. In advance of legislation, the ACT Police in January 1978 set up an ‘Internal Affairs Branch’ as proposed in the initial ALRC Report.

Legislation has been proposed for the largest police force in Australia (the NSW police) modelled on the Commission ‘s recommendations.

The Northern Territory Ombudsman Ordinance provides for a widening of the Ombudsman’s power to investigate complaints against individual policemen generally along the lines of the Commission ‘s proposals.

In his recent report to the Minister for Administrative Services, Sir Robert Mark considered that an effective system for handling complaints against police was essential to any modern police force: the object should be to satisfy the public that every complaint is investigated thoroughly and impartially. In Sir Robert Mark’s view the essential requirement of any machinery is the assurance of an initial investigation of manifest thoroughness and impartiality.

Background to this Report-

The Commission’s first Report produced in 1975 was substantially adopted by the then Government and the Commission ‘s proposals were included in the Australia Police Bill 1975. The Bill lapsed with the dissolution of Parliament in November 1975. Government policy changed and the proposal to establish an amalgamated national force of all of the Commonwealth’s police was not proceeded with. The Commission was subsequently asked by the Attorney-General to review its report, making any changes that were necessary in the light of the decision to retain separate police forces of the Commonwealth, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory of Australia. At the same time, the Commission was asked to review a number of developments that had occurred in the meantime. These include the passage of new legislation on complaints against police in England ( Police Act 1 976 ), the receipt of new reports in Australia and overseas concerning this universal issue, the passage of the Ombudsman Act 1976 and public, police and other comments received since the publication of the Commission’s report.

The Commission has now reviewed its first report in the light of these considerations. It has conducted public sittings and private consultations in all parts of Australia. This supplementary report is the product of its further inquiries.

The original proposals-

The basic scheme put forward in the first report is retained. It involves the use of three instruments to infuse elements of independence which police themselves recognise to be important in the receipt, handling, investigation and determination of complaints against police. The instruments are:

The Ombudsman as ‘neutral territory’ for the receipt of complaints, as investigator of last resort and as public guardian to require certain public complaints to be scrutinised in a public forum.

A special unit of the police force, titled the Internal Discipline Section, and modelled on the A. 10 Section at Scotland Yard. Whilst reserving to the police force most investigations of complaints, experience teaches that a separate section of this kind achieves greater efficiency and independence in fearlessly investigating complaints, internal and external.

A police tribunal, whose President is a judge, which can sit to hear charges brought based upon breaches by police of the discipline code. Criminal charges against police will continue to be dealt with in the criminal courts. Many public complaints against police, whilst not involving criminal conduct, are nevertheless serious matters that should be publicly dealt with.

Particular elements of this scheme have already been adopted in some police forces. The overall scheme has been welcomed by one at least of the Commonwealth’s forces. Part of it will soon apply to the Northern Territory Police Force and is under consideration for adoption in a major State force. Inevitably, some of the details have been modified in the light of changed circumstances and the considerations drawn to the Commission’s attention. We have paid particular attention to the need to uphold the overall authority of the Police Commissioner and to leave with police the greatest possible responsibility for discipline that is compatible with the just disposition of complaints. Since the Commission’s original Report, the Ombudsman Act 1976 has come into operation. It introduces a system of ex post review by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. He can look at the way an investigation of a public complaint was handled by police. Often he may not be able to look at the merits of the initial complaint. Review of this kind is not enough and the Commission proposes that the Ombudsman’s powers be widened (para. 69). It is important that investigations and determinations satisfy the demand that justice should not only be done, but also be seen to be done.

The Commission’s current proposals-

Recommendations on Receiving Complaints

General Procedures. The legislation should make it clear that ‘complaints’ are to be given a wide interpretation (para. 72). A distinction is drawn between procedures to be followed in respect of ‘internal ‘ complaints and ‘external ‘ complaints (which originate from members of the public) (para. 70). The former will continue to be handled basically as at present, with the exceptions that an accused police officer or the Commissioner could elect to have a charge proceed before the Tribunal instead of before the Commission and an appeal would lie from the Commissioner to the Tribunal (para. 73).

Recipients of Complaints:

Members of the public may make their complaints to the police or to the Ombudsman (para. 73 ).

Our earlier proposal that public servants should be alternative recipients of complaints against police is withdrawn (para. 75).

A proposal that clerks of courts should become alternative recipients of complaints is not accepted (para. 76).

The suggestion that special recipients should be appointed to receive complaints from Aboriginals, nonEnglish speaking persons, illiterate persons or from other disadvantaged groups, is not accepted (para. 78). The Aboriginal Legal Aid Services, ethnic communities and others should be informed of the procedures available, so they can direct persons, having complaints, in an appropriate way (para. 79).

Need for Community Education:

A short pamphlet setting out procedures and forms for transmission to the Ombudsman’s office should be prepared (para. 77). Information in the major ethnic languages should also be compiled (para. 77). Information of this kind should be freely available at police stations and other federal offices (para. 83 ).

The Commission would expect local Commonwealth officers to be informed of the available procedures (para. 76) and to help persons wishing to make complaints against the Commonwealth’s police by providing information concerning the new procedures (para. 76 ).

One of the non-contentious tasks of the proposed internal discipline section compatible with its other functions, is that of promoting community awareness of the machinery for dealing with public complaints (para. 77 ).

Form of Complaints:

Oral complaints should be received and reduced to writing either by the complainant or by somebody on his behalf (para. 81).

Anonymous complaints should not be rejected. Their disposition should follow, so far as is possible, the same course as other external complaints (para. 82*).

Recommendations on Investigating Complaints-

Duties of Officers Receiving Complaints:

No distinction should be drawn between the way in which ‘serious’ and ‘not serious’ complaints against police are handled by police (para. 88). However, in imposing obligations upon a police officer receiving a complaint concerning the action he should take to ensure its independent investigation and determination, provision should be made so that he is still able to take such action as he considers necessary to prevent injury to persons, damage to property, the escape of a person liable to arrest or the loss or destruction of evidence (para. 89).

Subject to the above, the duty of a police officer receiving a complaint is to refer it to the proposed internal investigation unit as soon as possible.

Creation of Internal Investigation Unit:

An internal investigation unit within the Commonwealth police forces to investigate and report on complaints against police is desirable and feasible (para. 100). It should be created (para. 101).

Because of the size of the forces involved, each unit will be, at least initially, very small. The minimum number of officers to be attached to a unit to make it viable is two (para. 101).

The special unit should include officers of different ranks and there should be turnover in personnel, though service should generally be for not less than three years (para. 103)

Handling of Investigation:

Investigation of complaints against police should normally be performed by the Internal Discipline Section.

The Commission rejects the importation of foreign or interstate or other force officers for investigating complaints against police (para. 99).

In the context of separate forces, it also rejects a Commonwealth-wide unit (para. 100).

In four special cases, the Ombudsman should have a reserve power, at his discretion, to undertake an independent investigation of his own. These cases include circumstances where: the complaint involves a member of the police force senior to all members of the Section; the complaint involves a member of the Section itself; the complaint is related to a matter the Ombudsman is already investigating; the Ombudsman is of the opinion that it is in the public interest that the complaint should be investigated by him (para. 109).

A full system of recording complaints should be introduced both by the police and the Ombudsman (para. 106). Details of these complaints and their disposition should be reported to the respective legislatures.

Where a complaint is made by a member of the public to the police, the Commissioner should notify the Ombudsman (para. 106).

Reports of the internal investigation unit on external complaints should be sent to the Commissioner, who should then refer them to the Ombudsman with any comments he may have (para. 101).

Bringing of Charges:

The bringing of charges following reports should normally be within the discretion of police.

Where a difference arises in respect of external complaints, the Ombudsman should have power, by making a formal recommendation, to ensure that a charge is brought by police and determined before the tribunal (para. 111).

Charges should be prosecuted not by the complainant but by the police (para. 115).

Recommendations on Determining Complaints-

Criminal Charges:

Criminal charges against police arising out of complaints should continue to be determined in the criminal courts.

Disciplinary Charges:

Charges based on the Discipline Code should be dealt with, as to internal charges, normally by the Commissioner and as to external charges, by a new independent tribunal to be established and known as the Police Tribunal (para. 1 12).

Composition of Tribunal:

The tribunal should be a single member judicial-type tribunal whose President is a judge (para. 112).

The Commission does not favour a composite ‘representative’ tribunal for the forces involved.

Role of and Proceedings before the Tribunal:

The Commission does not favour limiting the tribunal to the hearing of appeals from Commissioner’s decisions (para. 1 12).

Hearings before the Tribunal should normally be conducted in public but it should be armed with a discretion to close proceedings, limit the publication of evidence and direct restrictions on the disclosure of documents in appropriate cases ( para. 121).

Penalties should be decided by the Tribunal itself but it should have the assistance of a senior police officer as an assessor on penalty. A suggestion of a right of appeal on penalty from the Tribunal to the Commissioner is not accepted (para. 123).

Important decisions of the Tribunal should be published, with due observation of any orders concerning confidentiality (para. 125).

The Police Tribunal should be empowered to inquire into a matter, relating to the police force, that is referred to it by the Minister (para. 135).

Appeals’.

The Commission’s previous suggestion of a general right of appeal to an appellate tier of the tribunal, comprising three judges, is now withdrawn. It is not appropriate that the business of the tribunal should be done by (nor appeals from it lie to) the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (para. 113).

Appeals and references on questions of law to the Federal Court of Australia should be provided for (para. 113).

A police officer should be entitled to appeal to the Tribunal against a decision or recommendation of his dismissal by the Commissioner ( para. 133).

Representation in Proceedings:

No recommendation is made in respect of representation on ‘internal ‘ complaints before the Commissioner.

Where a hearing takes place before the Tribunal, the accused should be entitled to representation (para. 114).

Normally, the carriage of a charge will remain with the police. There should, however, be a discretion in the Tribunal to permit the complainant to be represented and otherwise to participate (para. 1 15).

The Commission’s previous recommendation that leave should be required before a participant was permitted to be represented otherwise than by lawyers is withdrawn (para. 1 16).

Legal Assistance:

Without creating any inflexible statutory entitlement, legal assistance should normally be granted to a police officer charged before the Tribunal on an ‘external’ complaint (para. 117).

Obligation to Answer Questions:

In respect of the compulsion to answer questions, a distinction is drawn between the investigation stage and hearings before the Tribunal. In the former there should be an obligation to answer questions as directed, subject to certain protections. In the latter, the normal rule against compulsory self-incrimination should obtain (para. 119).

Self-incriminating answers given at the investigation stage should not be available as evidence in any subsequent criminal or civil proceedings (para. 120 ).

Expungement of Records:

The previous recommendation for the expungement of records concerning disciplinary offences is withdrawn. Instead, the Tribunal or the Commissioner should be empowered to fix the time after which, in any future disciplinary action, a penalty imposed will not be taken into account. (para. 124).

Complainant to be Kept Informed:

If, arising out of a public complaint, a charge is laid for determination by the Tribunal, the complainant should be informed of particulars of the charge. If he is not present at the conclusion of proceedings, he should be told of the outcome (para. 126).

Miscellaneous Matters-

Police Identification:

Members of the Commonwealth’s police forces, at least those below the rank of Inspector, should, when in uniform, wear identification numbers in an appropriate place, on the front of the uniform (para. 86*). Other officers, including non-uniformed officers, should carry appropriate identification whilst on duty (para. 86).

Offence of False Report:

The Commission’s previous recommendation against the creation of an offence of making a ‘false report’ is withdrawn. An offence should be created but in strictly circumscribed terms (para. 127). It is not appropriate to deal in the present context with alleged misuse of the offence of criminal libel as retaliation against complaints against police (para. 128).

Discipline Code:

Urgent attention should be given to the introduction of a revised discipline code for police. But this should not further delay the implementation of the revised procedures, which can operate for a time upon the current lists of disciplinary offences (para. 134).

Vicarious Liability:

The Commonwealth should be liable vicariously for a tort committed by a police officer in the performance or purported performance of his duties (para. 136).

Application to Customs and Narcotics Bureau:

Whilst some of the above proposals could be adopted by administrative decision for the non-police officers who were originally included in the Australia Police, it is not possible to apply the legislation to such officers without modification. Urgent attention should be given to adapting the proposals suggested here to the receipt, investigation and determination of complaints against officers of Customs and of the Narcotics Bureau (para. 138) and other police-type officers of the Commonwealth. 1st Report on Complaints against Police

PART-IX

Vicarious Liability

Present Law and Practice- 213. At common law a police constable is personally responsible for his criminal and tortious acts. So far as his torts are concerned his superior officer and those who appointed him or instructed him are not vicariously liable for his torts. At the heart of this rule is the principle that no relationship of master and servant or principal and agent existed between the Crown or municipal body appointing the police constable and the individual officer. Notwithstanding the fact that in modern times the appointment of police constables has become a matter largely governed by statute, the common law position has remained the same. 2 14. In Enever v. R. ( 1 905 ) 3 C.L.R 969 the High Court of Australia held that it was not competent to a claimant to bring an action against the Government of Tasmania for wrongful arrest by a constable acting in the intended performance of his duty as an officer of the police. The Tasmanian Crown Redress Act gave a right of action against the Government to a person having any just claim against the Crown for an actionable wrong in respect of ‘any act or omission, neglect or default of an officer, agent or servant of the Government of Tasmania’. In rejecting the claim. Griffith C.J. said. (174)

At common law the office of constable or peace officer was regarded as a public office, and the holder of it as being, in some sense, a servant of the Crown. The appointment to the office was made in various ways, and often by election. In later times the mode of appointment came to be regulated for the most part by Statute, and the power of appointment was vested in specified authorities, such as municipal authorities or justices. But it never seems to have been thought that a change in the mode of appointment made any difference in the nature or duties of the office, except so far as might be enacted by the particular statute. Again, at common law constables had large powers necessarily incident to the discharge of their functions as peace officers or conservators of the peace, amongst which perhaps the most important was the authority to arrest on suspicion of felony. To these powers others of a like nature have from time to time been added by statutory provisions, of which the 1 79th section of the Police Act is an instance. But there is no reason for thinking that the mere statutory addition to the list of their powers altered the essential nature of those powers. It seems also to have been always accepted as settled law that, although a peace officer was himself responsible for unjustifiable acts done by him in the intended exercise of his lawful authority, no responsibility for such acts attached to those by whom he was appointed.

In the same case O’Connor J. said. (175)

The common law has always recognised the office of constable. The duty of locally preserving the peace in England from the earliest times has been placed upon local bodies, upon the decennaries and hundreds in the time of Alfred, and later upon different local bodies, in more modern times upon the Boroughs and Municipalities. The recognised officers for the preservation of the peace in these localities have been the constable or constables chosen, elected or appointed by the local bodies as by law provided. The power to arrest for breach of the peace or other offences is given by the common law, not to the local bodies responsible for keeping the peace, but to their officer the constable . . . The power to arrest is given not to the local body nor the municipality, nor, in cases where a Government Police Force exists, to the Government- but to a constable, that is to a person who for the time being holds the office of constable. 215. The principle outlined in Enever v. R. received support in England in Fisher v. Oldham Corporation ( 1930) 2 K B. 364, a decision of McCardie J. in which the English decisions are reviewed and Enever v. R. specifically approved as ‘most weighty and most instructive ‘. The case came under the review of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Attorney-General for New South Wales v. Perpetual Trustee Co. Limited (1955) 92 C.L.R. 113. The case, which establishes that action per quod servitium amisit does not lie at the suit of the Crown in respect of the loss of services of a member of the Police Force appointed under the Police Regulation Act, 1899 of the State of New South Wales, provides further specific approval for the Enever principles. (176)

In their view, there is a fundamental difference between the domestic relation of servant and master and that of the holder of a public office and the State which he is said to serve. The constable falls within the latter category. His authority is original not delegated and is exercised at his own discretion by virtue of his office: he is a ministerial officer exercising statutory rights independently of contract. The essential difference is recognised in the fact that his relationship to the Government is not in ordinary parlance described as that of servant and master. 216. There have been a number of statutory inroads into this common law position. In Australia, the only substantial alteration to the position of Commonwealth constables arises, and then only incidentally, in the Commonwealth Motor Vehicles (Liability) Act 1 959. By section 5 of that Act, where a claim is made against the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority for damages, or contribution to damages, in respect of the death of or personal injury to a person caused by or arising out of the use of an uninsured motor vehicle owned by the Commonwealth, the driver of the vehicle shall, for the purposes of that claim, be conclusively presumed to have been at all relevant times, with respect to the driving of the vehicle, the agent of the Commonwealth (or Commonwealth authority), acting within the scope of his authority. This section may have the effect of changing the common law position at least so far as Commonwealth police officers driving motor vehicles are concerned and in respect of claims of the class referred to in the Statute. It is clear that the provision seeks to grapple with the uniform statutory third party insurance principle rather than to deal with the specific problem of the Enever doctrine. That problem remains for claims against police officers of the Commonwealth. It is a hindrance to claimants and potential claimants as well as a discouragement to claims.

Statutory Amendments: 217. The United Kingdom Royal Commission on the Police 1962 considered the status of constables. It had before it the submissions of a number of bodies asserting that the doctrine of vicarious liability, dependent upon the ability of a master to give orders to his servants, had been broadened in decisions of the court, so that persons at common law not previously thought to be servants were coming under the umbrella of the vicarious principle. The Commission concluded: (177)

We are satisfied . . . that to make a police authority vicariously liable for a constable’s actions would not derogate from this status: nor would it confer any power upon a police authority to control his duties. It appears to us that there are good reasons for making this change, and that to alter the present arrangement would be to the advantage of both police and the public. In particular we are impressed by the argument that where a particular constable complained of is not identifiable a member of the public is at present unable to pursue a legal remedy. We recommend, therefore, that a police authority be made liable for the wrongful act of police officers in the same way as the Crown is liable, under the Crown Proceedings Act 1 947, for the wrongful acts of an officer of the Crown. 218. As a consequence of the Royal Commission’s recommendations, section 48 of the Police Act 1964 was enacted and it modifies the common law in significant respects. The section is in the following terms:

1 ) The chief officer of police for any police area shall be liable in respect of torts committed by constables under his direction and control in the performance or purported performance of their function in like manner as a master is liable in respect of torts committed by his servants in the course of their employment, and accordingly shall in respect of any such tort be treated for all purposes as a joint tortfeasor.

) There shall be paid out of the police fund-

any damages or costs awarded against the chief officer of police in any proceedings brought against him by virtue of this section and any costs incurred by him in any such proceedings so far as not recovered by him in the proceedings; and

any sum required in connection with the settlement of any claim made against the chief officer of police by virtue of this section, if the settlement is approved by the police authority.

Any proceedings in respect of a claim made by virtue of this section shall be brought against the chief officer of police for the time being or, in the case of a vacancy in that office, against the person for the time being performing the functions of the chief officer of police; and references in the foregoing provisions of this section to the chief officer of police shall be construed accordingly.

A police authority may, in such cases and to such extent as they think fit, pay any damages or costs awarded against a member of the police force maintained by them, or any constable for the time being required to serve with that force by virtue of section 1 4 of this Act, or any special constable appointed for their area, in proceedings for a tort committed by him, any costs incurred and not recovered by him in any such proceedings, and any sum required in connection with the settlement of any claim that has or might have given rise to such proceedings; and any sum required for making a payment under this subsection shall be paid out of the police fund. 2 1 9. This Commission has received submissions urging the adoption in this country of principles similar to those now to be found in section 48 of the English Police Act. ( 1 78) It has been urged upon the Commission that so long as the member of the Australia Police has acted in a proper and responsible manner, he should be indemnified for any damages and costs recovered against him when sued for a civil wrong. 220. Academic opinion in Australia has also favoured the acceptance of the English reform. Assistant Professor M. R. Goode has drawn attention to the injustices created by the present common law position (179), and especially to the fact that if the police offender is of limited means, a vindicated plaintiff may be left with a meaningless victory. There can be little doubt that the uncertainty of receiving the fruits of victory amounts to a substantial discouragement to the bringing of justifiable actions. Furthermore, Goode draws attention to the fact that failure to identify the particular police officer who has committed the ton effectively precludes the bringing of any action at all. The right to bring an action against a police constable personally is meaningless where a cause of action arises, say, in a scuffle: where one policeman may look like another and where some may be in plain clothes and others may not bear their identification. 221. Due weight has been given to the consideration that the provision of indemnity to a police constable may indirectly diminish deterrence from wrongful conduct and torts. This argument was urged upon the Royal Commission in England. ( 1 80) For substantially the same reasons as were advanced by those Commissioners we feel that the effect on deterrence is either insignificant or not such as can be fairly weighed against the injustices to both claimant and policeman that are presented by the present legal position. If practices are tolerated or encouraged despite their unlawfullness, it is to the policy maker that deterrence should be aimed.

Furthermore, if a member of the Australia Police acts tortiously against a member of the public it can never be in the interests of the force that a member of the community should go uncompensated because of the anomalous state of the law. Moreover, we doubt that the provision of indemnity will remove restraints from an individual constable. Consider the reaction in a disciplined force of a successful damages claim against a constable and the response to that constable’s having made the community suffer the burden of his wrong. (181) 222. Professor Atiyah has advanced a number of criticisms of a technical nature concerning the form of section 48 ( 1 ) which he draws to the attention of future draftsmen of provisions of this kind. ( 182) To these criticisms Assistant Professor Goode has added another. ( 1 83 ) The Commission has given careful considerations to these criticisms. It is not necessary to deal with them here.

Argument and conclusion- 223. Those who oppose the introduction of the vicarious liability principle to police constables assert basically the position asserted by the common law cases. The position in Australia and England referred to above is closely paralleled by the common law decision in the United States. (184) It is argued that it is unjust that the community at large should have to bear the burden of paying for the consequences of the illegal acts of an individual policeman and that a police officer, who is employed to keep the Queen’s peace, whenever he commits a wrongful act which sounds in damages against a member of the public, is acting outside the scope of his duties and ought not to be indemnified. It is asserted that to provide indemnity will attack the independence of individual police officers, further abridging their special relationship to the Crown. It is asserted that a system which allows a citizen to sue the Government for alleged tort’s on unidentified police officers is open to abuse and fraudulent claims. Against these arguments the Commission has had to consider the plain injustice inherrent in the present state of the law. A member of the public who has suffered injury or damage ought to receive just compensation in every case. It is this principle which is behind the extension of the vicarious liability rule in the common law itself and the passage of legislation, of which the Commonwealth Motor Vehicles (Liability) Act 1 959 is but one example. 224. In reality most police functions nowadays (and one might say particularly in specialised police divisions such as proposed for the Australia Police) are performed in the pursuance of authority and instructions from the member’s superiors. The establishment of responsibility for successful claims against the police will tend to ensure an even more stringent control by police superiors over their officers. In this way discipline, far from being impeded by the Commission’s proposal, will most likely be strengthened. 225. It is necessary here to repeat that the Commission has not had before it the provisions of the proposed Australia Police Bill. The conclusions advanced that vicarious liability should be established by statute for the acts and omissions of the police officers assumes, of course, that the relationship between the constable and the Crown remains, technically, the same as it has been in the past. If the Police Bill works a change upon this relationship and, for example, either totally or substantially establishes a relationship of master and servant in the case of members of the Australia Police, much of what is here recommended may become unnecessary. This Pan is advanced upon the premise that the relationship remains substantially that set out in Enever’s Case. The importance of this question for the issue in hand and other considerations has been drawn to the attention of the Department and Parliamentary Counsel. 226. The Commission’s recommendation is that members of the public should be given a statutory right to recover from the Government in respect of the tortious acts of police officers, as if the relationship existed of master and servant. In the Commission’s view, the damages, if recovered against a member of the Australia Police, should be borne in the first instance by Australia. The Commission is not of the view that a separate fund ought to be established nor is it of the opinion that police officers generally ought to be required to contribute to such a fund. 227. Three ancillary matters arise for consideration. The first arises from the objection that a right to claim damages in respect of an unidentified police officer will give rise to an unjustified and fraudulent claim against the public purse which ought to be prevented. The Commission has been urged to provide some protection by requiring a notice of intended action within a limited time. At present Regulation 59 of the Commonwealth Police Regulations provides for the limitations of actions against certain police officers for a notice of intended action. Normally claims against an unidentified servant of an employer do not require a notice of action. Whether or not such servant existed has to be resolved as a factual element in the trial of the plaintiff’s claim. The claim will normally be discovered in particulars at a relatively early stage in the proceedings, if not asserted in the statement of claim. Having regard to this consideration, the injustices which such notices of action can work on litigants imperfectly advised and the recent legislative policy of the Australian Parliament in these matters, the Commission is not disposed to recommend the provision of such a requirement here. 228. In Australia courts can award exemplary damages in actions against police officers for wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution and the like.( 185) Whilst, in the Commission’s view, it is right that the public purse should bear the burden of damages awarded against a member of the Australia Police for his acts and omissions, it is not felt that it would be proper to burden Australia with punitive damages, where such damages were thought proper. Accordingly the Commission proposes that the legislation should make it clear that Australia is liable in respect of torts committed by members of the Australia Police in the performance or purported performance of their function in like manner as a master is liable in respect of torts committed by his servants in the course of their employment. However the legislation should also provide that punitive or exemplary damages shall not be recovered from Australia in this regard. Such damages should only be recoverable from the individual police officer himself. 229. Finally, it would seem appropriate and desirable to provide that Australia, having borne the burden of damages (other than punitive damages) awarded against a member of the police should be entitled to recover such damages from that member, in proceedings brought for that purpose. It is desirable to so provide in order to spell out the liability of the police officer in respect of his tortious act. The enforcement of that liability may rest in the discretion of his superiors, reviewing all the facts when they are known. But the discretion should be seen to be a discretion to relieve him of a liability spelt out in the statue. It may be that, on ordinary principles a right to indemnity would accrue to Australia upon payment of the judgment sum to the successful plaintiff. But an express definition of the right to indemnity carries practical advantages. ( 1 74) ( 1 905 ) 3 C.L.R. 969 at 975. (1 75)ibid., p. 99 1. (176) Attorney-General for New South Wales v. Perpetual Trustee Co. Limited( 1 955 ) 92 C.L.R. 1 1 3 at p. 1 1 9. (177) U.K. Royal Commission 1962. p. 65, para. 201. Cf. recommendation 28. (178) For example. Mr Dean Mildren, Transcript, 18 July 1975. para. 507: Mr A. J. Olroyd, ibid., 22 July 1975, para. 7 1 6. ( 1 79 ) M. R. Goode, ‘The Imposition of Vicarious Liability to the Tons of Police Officers: Considerations of Policy’ Melbourne University Law Review 10 (1975), p. 47 at pp. 57 f, subsequently referred to as M. R. Goode, Vicarious Liability’. (180) The U.K. Royal Commission 1962 at p. 63. para. 198 and 199. (181) Some of the arguments are listed by M. R. Goode in ‘Vicarious Liability’. (182) P. S. Atiyah. Vicarious Liability (London. 1967). pp. 289 f., especially at p. 409. n.9. ( 1 83) The criticisms are also outlined by M. R. Goode in ‘Vicarious Liability’, p. 51. ( 184) J. Dakin ‘Municipal Immunity in Police Torts’. Clev-Mar L.R. 16 (1 967), p. 448. (185) Uren v. John Fairfax & Sons Limited (1966) 117 C.L.R. 118 and Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v. Uren (1967) 1 17 C.L.R. 22 1 (Privy Council); (1966)117C.L.R. 1 85 (High Court of Australia).

Mr INNES:

-To save the time of the Committee and to meet the arrangement that has been made with the Government, I will simply move the amendments. We would dearly love to canvass the issues. However, an arrangement is an arrangement. I therefore move:

  1. 52 ) After clause 80, page 27, add the following new Parts (comprising clauses 81 to 147):

“PART VIII-COMPLA1NTS AGAINST THE POLICE

Division 1- Preliminary “81. (I) In this Part unless the contrary intention appears- breach of discipline’ includes a disciplinary offence under the regulations;

Commissioner’ means the person holding, or performing the duties of, the office of Commissioner of Police under the Public Service Act 1922

Commonwealth Police Force’ means the Commonwealth Police Force established by section 4;

Deputy Ombudsman’ means a Deputy Commonwealth Ombudsman;

Deputy President’ means a Deputy President of the Police Tribunal;

Internal Discipline Section’ or ‘Section’ means the Internal Discipline Section established by section 85; law ‘ means a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory; legal practitioner’ means a barrister or solicitor of the High Court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory; offence’ means an offence against a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory;

Ombudsman’ means the Commonwealth Ombudsman;

Police Force’ means the Australian Federal Police; police officer’ means-

  1. the Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner;
  2. a member of the Australian Federal Police referred to in paragraph 6 (c); and
  3. a special member of the Australian Federal Police appointed under section 27;

President’ means the President of the Tribunal;

Registrar’ means the Registrar of the Tribunal; and

Tribunal’ means the Police Tribunal established by Division IV. “82. For the purposes of this Part a reference to action taken by a police officer is a reference to action that the police officer has taken, or purports to have taken-

  1. by virtue of his being a police officer, whether the taking of the action was within, or was incidental to the performance of, his duties as a police officer;
  2. b) in the exercise of powers, or the performance of functions, conferred on him by this Act or by some other law; or
  3. in the capacity of a constable, under whatever authority he was appointed as such.

“DIVISION II-COMPLAINTS AGAINST MEMBERS OF THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE

“Sub-Division I- Interpretation “83. (1) In this Division, unless the contrary intention appears, a reference to action taken includes a reference to-

  1. a decision or recommendation made; and
  2. a failure or refusal to take action or to make a decision or recommendation. “(2) For the purposes of this Division, a person shall be taken to have complained to a police officer concerning action taken by that police officer or by another police officer if the person, in a document delivered to, or in a statement made orally to, the first-mentioned police officer, whether expressly or by implication, seeks, or seeks assistance in obtaining, redress (including action by way of punishing a police officer for an offence or a breach of discipline) in respect of that action taken by the police officer. “(3) For the purposes of this Division, where the Ombudsman or the Tribunal has referred a matter to the Commissioner for investigation by the Internal Discipline Section, that matter shall, upon being referred by the Commissioner to the Section, be taken to have been so referred at the request of the Ombudsman or of the Tribunal, respectively. “84. ( 1 ) Where a person complains to a police officer concerning action taken by that police officer, or by another police officer, this Division applies to and in relation to the complaint, whether-
  3. ) the complaint is made orally or in writing;
  4. the police officer whose action is complained of is identified in the complaint; or
  5. the identity of the complainant is known by, or disclosed to, the police officer to whom the complaint is made. “(2) This Division does not apply to or in relation to a complaint made to a police officer concerning action taken in relation to the terms or conditions of employment of police officers generally or to the employment of a particular police officer. “(3) The provisions of this Division, in so far as they confer rights on persons with respect to action taken by a police officer-
  6. are in addition to the provisions of, and do not affect the operation of, any other law, in respect of that action; and
  7. in particular, do not prevent or affect the taking of legal proceedings in respect of that action under some other law or the operation of any other law in respect of that action. “Sub-Division 2- The Internal Discipline Section “85. ( 1 ) There shall be a Section of the Police Force to be known as the Internal Discipline Section. “(2) The Commissioner shall create such number of positions (not being less than 2) in the Section as are necessary for the effective performance by the Section of the functions referred to in this Sub-Division and may abolish a position so created that is no longer necessary but so that the number of positions remaining after the position has been abolished is not less than 2. “(3) The number of positions shall not be taken to be less than 2 in consequence of the abolition of a position if another position is immediately created in its place. “(4) The Commissioner shall determine the rank to be held by a police officer occupying a position in the Section. “(5 ) The Commissioner shall not exercise the powers conferred on him by sub-sections (2) and (4) otherwise than with the concurrence of the Public Service Board or of a person authorised by the Board to act under this sub-section. “(6) The Commissioner shall, from time to time as occasion requires, designate a police officer who occupies a position in the Section to be the officer in charge of the Section. “86. (1) The functions of the Internal Discipline Section are-
  8. to investigate matters concerning action taken by a police officer that are referred to it by the Commissioner, including matters referred to it by the Commissioner at the request of the Ombudsman or of the Tribunal;
  9. to investigate complaints concerning action taken by a police officer that are referred to it under section 89;
  10. to report to the Commissioner with respect to investigations carried out by it; and
  11. such other functions as are conferred on it by or under this or another Act. “(2) Where a member of the Section is able to do so without unduly interfering with the performance of the functions conferred on the Section by sub-section ( 1 ), the member shall perform such duties as a police officer as the Commissioner determines, but not including the investigation of offences alleged to have been committed by persons other than police officers. “87. (1) The Commissioner shall, in selecting a police officer for transfer or promotion to a vacant position in the Internal Discipline Section or to a position in the Section that is expected to become vacant, take into account, in addition to any other matters that he considers to be relevant-
  12. the nature of the functions of the Section; and
  13. the need to ensure that, at all times, the membership of the Section includes a police officer with experience of criminal investigations and a police officer with experience of the general duties of police officers in uniform. “(2) In an appeal against the promotion or transfer of a police officer to a vacant position, or to a position that is expected to become vacant, in the Section, there shall be taken into account, in addition to other relevant matters, the matters referred to in paragraphs (1 ) (a) and (1 ) (b). “88. ( 1 ) Where the Commissioner transfers or promotes a police officer from a position that is not in the Internal Discipline Section to a position that is in the Section, the Commissioner shall, by instrument under his hand, determine the period during which the police officer is to continue to be a member of the Section. “(2) Where the Commissioner is of the opinion that there are special reasons for doing so, he may vary an instrument under sub-section (1 ) relating to a police officer by substituting another period for the period specified in the instrument. “(3) Where a police officer has held a position in the Section for the period specified in the instrument under subsection (1 ) that relates to him, or has held 2 or more positions in the Section for periods that are continuous with each other and aggregate the period so specified, the Commissioner shall, as soon as practicable, transfer or promote the officer to a position that is not in the Section. “(4) An instrument that has been varied in accordance with sub-section (2) may be again varied as provided by that sub-section. “(5) In sub-section (3), a reference to an instrument under sub-section (1 ) includes a reference to an instrument under sub-section ( 1 ) that has been varied under sub-section (2 ) or (4). “(6) The Commissioner shall so exercise his powers under this section as to ensure, so far as is practicable that a member of the Section will continue to serve as such a member for a period not exceeding 3 years unless, in the opinion of the Commissioner, special circumstances exist that make it desirable that the person serve for a longer period. “89. (1 ) Where a person complains to a police officer concerning action taken by that police officer or by another police officer, the police officer to whom the complaint is made shall refer the complaint to the Internal Discipline Section for investigation. “(2) The police officer shall so refer the complaint by the most expeditious means available to him and, where he refers the complaint orally, shall, as soon as practicable, furnish particulars of the complaint, in writing, to the Section. “(3) As soon as practicable after particulars in writing of a complaint have been received, the Section shall notify the Commissioner of the complaint and furnish to him a copy of the particulars. “(4) As soon as practicable after the Commissioner has been notified the Commissioner shall notify the Ombudsman of the complaint and furnish to him a copy of the particulars. “(5) A police officer to whom a complaint is made may, if he considers it necessary to do so, take reasonable action to prevent-
  14. injury to persons or damage to property;
  15. the escape of a person liable to arrest; or
  16. the loss, destruction or fabrication of evidence relating to the complaint or an offence, but not so as to contravene, or fail to comply with, a law. “(6) A police officer who takes action in accordance with sub-section ( 5 ) in connection with a complaint-
  17. shall, notwithstanding that he takes the action, comply with sub-section ( 1 ) in respect of the complaint; and
  18. shall furnish to the Section, as soon as practicable, particulars in writing, of the action that he has taken. “(7) This section does not apply to a complaint made by a person who is known to the police officer to whom the complaint is made to be, or discloses to that police officer that he is, another police officer. “90. ( 1 ) Where a complaint or matter is referred to the International Discipline Section for investigation, whether under this Part or under some other Part, the officer in charge of the Section shall cause the complaint or matter to be investigated by a member of the Section and a report concerning the investigation to be prepared. “(2) The investigation shall be conducted, subject to this Part, in such manner as the officer in charge of the Section thinks fit. “(3 ) Subject to this Part, a member of the Section may, for the purposes of the investigation, obtain information from such persons, and make such inquiries, as he think fit. “(4) A member of the Section may, for the purposes of the investigation-
  19. enter premises occupied by the Police Force and carry on the investigation at those premises;
  20. inspect any documents or records kept at premises occupied by the Police Force and take extracts from, or a copy of, such a document or record; and
  21. examine any property used by the Police Force. “(5) A member of the Section may, for the purposes of the investigation-
  22. ) direct a police officer to furnish information, answer a question or produce a document or other record, being information, a question, a document or a record that is relevant to the investigation;
  23. b ) may make a record, by means of sound recording apparatus or otherwise, of any information furnished, or answer given, in compliance with the direction; and
  24. may take extracts from, or a copy of, a document or record produced in compliance with the direction. “(6) A police officer is not excused from complying with a direction under sub-section (5) on the ground that compliance with the direction would be contrary to the public interest or might tend to incriminate him or make him liable to a penalty, or any other ground, but information so furnished by him, or his answer to such a question, is not admissible in evidence against him in any civil or criminal proceedings other than proceedings for an offence against sub-section (7 ) or for a breach of discipline. “(7) A police officer shall not furnish information or make a statement to a member of the Internal Discipline Section knowing that it is false or misleading in a material particular.

Penalty: $500 or imprisonment for 6 months. “(8) Sub-sections (2) and (3) do not authorize a police officer to contravene or fail to comply with a law that would, if those sub-sections had not been enacted, apply in relation to the investigation of a complaint or other matter referred to the Section but nothing in this sub-section affects the operation of any other provision of this section. “91. ( 1 ) The officer in charge of the Internal Discipline Section may-

  1. if he is of the opinion that the whole or a part of the investigation of a complaint should be carried out by a person possessing special qualifications and if the Commissioner so approves, authorize a police officer who is not a member of the Section, or some other person who is not a police officer, being a police officer or person who possesses those qualifications, to make that investigation, or that part of the investigation, on behalf of the Section; or
  2. b ) if he is of the opinion that the complaint is not such as to require investigation by a member of the Section and if the Commissioner so approves, authorize a police officer who is not a member of the Section to make the investigation on behalf of the Section. “(2) Where the officer in charge of the Section gives such an authority, references in section 90 to a member of the Section shall, in the application of those sub-sections in relation to the investigation or part of the investigation, be read as references to the police officer or other person authorized. “92. (1 ) At any time before the Internal Discipline Section has furnished to the Commissioner a report of the results of its investigation of a complaint that has been referred to it under section 89 or by the Commissioner at the request of the

Ombudsman, the Commissioner shall, if the Ombudsman so requests, direct the officer in charge of the Section to furnish to him, in writing, a report of the progress of the investigation of the complaint. “(2) The Commissioner shall, as soon as practicable after receipt of the report, furnish a copy of the report to the Ombudsman. “(3) This section applies in relation to a police officer or other person authorized under sub-section 91(1) as it applies to the Section. “93. (1) When the Internal Discipline Section has completed its investigation of a complaint or other matter referred to it under this Act, the officer in charge of the Section shall cause a report, in writing, of the result of the investigation to be furnished to the Commissioner. “(2) The Commissioner shall, as soon as practicable after the report is furnished to him-

  1. if the investigation relates to a complaint that was referred to the Section under section 89 or by the Commissioner at the request of the Ombudsman- furnish to the Ombudsman a copy of the report; or
  2. if the investigation relates to a matter referred to the Section by the Commissioner at the request of the Tribunal- furnish to the Registrar a copy of the report. together with any comments relating to the report that he wishes to make. “(3) Where a report of the results of an investigation into a complaint that was referred to the Section under section 89 is furnished to the Commissioner under sub-section (1 ), the Commissioner shall advise the complainant of the result of the investigation and shall, unless it is impracticable to do so, furnish a report of the investigation to the complainant at the same time as he complies with paragraph (2) (a) in respect of the investigation. “94. ( 1 ) Where the Commissioner receives a report of the results of an investigation of a complaint by the Internal Discipline Section, the Commissioner shall consider the report and if, as a result of his consideration, he is of the opinion that a police officer may have committed an offence or a breach of discipline and that, in the circumstances, he would be justified in doing so, he shall cause the police officer to be charged with that offence or breach of discipline or with some other offence or breach of discipline the Commissioner considers to be appropriate. “(2) Without limiting the application of sub-section ( 1 ), where the Ombudsman brings information to the notice of the Commissioner in accordance with section 103 the Commissioner shall-
  3. if the Ombudsman recommends that a police officer be charged with an offence or a breach of disciplinecause the police officer to be charged with that offence or breach of discipline or with some other offence or breach of discipline that the Commissioner considers to be appropriate; or
  4. if the Ombudsman does not so recommendconsiders the information and all other relevant circumstances and, if he considers that he would be justified in doing so, cause the police officer concerned to be charged with an offence or breach of discipline that the Commissioner considers to be appropriate. “(3) This section does not prevent a police officer from being charged with an offence or breach of discipline otherwise than in accordance with this section but a police officer shall not be charged with the same offence or breach of discipline-
  5. both in accordance with sub-section (1) and in accordance with sub-section (2 ); or
  6. both in accordance with this section and otherwise than in accordance with this section. “(4) Where the Commissioner, after considering in accordance with paragraph (2) (b) information that has been brought to his notice by the Ombudsman, decides that a police officer should not be charged with an offence or breach of discipline, the Commissioner shall furnish to the Ombudsman, in writing, his reasons for so deciding. “(5) Where a police officer is charged with an offence or with a breach of discipline in accordance with sub-section ( 1) or (2), the Commissioner shall notify the Ombudsman, in writing, that the police officer has been so charged and furnish to the Ombudsman any comments that he wishes to make in relation to the charge. “(6) Where a police officer is charged with an offence or breach of discipline as a result of the investigation of a complaint referred to the Section under section 89, the Commissioner shall, unless it is impracticable to do so, at the same time as he complies with sub-section (5), notify the complainant, in writing, that the police officer has been so charged and furnish to the complainant any comments he wishes to make in relation to the charge. “(7) Where a police officer is charged with an offence or breach of discipline as the result of an investigation of a matter referred to the Section at the request of the Tribunal, the Commissioner shall notify the Registrar that the police officer has been so charged and furnish to the Registrar any comments that he wishes to make in relation to the charge. “95. (1 ) The officer in charge of the Internal Discipline Section shall maintain a register containing the prescribed particulars with respect to each complaint or other matter that is referred to the Section for investigation. “(2) The Minister shall include in each annual report prepared by him in accordance with section 145 the prescribed particulars with respect to complaints and other matters so referred, during the year to which the report relates. “96. ( 1 ) Subject to this section, a person who is, or has been, a member of the Internal Discipline Section shall not, either directly or indirectly, and either while he is, or after he has ceased to be, such a member, except in the performance of his duty as such a member or with the consent, in writing, of the Minister, make a record of, or divulge or communicate to a person, information acquired by him in the course of, or for the purposes of, an investigation of a complaint or other matter referred to the Section for investigation.

Penalty: $500 or imprisonment for 6 months. “(2) Where a person who has been authorized under paragraph 91 ( 1) (a) to make an investigation on behalf of the Section acquires information in the course of, or for the purposes of, that investigation, sub-section ( 1 ) applies to him in relation to that information as if he had been a member of the Section when he acquired the information. “(3) Subject to sub-section (6), a person who is, or has been, a police officer shall not, either directly or indirectly and either while he is, or after he has ceased to be, a police officer- ‘

  1. divulge or communicate to a person the fact that, in the course of, or for the purposes of, the investigation of a complaint or matter by the Section-

    1. he made a statement to, gave information to or answered a question by a member of the Section; or
    2. made a document or record available by a member of the Section; or

  2. make a record of, or divulge or communicate to a person-

    1. information that he gave to a member of the Section in the course of or for the purposes of the investigation of a complaint or matter by the Section; or
    2. the contents of a document or record that he made available to the Section for the purposes of such an investigation, except with the consent, in writing, of the Minister or in connection with proceedings (including proceedings in respect of a breach of discipline) against a person (including himself).

Penalty: $500 or imprisonment for 6 months. “(4) Sub-section ( 1 ) or (3) does not-

  1. prevent a person who is, or has been, a member of the Section from disclosing, in a report made under this Division, such matters as, in his opinion, ought to be disclosed in the course of setting out the grounds for the conclusions contained in the report; or
  2. prevent a person who is, or has been, such a member or a police officer from producing a record referred to in sub-section (1 ) to, or giving information so referred to in evidence before, a court, the Tribunal, or a person who is authorized to hear and determine a charge in respect of a breach of discipline. “(5) The references in sub-section (3) to a member of the Section include references to a police officer or person authorized under section 91 and the reference in that sub-section to an investigation include a reference to an investigation made by such a person under that section on behalf of the Section. “(6) Sub-section (1) or (3) does not prevent a police officer from making a communication for the purposes of, or in connection with, the making of a complaint to the Ombudsman or to the Commissioner in respect of action taken by a police officer in the course of, or for the purposes of, an investigation by a member of the Section or by a police officer or person authorized under section 91 to make an investigation on behalf of the Section. “(7) This section does not affect the operation of section 9 of the Ombudsman Act 1 976 in relation to a police officer.

“DIVISIONIII-INVESTIGATIONS BY THE OMBUDSMAN OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS

“97.(1) This Division shall be incorporated and read as one with the Ombudsman Act 1 976. “(2) Subject to this Division a reference to the Ombudsman Act 1 976 in a provision of that Act that is specified in Schedule 2 shall be read without taking into account the effect of sub-section ( 1 ). “(3) Section 1 1 of the Ombudsman Act 1976 does not apply to a complaint under this Division. “98.(1) In this Division, unless the contrary intention appears, ‘complaint’ means a complaint that has been notified to the Ombudsman under section 89 or made to the Ombudsman under section 100. “(2 ) Sub-sections 83 (1 ) and 83 (2 ) apply in relation to this Division as they apply in relation to Division II. “99. (1 ) Where the Ombudsman becomes of the opinion, either while he is investigating, or upon completing his investigation of, a complaint that appears to him to be a complaint in respect of action taken by the Police Force, that it would be more appropriate to deal with the complaint under this Part as if it were a complaint in respect of action taken by a police officer, the Ombudsman may determine that this

Division applies, and shall be deemed always to have applied, to that complaint and, upon the making of the determination, Part II of the Ombudsman Act 1976 does not apply, and shall be deemed never to have applied, to that complaint. “(2) Where the Ombudsman becomes of the the opinion, either while he is investigating, or upon completing his investigation of, a complaint that appears to him to be a complaint concerning action taken by a police officer, that it would be more appropriate to deal with the complaint under Part II of the Ombudsman Act 1976 as if it were a complaint in respect of action taken by the Police Force, the Ombudsman may determine that that Part applies, and shall be deemed always to have applied, to the complaint, and, upon the making of the determination, this Division does not apply, and shall be deemed never to have applied, to that complaint. “(3) Where a determination is made under sub-section (1 ) or (2 ) in respect of a complaint, any action taken by the Ombudsman in relation to the complaint before the making of the determination shall be deemed to have been taken under this Division or under Part II of the Ombudsman Act 1976, respectively. “(4) In this Division a reference to a complaint includes a reference to a complaint determined by the Ombudsman under sub-section (1) to be a complaint to which this Division applies and does not include a reference to a complaint determined by the Ombudsman under sub-section (2) to be a complaint to which Part II of the Ombudsman Act 1 976 applies. “ 100. ( 1 ) A person (including a police officer) may complain to the Ombudsman concerning action taken by a police officer, whether before or after the commencement of this section, not being action with respect to the employment of police officers generally or to the employment of a particular police officer. “(2 ) Sub-section ( 1 ) applies whether-

  1. the identity of the police officer is known by, or disclosed to, the Ombudsman; or
  2. the action relates to a matter of administration or to some other matter. “(3) In sub-section ( 1 )-
  3. the reference to action taken with respect to the employment of police officers generally includes a reference to action taken with respect to the promotion, termination of appointment or discipline of, or the payment of remuneration to, police officers generally; and
  4. the reference to action taken with respect to the employment of a particular police officer includes a reference to action taken with respect to the promotion of, or the payment of remuneration to, the particular police officer but does not include a reference to action taken with respect to a breach of discipline committed, or alleged to have been committed, by the particular police officer. “(4) Section 7 of the Ombudsman Act 1976 applies to a complaint under sub-section (1 ) as if references in that section to a complaint under that Act were references to a complaint under sub-section ( 1 ). “ 101. (I) Where a complaint is made to the Ombudsman under section 100 with respect to action taken by a police officer, the Ombudsman may, if he considers that it would be in the public interests to do so, refer the complaint, or a matter relating to the complaint, to the Commissioner for investigation by the Internal Discipline Section. “(2) The Ombudsman may, after considering a report of the investigation, refer the complaint, or a matter relating to the complaint, to the Commissioner for further investigation by the Section. “(3) The Ombudsman may, after considering a report of the investigation or of the further investigation-
  5. make any further investigation into the action taken by the police officer that he thinks appropriate; or
  6. treat the investigation, or the investigation and further investigation, by the Section, for the purposes of this Division, as constituting, or as constituting part of, his investigation of the action taken by the police officer or as concluding his investigation of that action. “ 102. ( 1 ) Subject to this Division, the Ombudsman-
  7. shall investigate action taken by a police officer in respect of which a complaint has been made to him under section 100; or
  8. b ) may investigate action taken by a police officer in respect of which a complaint has been notified to him under section 89. “(2) The Ombudsman may, in his discretion, decide not to investigate action taken by a police officer to which a complaint relates or, if he has commenced to investigate the action, decide not to investigate the action further-
  9. if the Ombudsman is satisfied that the complainant became aware of the action more than 12 months before the complaint was made and that his declining to investigate the action, or to investigate the action further, would not cause undue hardship to the complainant;

  10. if the Ombudsman is satisfied that-

    1. the complaint is frivolous or vexatious or was not made in good faith; or
    2. the complainant does not have a real concern in the subject matter of the complaint and there are no special reasons justifying the investigation, or further investigation, of the action; or
  11. if, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, the investigation, or further investigation, of the action is unnecessary having regard to all the circumstances of the case. “(3)Where-
  12. a complainant has exercised a right to cause action to which his complaint relates to be reviewed by a court or by a tribunal constituted by or under an Act; or
  13. a person has been prosecuted in relation to the complaint, the Ombudsman shall not investigate, or continue to investigate, as the case may be, the action unless the Ombudsman is of the opinion that it would be in the public interest to do so. “(4) Where the Ombudsman is of the opinion that a complainant has or had a right to cause the action to which his complaint relates to be reviewed by a court or by a tribunal constituted by or under a law but has not exercised that right, the Ombudsman shall not investigate, or continue to investigate, as the case may be, the action unless the Ombudsman is of the opinion that-
  14. it is in the public interest to do so; or
  15. in all the circumstances, the failure to exercise the right is not or was not unreasonable. “(5) Subject to sub-section (6), the Ombudsman shall not investigate, or continue to investigate, action to which a complaint relates while the action is being investigated, or while a matter relating to the action is being investigated, by the Internal Discipline Section. “(6)Where-
  16. ) the action to which a complaint relates-

  17. ) concerns a police officer who is equal or senior in rank to the officer in charge of the Section;

    1. concerns a member of the Section; or
    2. is related to other action that the Ombudsman is investigating under the Ombudsman Act 1976; or
  18. the Ombudsman is of the opinion that it is in the public interest that he should investigate the action to which a complaint relates, he may investigate the action notwithstanding that the action is being investigated by the Section. “ 103. The provisions of sub-sections 8 (2) to 8 (9) (inclusive) and sections 9, 13 and 14 of the Ombudsman Act 1976 apply to and in relation to an investigation by the Ombudsman of action taken by a police officer as if references in those provisions to that Act were references to this Division. “ 104. ( 1 ) The Ombudsman may, whether before or after completing his investigation of action to which a complaint relates, bring to the notice of the Commissioner any information acquired by him in connection with the investigation which he thinks should be brought to the notice of the Commissioner. “(2) Without limiting the generality of sub-section (1), where the Ombudsman becomes of the opinion, whether before or after completing an investigation referred to in that sub-section, that information acquired by him in connection with the investigation shows that a police officer may have committed an offence or a breach of discipline and that the information is, in all the circumstances, such as to justify his doing so, the Ombudsman shall bring the information to the notice of the Commissioner and may recommend to the Commissioner that the officer be charged with that offence or breach of discipline. “105.(1) Where the Ombudsman becomes of the opinion, whether before or after completing his investigation of action to which a complaint relates, that, having regard to all the circumstances, the complaint may properly be dealt with by attempting to reconcile the complainant and the police officer concerned, the Ombudsman may make such suggestions, and do such things, as appear to him to be appropriate for effecting a reconciliation between the complainant and the police officer. “(2) Without limiting the generality of sub-section (I), the Ombudsman may make either or both of the following suggestions:
  19. a suggestion to the complainant that he take such reasonable action specified by the Ombudsman as would, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, assist in effecting a reconciliation;
  20. a suggestion to the Commissioner that the Commissioner, or the police officer concerned, take such reasonable action specified by the Ombudsman, or that the Commissioner and the police officer concerned each take such reasonable action specified by the Ombudsman, as would, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, assist in effecting a reconciliation. “(3) Sub-section ( 1 ) does not apply to a complaint concerning action taken by a police officer if the Ombudsman is of the opinion that information acquired by him in connection with the investigation of the action shows that a police officer may have committed an offence or a breach of discipline and that the information is, in all the circumstances, sufficient to justify his bringing the information to the notice of the Commissioner. “(4) Without limiting the powers of the Ombudsman in investigating action taken by a police officer, the Ombudsman may, for the purpose of attempting to reconcile a complainant and the police officer concerned-
  21. obtain from the Commissioner an explanation with respect to the policies, practices and procedures of the Police Force that the Ombudsman considers to be relevant; or
  22. request the complainant to do any or all of the following:

  23. to attend before him;

    1. to provide further information concerning the complaint; or
    2. to verify on oath or affirmation information furnished in connection with the complaint. “(5) Neither the complainant, the Commissioner nor the police officer concerned is bound to comply with a suggestion made under sub-section ( 1 ) or ( 2 ). “(6) Where, after dealing with a complaint in accordance with sub-section ( 1 ), the Ombudsman is satisfied that the complainant does not wish the action to which his complaint relates to be investigated further or any action, or further action, to be taken in respect of his complaint-
  24. the Ombudsman shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Division, to have effected a reconciliation between the complainant and the police officer concerned with respect to the matters to which the complaint relates;
  25. the Ombudsman shall notify the Commissioner in writing that he has effected the reconciliation;
  26. the Ombudsman is not required to investigate the action taken by the police officer further under this Division or to make any report (other than a report required under section 19 of the Ombudsman Act 1976) or do any other thing under this Division in relation to his investigation of that action; and
  27. if the Internal Discipline Section is dealing with the complainant, the Section shall cease to deal with it. “ 106. ( 1 ) Where a complaint is made to the Ombudsman under section 100 concerning action taken by a police officer and the Ombudsman does not, for any reason, investigate, or complete an investigation of, the action, the Ombudsman shall inform the complainant and the Commissioner accordingly in writing and furnish to the complainant and the Commissioner particulars of his reasons for not investigating, or completing the investigation of, the action. “(2) If the Ombudsman completes his investigation of the action, he shall furnish to the complainant and to the Commissioner particulars of the results of his investigation. “(3) For the purposes of sub-section (1), where the Ombudsman refers a complaint made to him under section 100, or a matter relating to such a complaint, to the Commissioner for investigation by the Internal Discipline Section, he shall be deemed to be investigating the action to which the complaint relates. “ 107. (1 ) Where, after the Ombudsman has completed his investigation of action taken by a police officer, the Ombudsman is of the opinion-
  28. that the police officer took action that, in all the circumstances, he should not have taken; and
  29. that the police officer did not, in taking that action, commit an offence or a breach of discipline, the Ombudsman shall report accordingly to the Commissioner and to the Minister. “(2) The Ombudsman-
  30. a ) shall include in the report his reasons for the opinions specified in the report; and
  31. b ) may also include in the report any recommendations he thinks fit to make. “(3) The Ombudsman may request the Commissioner to furnish to him, within a specified time, particulars of any action that the Commissioner proposes to take in consequence of the report. “(4) The Commissioner may furnish to the Ombudsman comments concerning the report. “(5) Where, within a reasonable time after the Ombudsman furnished the report to the Commissioner, action that is, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, adequate and appropriate in the circumstances has not been taken by the Commissioner in consequence of the report, the Ombudsman may inform the Prime Minister accordingly in writing and, if he does so, shall furnish to the Prime Minister a copy of the report and, if the Commissioner has furnished comments concerning the report of the Ombudsman under sub-section ( 4), a copy of those comments. “(6) In considering whether to furnish information in relation to the report to the Prime Minister in accordance with sub-section (5), the Ombudsman shall have regard to any comments furnished to him under sub-section (4) concerning the report. “(7) Where the Ombudsman has, in accordance with subsection (5), furnished information to the Prime Minister in relation to a report, the Ombudsman may also forward to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, for presentation to the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively, copies of a statement prepared by him concerning the investigation and setting out a copy of any comments furnished to him under sub-section (4) concerning the report. “(8) Where the Ombudsman takes action as provided by sub-section (7), he shall send a copy of the statement and comments (if any) to the complainant to whom the report relates. “ 108. ( 1 ) The Ombudsman shall establish and maintain a register containing the prescribed particulars of, or relating to, complaints. “(2) The Ombudsman shall include in each report referred to in paragraph 19(1) (a) of the Ombudsman Act 1976 the prescribed particulars with respect to complaints that were notified or made to him, or were investigated by him, during the year to which the report relates.

“DIVISIONIV-THE POLICE TRIBUNAL

“Sub-Division 1- Preliminary “ 109. ( 1 ) In this Division, unless the contrary intention appears- ‘judicial office’ means-

  1. an office of judge of a Federal Court or of the Supreme Court of a Territory; or
  2. an office the holder of which has, by virtue of an Act, the same status as a judge referred to in paragraph (a); member’ means the President, a Deputy President or other member of the Tribunal. “(2) For the purposes of this Division, an office of Justice of the Peace shall be taken not to be an office of Magistrate. “(3) In this Part, unless the contrary intention appears, a reference to a proceeding before the Tribunal is a reference to-
  3. a proceeding in respect of a charge referred to the Tribunal under section 122;
  4. an appeal to the Tribunal undersection 123; or
  5. an inquiry by the Tribunal into a matter referred by the Minister to the Tribunal under section 125. “Sub-Division 2- Establishment of Police Tribunal “ 1 10. There is hereby established a Tribunal to be known as the Police Tribunal. “111. ( 1 ) The Tribunal shall consist of a President and such Deputy Presidents and other members as are appointed in accordance with this section. “(2) A member shall be appointed by the GovernorGeneral in Council. “(3) The Deputy Presidents and other members have seniority as Deputy Presidents or other members, respectively, according to the dates of their appointments. “(4) A member is not required by this Division to devote the whole of his time to his duties as a member. “112. (1) A person is not qualified to be appointed as President unless he is the holder of a j udicial office. “(2) A person is not qualified to be appointed as a Deputy President unless-
  6. he is the holder of ajudicial office; or
  7. he is a Deputy President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. “(3) A person is not qualified to be appointed as a member other than President or a Deputy President unless-
  8. he is a magistrate of a Territory; or
  9. he has been, for a period of not less than 5 years, a legal practitioner. “ 1 13. ( 1 ) The appointment of a person as a member, or the service of a person as a member, does not affect his tenure of ajudicial office or office under an Act or his rank, title, status, precedence, salary, annual or other allowances or other rights or privileges as the holder of a judicial office or office under an Act and, for all purposes, his service as a member of the Tribunal shall be taken to be service as the holder of his judicial office or other office. “(2) In this section, ‘judicial office’ includes an office of magistrate in a Territory. “114. Subject to this Division, a member holds office for such period, not exceeding 7 years, and on such terms and conditions, as are specified in the instrument of his appointment but is eligible for re-appointment. “115. ( 1 ) A member, not being the holder of a judicial office, shall be paid such remuneration as the Remuneration Tribunal determines but, if no determination of that remuneration by that Tribunal is in operation, he shall be paid such remuneration as is prescribed. “(2) A member shall be paid such allowances as are prescribed. “(3) This section has effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973. “(4) In this section, ‘judicial office’ includes an office of magistrate in a Territory. “116. (1 ) The Minister may appoint the holder of a judicial office to act as President during any period, or during all periods, when the President is unavailable to perform the duties of his office or during a vacancy in the office of President. “(2) Where a member other than the President is, or is expected to be, unavailable to perform the duties of his office, the Governor-General in Council may appoint a person qualified to be appointed to that office to act as the holder of that office during the period for which the member is so unavailable. “(3) Where a person has been appointed under subsection (1 ) or (2 ), the Governor-General in Council may, by reason of a pending proceeding or other special circumstances, direct, before the unavailable member ceases to be unavailable, that the person so appointed shall continue to act under the appointment after the member ceases to be unavailable and until the Governor-General in Council terminates the appointment but a person shall not continue to act by virtue of this sub-section for more than 12 months after the member ceases to be unavailable. “(4) Where a person has been appointed under this section to act as a member during the unavailability of a member and the member ceases to hold office without having become available to perform the duties of his office, the period of appointment of the person so appointed continues, subject to this Division, until it is terminated by the Governor-General in Council or until the expiration of 12 months from the day on which the unavailable member ceases to hold office, whichever first happens. “(5) A person acting as the President, as a Deputy President or as another member shall act in that capacity on such terms and conditions as the Governor-General in Council determines. “(6) A person acting as the President, as a Deputy President or as another member has all the powers and duties, and shall perform all the functions, conferred or imposed by this Division on the President, on a Deputy President or on another member, respectively, and, for the purpose of the exercise of those powers or duties, or the performance of those functions, this Division has effect as if a reference to the President, a Deputy President or other member included a reference to a person acting as the President, as a Deputy President or as another member, respectively. “(7) Where-
  10. the Tribunal as constituted for the purposes of a proceeding consists of a person acting or purporting to be appointed under this section; or
  11. a person so acting or purporting to be appointed has done any act, the validity of any decision of, or of any direction given or other act done by, the Tribunal as so constituted, or of the act done by the person so acting or purporting to be appointed, shall not be called in question in any proceeding on the ground that the occasion for the person to act or for the appointment of the person had not arisen, that the occasion for his appointment had ceased or that his appointment had ceased to have effect. “117. ( 1 ) Where the President no longer holds judicial office, the Governor-General in Council may terminate his appointment. “(2) The termination of the appointment of a President under sub-section (1 ) does not prevent his reappointment as a Deputy President. “(3) The President shall not be removed from office except as provided by this section. “118. ( 1 ) Where a Deputy President no longer holds ajudicial office or the office of Deputy President of the Ad ministrative Appeals Tribunal, the Governor-General in Council may terminate his appointment. “(2 ) A Deputy President shall not be removed from office except as provided by this section. “ 1 19. ( 1 ) This section applies to a member other than the President or a Deputy President. “(2) The Governor-General in Council may remove from office a member to whom this section applies on an address praying for his removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity being presented to the Governor-General in Council by each House of the Parliament in the same session of the Parliament. “(3) The Governor-General in Council may suspend such a member from office on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. “(4) Where the Governor-General in Council suspends a member from office under sub-section (3), the Minister shall cause a statement of the grounds of the suspension to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 7 sitting days of that House after the suspension. “(5) Where such a statement has been laid before a House of the Parliament, that House may, within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which the statement has been laid before it, by resolution, declare that the member should be removed from office and, if each House so passes such a resolution, the Governor-General in Council shall remove the member from office. “(6) If, at the expiration of 15 sitting days of a House of the Parliament after the day on which the statement has been laid before that House, that House has not passed such a resolution, the suspension terminates. “(7) The suspension of a member from office under this section does not affect any entitlement of the member to be paid remuneration and allowances. “(8) If a member to whom this section applies becomes bankrupt, or if the affairs of such a member are being dealt with under Part X of the Bankruptcy Act 1966, the Governor-General in Council shall terminate his appointment. “(9) If a member to whom this section applies ceases to possess the qualifications necessary for his appointment, the Governor-General in Council shall terminate his appointment. “( 10) A member to whom this section applies shall not be removed or suspended from office except as provided by this section. “ 120. A member may resign his office by writing under his hand delivered to the Governor-General in Council but the resignation does not have effect until it is accepted by the Governor-General in Council. “Sub-Division 3- Staff of Tribunal “121. (1) There shall be a Registrar of the Tribunal and such Deputy Registrars of the Tribunal as are appointed in accordance with this section. “(2) The Registrar and the Deputy Registrars shall be appointed by the Minister and have such duties and functions as are provided by this Division and by the regulations and such other duties and functions as the President directs. “(3) The Registrar and the Deputy Registrars, and the staff necessary to assist them, shall be persons appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1 922. “Sub-Division 4- Constitution and Powers of Tribunal “ 122. (1 ) The President may give directions as to the arrangement of the business of the Tribunal and as to the person who is to constitute the Tribunal for the purposes of a particular proceeding. “(2) The President may, either generally or as otherwise provided by the instrument of delegation, by writing signed by him, delegate all or any of his powers under sub-section ( 1 ) to a Deputy President. “(3) A delegation under sub-section (2) is revocable at will and does not prevent the exercise of a power by the President. “(4) Sittings of the Tribunal for the purposes of a particular proceeding shall be held at such places and times as are determined by the member who constitutes the Tribunal for the purposes of the proceeding. “ 123. ( 1 ) The Tribunal shall, for the purpose of the exercise of its powers in relation to a matter, be constituted by one member. “(2 ) The Tribunal constituted by one member may sit and exercise the powers of the Tribunal notwithstanding that the Tribunal constituted by another member is at the same time sitting and exercising the powers of the Tribunal. “124. ( 1 ) Where a police officer is charged with a breach of discipline-
  12. in pursuance of a recommendation of the Ombudsman; or
  13. as a result of an investigation made by the Internal Discipline Section into a complaint referred to the Section under Division II, the Commissioner shall refer the charge to the Tribunal for hearing and determination by causing a copy of the charge to be forwarded to the Registrar. “(2) Where a police officer who is charged with a breach of discipline, otherwise than as mentioned in sub-section ( 1 ), does not admit the truth of the matters alleged to constitute the breach, the Commissioner shall-
  14. if the police officer requests him to do so; or
  15. if the Commissioner considers that it would be desirable in the circumstances to do so, refer the charge to the Tribunal for hearing and determination by causing a copy of the charge to be forwarded to the Registrar. “(3) The Tribunal shall hear and determine the charge and, if the Tribunal determines that the charge has been proved, the Tribunal may direct that the Commissioner-
  16. a ) caution or reprimand the police officer;
  17. b ) fine the police officer an amount not exceeding $200;
  18. change the place at which the police officer is to perform his dunes;
  19. d ) reduce the police officer to a lower rank; or
  20. reduce the rate of salary of the police officer to a lower rate of salary within the limits of salary fixed for the rank held by the police officer, or may recommend to the Minister that the police officer be dismissed from the Police Force. “(4) The Commissioner shall give effect to a direction of the Tribunal under sub-section (3). “(5) Paragraph 3(c) does not affect the power of the Commissioner to determine the place at which a police officer is to perform his duties. “125.(1) Where a police officer is charged with a breach of discipline and the Commissioner decides to take action of a kind referred to in sub-section 122 (3) or to recommend to the Minister that the police officer be dismissed from the Police Force-
  21. the Commissioner shall cause the police officer to be notified accordingly and to be furnished, with his reasons for his decisions, his findings on material questions of fact and a reference to the evidence or other material on which those findings are based; and
  22. the police officer may appeal to the Tribunal against the decision. “(2) An appeal to the Tribunal under paragraph 1 (b)-
  23. a ) shall be in writing;
  24. b) shall set out the grounds upon which it is made; and
  25. shall be lodged with the Registrar of the Tribunal within 28 days after the day on which the notification referred to in paragraph (l)(a) is furnished to the police officer. “(3) The appeal may be made on one or more of the following grounds-
  26. a ) that the charge should have been dismissed;
  27. that the action taken in respect of the charge is unduly severe; or
  28. that the action taken in respect of the charge is not authorized by law. “(4) The tribunal constituted by the President or by a Deputy President shall hear and determine the appeal and may-
  29. a ) affirm the decision under appeal;
  30. vary the decision under appeal; or
  31. set aside the decision under appeal and substitute for it a decision, including a decision dismissing the charge, that could have been made by the Commissioner in dealing with the charge. “(5) Where the Tribunal varies the decision under appeal, or substitutes its decision for the decision under appeal, the Commissioner shall give effect to the determination of the Tribunal as if it were his decision. “ 126. ( 1 ) The Tribunal may, at any time during the hearing by it of a charge under section 1 24, or of an appeal under section 125, recommend to the Commissioner that the police officer concerned, if he is not at that time suspended from duty, be so suspended pending the determination of the charge or of the appeal and, where the Tribunal so recommends, the Commissioner shall suspend the police officer from duty accordingly. “(2) The officer is entitled to be paid salary during the period of his suspension. “(3) The Tribunal may, at any time during or after the hearing, recommend to the Commissioner that the suspension be removed and, where the Tribunal so recommends, the Commissioner shall remove the suspension. “ 127. (1 ) The Tribunal may inquire into a matter relating to the Police Force that is referred to it by the Minister. “(2) If the Minister so directs, the Tribunal shall be constituted, for the purposes of the inquiry, by the President or by a Deputy President. “(3) The Minister may arrange for counsel to be engaged to assist the Tribunal in connection with the inquiry. “(4) Where the Tribunal is not assisted by counsel, the Commissioner shall, if he is requested by the Tribunal to do so, arrange for a member of the Internal Discipline Section, or for an appropriate police officer other than such a member, to assist the Tribunal in connection with the inquiry. “(5) Upon completing its inquiry, the Tribunal shall report to the Minister the results of the inquiry. “ 128. The Tribunal may, at any time during the hearing of a proceeding, refer a matter relevant to the proceeding to the Commissioner for investigation by the Internal Discipline Section and, where it does so, the Commissioner shall cause the Section to investigate the matter. “ 129. ( 1 ) Where, after a complaint has been made or referred to the Ombudsman concerning action taken by a police officer, a charge of breach of discipline is referred to theTribunal for hearing and determination, the complainant may, by leave of the Tribunal, appear before the Tribunal on the hearing of the charge. “(2) The Registrar shall, unless it is impracticable to do so, notify the complainant of the time and place at which the Tribunal will sit to hear the charge and that he is entitled to seek leave of the Tribunal to appear upon the hearing of the charge. “(3) The complainant may, if the Tribunal grants him leave to appear-
  32. appear in person, by a legal practitioner or by some other person; and
  33. b ) take such part only in the proceeding as the Tribunal permits. “(4)Where-
  34. the complainant complained to a police officer- the Commissioner; or
  35. the complainant complained to the Ombudsmanthe Ombudsman, shall, as soon as practicable after the Tribunal has given its decision with respect to the charge, and subject to any direction of the Tribunal prohibiting or restricting the disclosure of the decision, cause particulars of the decision to be furnished to the complainant, in writing, unless the complainant or his representative was present before the Tribunal when it gave its decision. “(5) The fact that a police officer has been charged, in connection with action taken by him, with an offence against a law does not prevent the institution, or the continuance, of proceedings before the Tribunal relating to that action. “ ( 6 ) A complainant who-
  36. has appeared, by leave of a Tribunal, on the hearing of a charge by the Tribunal; and
  37. has paid, or has become liable to pay, costs or expenses in connection with the proceedings before the Tribunal, may apply to the Attorney-General for financial assistance by the Commonwealth in respect of those costs or expenses. “(7) The Attorney-General may, if he is satisfied that it would involve hardship to the complainant to refuse the application and that, in all the circumstances, it is reasonable that the application should be granted, authorise payment by the Commonwealth to or on behalf of the complainant in respect of those costs and expenses of such amount as he determines or of such amounts as he, from time to time, determines. “(8) Sub-section (6) or (7) does not authorise a payment in respect of fees of more than 1 counsel unless 2 or more counsel appeared for the police officer. “(9) Where the Attorney-General authorises a payment as provided by sub-section (7), he may, upon application being made to him by the police officer concerned, authorise payment by the Commonwealth to or on behalf of the police officer of such amount as the Attorney-General from time to time determines in respect of the costs and expenses of the police officer in connection with the proceedings before the Tribunal. “ 1 30. ( 1 ) For the purpose of this Division the Tribunal-
  38. may take evidence on oath or affirmation;
  39. b ) may proceed in the absence of a person entitled to be present if the person has had reasonable notice of the proceeding; and
  40. may adjourn a proceeding before the Tribunal from time to time. “(2 ) Where a person who is, under the regulations, a party to a proceeding before the Tribunal requests a member to do so, the member may summon a person to appear before the Tribunal at the hearing of the proceeding to give evidence and to produce such documents (if any) as are referred to in the summons. “131.(1) Where a person who has been summoned to attend before the Tribunal as a witness in an inquiry under section 126 fails to attend as required by the summons, the member constituting the Tribunal may, upon being satisfied that the summons has been duly served and that reasonable expenses have been paid or tendered to the person, issue a warrant for the apprehension of the person. “(2) The warrant authorises any member of the Australian Federal Police or the police force of a State or Territory or a Commonwealth officer named in the warrant to apprehend the person and bring him before the Tribunal and, for that purpose, to detain him in custody until he is released by order of the Tribunal. “(3 ) The apprehension of a person under this section does not relieve him from any liability incurred by him by reason of his failure to attend before the Tribunal. “ 132. (1 ) Subject to sub-section (2), the hearing of a proceeding before the Tribunal shall be in public. “(2) Where the Tribunal is satisfied that it is desirable to do so in the public interest or by reason of the confidential nature of any evidence or matter, the Tribunal may-
  41. direct that the hearing, or a part of the hearing, shall take place in private and give directions as to the persons who may be present; and

  42. give directions restricting or prohibiting the publication or disclosure-

    1. of evidence given before the Tribunal, whether in public or in private;
    2. of any matters contained in documents lodged with the Tribunal or received in evidence by the Tribunal; or
    3. of any finding or decision of the Tribunal in relation to the proceeding. “(3) A person shall not contravene or fail to comply witha direction under this section that is applicable to him.

Penalty: $500 or imprisonment for 6 months. “ 133. At the hearing of a proceeding before the Tribunal, a person who is, under the regulations, a party to the proceeding may appear in person or may be represented by a legal practitioner or by some other person. “134. (1) In a proceeding before the Tribunal, the procedure of the Tribunal is, subject to this Division and to the regulations, within the discretion of the Tribunal. “(2) A proceeding before the Tribunal shall be conducted with as little formality and technicality and with as much expenditure as the requirements of this Division and a proper consideration of the matter before the Tribunal permit. “(3) The Tribunal is not bound by any rules of evidence but may inform itself on any matter in such manner us it thinks appropriate. “(4) The regulations may make provision, not inconsistent with this Division, for or in relation to-

  1. the practice and procedure of the Tribunal;
  2. the persons who are to be regarded as parties to a proceeding before the Tribunal, not being a proceeding by way of inquiry into a matter referred to the Tribunal under section 127;
  3. the appointment of the Commissioner, or of another police officer nominated by the Commissioner, to assist the Tribunal in connection with a proceeding before the Tribunal by furnishing advice to the Tribunal with respect to the nature of the action that it would be appropriate to take in respect of a police officer found by the Tribunal to have committed a breach of discipline;
  4. the stay of proceedings before, or of a decision of, the Tribunal; and
  5. subject to sub-section (3), the payment of costs and expenses in respect of proceedings before the Tribunal and the assessment of those costs and expenses. “(3) Paragraph (2) (c)does not authorize the making of a regulation empowering the Tribunal to order a complainant who has been given leave to appear before the Tribunal to pay any costs or expenses of any other party to that proceeding. “(4) Subject to section 132, the Tribunal shall, in a proceeding before it by way of the hearing and determination of a charge referred to it under section 124 or an appeal made to it under section 125, give reasons in writing for its decision and those reasons shall include its findings on material questions of fact and a reference to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based. “(5) The Tribunal shall cause a copy of its decision and reasons to be furnished to each person who is, under the regulations, a party to the proceeding. “ 135. ( 1 ) A member has, in the performance of his duty as a member, the same protection and immunity as a Justice of the High Court. “(2 ) A legal practitioner or other person appearing before the Tribunal has the same protection and immunity as a barrister has in appearing for a party in proceedings in the High Court. “(3) Subject to this Division, a person summoned to attend or appearing before the Tribunal as a witness has the same protection, and is, in addition to the penalties provided by this Division, subject to the same liabilities, as a witness in proceedings in the High Court. “Sub-Division 5- Appeals to Federal Court of Australia “136. In this Sub-Division, unless the contrary intention appears-
  6. a reference to a proceeding before the Tribunal does not include a reference to a proceeding by way of inquiry into a matter referred to the Tribunal under section 127;
  7. a reference to a question of law does not include a reference to the question whether there was sufficient evidence to justify a finding of fact by the Tribunal; and
  8. a reference to the Court is a reference to the Federal Court of Australia. “ 137. ( 1 ) A person who was a party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may appeal to the Court, on a question of law, from a decision of the Tribunal in that proceeding. “(2 ) The appeal shall be instituted-
  9. within 28 days after the day on which a document setting out the terms of the decision of the Tribunal was furnished to the person or within such further time as the Court, whether before or after the expiration of that period allows; and
  10. in accordance with any applicable Rules of Court in force under the Federal Court of Australia Act 1 976. “(3) The Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal and that jurisdiction shall be exercised by the Court constituted as a Full Court. “(4) The Court shall, in determining the appeal, make such order as it thinks appropriate. “(5 ) Without limiting by implication the generality of subsection (4), the orders that may be made by the Court on the appeal include an order affirming or setting aside the decision of the Tribunal and an order remitting the proceeding to be heard and determined again, either with or without the hearing of further evidence, by the Tribunal and in accordance with any directions of the Court. “(6) The institution of the appeal does not affect the operation of the decision of the Tribunal or prevent the taking of action to implement the decision but the Court may, on such conditions (if any) as it thinks fit-
  11. a ) suspend the operation of the decision; or
  12. b ) stay all or any action under the decision. “(7) For the purposes of sub-section (6), the Court may be constituted by a single Judge. “138. (1 ) The Tribunal may, of its own motion or, if it thinks fit, on the application of a party to a proceeding before the Tribunal, refer a question of law arising in that proceeding for determination by the Court but, in the case of a proceeding before the Tribunal constituted by a member other than the President, a question shall not be so referred without the concurrence of the President. “(2) The Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the question of law and that jurisdiction shall be exercised by the Court constituted as a Full Court. “(3) Where a question of law arising in a proceeding before the Tribunal has been referred to the Court under subsection ( 1 ), the Tribunal shall not, in that proceeding-
  13. a ) give a decision to which the question is relevant while the reference is pending; or
  14. b) proceed in a manner, or give a decision, that is inconsistent with the determination of the Court on the question. “ 139. (1 ) Where an appeal is instituted in the Court under section 1 37 or a question of law is referred to the Court under section 138-
  15. the Tribunal shall, notwithstanding any direction under section 132, cause to be sent to the Court all documents that were before the Tribunal in connection with the proceedings to which the appeal or reference relates; and
  16. at the conclusion of the appeal, the Court shall cause the documents to be returned to the Tribunal. “(2) If there is in force in respect of any of the documents a direction under section 132 restricting or prohibiting the disclosure of any matter contained in a document, the Court shall, subject to any order of the Court to the contrary, ensure that that matter is not disclosed to a person other than a member of the Court as constituted for the purposes of the appeal. “Sub-Division 6- General “ 140. A person served with a summons to appear as a witness before the Tribunal shall not, without reasonable excuse-
  17. fail to attend as required by the summons; or
  18. fail to appear and report himself from day to day unless excused, or released from further attendance, by the Tribunal.

Penalty: $500 or imprisonment for 6 months. “ 141. (1 ) A person appearing as a witness before the Tribunal shall not, without reasonable excuse, refuse or fail-

  1. to be sworn or to make an affirmation;
  2. to answer a question that he is required to answer by the Tribunal; or
  3. to produce a document that he was required to produce by a summons under this Act served on him as prescribed.

Penalty: $500 or imprisonment for 6 months. “(2) Subject to sub-section (3), it is a reasonable excuse for such a person to refuse or fail to answer a question or to produce a document if the answer to the question, or the document, may tend to prove that he has committed an offence against a law or, in the case of a police officer, that he has been guilty of a breach of discipline. “( 3 ) Where the Tribunal is inquiring into a matter that has been referred to it by the Minister under section 1 27, a person appearing before the Tribunal to give evidence or produce documents is not excused from answering a question or producing a document on the ground that the answer to the question, or the document, may tend to prove that he has committed an offence against a law or, in the case of a police officer, that he has been guilty of a breach of discipline. “(4) Evidence given or a document produced by a person upon an inquiry referred to in sub-section (3) is not admissible against him in any civil or criminal proceedings other than proceedings for an offence against this section or against section 35 or 36 ofthe Crimes Act 1914. “ 142. A person shall not-

  1. insult or disturb a member of the Tribunal in the exercise of his powers or functions as a member;
  2. b ) interrupt the proceedings of the Tribunal;
  3. create a disturbance in or near a. place where the Tribunal is sitting; or
  4. ) do any other act or thing that would, if the Tribunal were a court of record, constitute a contempt of that court.

Penalty: $500 or imprisonment for 6 months. “ 143. (1 ) The President shall, as soon as practicable after 30 June in each year, submit to the Minister, for presentation to the Parliament, a report of the operations of the Tribunal during that year. “(2) The Minister shall cause the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after its receipt by him. “(3) The first report under this section shall be submitted as soon as practicable after 30 June first occurring after the date of commencement of this Division and shall relate to the operations of the Tribunal during the period that commenced on that date and ended on that 30 June.

“DIVISION V-MISCELLANEOUS”

” 1 44. ( 1 ) A police officer who holds a rank declared by the regulations to be a rank to which this section applies shall, at all times when he is wearing his police uniform, wear on, or attached to, the front of his uniform-

  1. ) the badge of the Police Force; and
  2. his identification number.

Penalty: $500 or imprisonment for 6 months. “(2) A reference to a police officer who holds a rank includes a reference to a police officer who temporarily holds that rank. “(3) The Commissioner shall take such steps as are necessary to enable police officers to whom sub-section ( 1 ) applies to comply with that sub-section. “ 145. A police officer who is requested by a person to furnish to the person his name or the address of his place of duty; or both, and is informed by the person; or is otherwise aware, that the person is complaining, or proposes to complain, concerning action taken by that police officer-

  1. shall not refuse or fail to comply with the request;
  2. shall not furnish to the person a false name; and
  3. shall not furnish to the person as the address of his place of duty an address other than the full and correct address of his ordinary place of duty.

Penalty: $500 or imprisonment for 6 months. “ 146. (1) A person shall not, in or in connection with a complaint made to a police officer concerning action taken by a police officer or by the Police Force, furnish information, or make a statement, to the first-mentioned police - officer that he knows to be false or misleading in a material particular.

Penalty: $500 or imprisonment for 6 months. “(2) A person shall not be convicted of an offence against sub-section (1 ) unless the evidence that he knew the information or statement to be false or misleading in a material particular is corroborated by a peson other than a police officer.

“PART IX-TORTS COMMITTED BY POLICE OFFICERS

” 147. (1 ) The Commonwealth is liable in respect of a tort committed by a police officer in the performance or purported performance of his duties as such an officer in like manner as a person is liable in respect of a tort commited by his employee in the course of his employment, and shall, in respect of such a ton, be treated for all purposes as a joint tortfeasor with the police officer. “(2) In a claim by the Commonwealth for damages in respect of a ton, an act or omission of a police officer in the performance or purported performance of his duties as a police officer may be relied on as constituting contributory negligence by the Commonwealth if the act or omission could have been so relied on if it had been done by an employee of the Commonwealth in the course of his employment. “(3) The liability of the Commonwealth under subsection ( 1 ) does not extend to a liability to pay damages in the nature of punitive damages. “(4) Where damages or costs, other than damages in the nature of punitive damages, are, in proceedings with respect to a tort committed by a police officer in the performance or purported performance of his duties as such an officer, directed to be paid by the police officer, the Commonwealth may pay to the plaintiff the whole or a part of those damages or costs and may pay to the police officer any costs incurred by him in the proceedings and not recovered. “(5) Where a sum is laible to be paid by a police officer under a settlement agreed to by him of a claim that has, or might have, given rise to proceedings of the kind referred to in sub-section (4), the Commonwealth may pay the whole or a part of that sum. “(6) Where the Commonwealth-

  1. a ) pays to a plaintiff moneys by way of damages or costs in respect of a tort committed by a police officer. being moneys that the Commonwealth is liable to pay by reason of sub-section ( 1 );
  2. pays moneys in accordance wtih sub-section (4); or
  3. pays a sum in accordance with sub-section (5). the Commonwealth may recover, in a court of competent jurisdiction, contribution from the police officer in respect of the payment. “(7) In proceedings for contribution under sub-section (6), the amount of the contribution recoverable is such amount as the court finds to be just and equitable in all the circumstances. “(8 ) For the purposes of this section-
  4. a ) an act or omission of a police officer in the capacity of a constable, under whatever authority he was appointed as such, shall be deemed to have been done in the performance of his dunes as a police officer; and
  5. a reference to a plaintiff includes a reference to a defendant counter-claiming.”.
Mr McLeay:
Minister for Administrative Services · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I appreciate the cooperation of the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes). Likewise I will be very brief. The Government rejects the proposed new Parts. I refer honourable members to the second reading speech, which sets out the reasons. It states:

Two other matters relating to the police, that have been under consideration by the Government following reports thereon by the Law Reform Commission, deal with legislation relating to complaints against the police-

That includes the provisions for vicarious liability - and with legislation to regulate police procedures in criminal investigation. The Government anticipates being able to introduce legislation upon complaints procedure later in the year. The Government is currently reviewing the draft legislation tabled in the Parliament in 1977 relating to criminal investigation procedures. This will necessarily take some time to complete, including giving the Commissioner of the new Australian Federal Police the opportunity to comment on proposals upon it.

Proposed new Parts negatived.

Title.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I place on record that I think that the use of the word ‘Federal’ is improper. It compounds some of the difficulties we have created for citizens in knowing what it means. The word ‘Commonwealth’ should have been used. I believe that the use of the word ‘Federal’ is incorrect in this sense. The proposed new police force is not really a federation of anything. Perhaps the use of the word Federal’ rather than ‘Commonwealth’ has something to do with the present situation. Commonwealth’ is a good word. It ought to be used more frequently in Australian Acts.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 3068

QUESTION

BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS OF THE MINISTER FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRY

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

- Mr Acting Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 64 and with your indulgence, I would like to explain matters of a personal nature to the House.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The right honourable gentleman may proceed.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– As honourable members will know, a series of companies with which I am associated has been subject to investigation. The first investigation into the affairs of Reliance Investments Pty Ltd, Allan Walsh (Hornsby) Pty Ltd, Allan Walsh Pty Ltd, G. Beavan Pty Ltd and Sinclair Pastoral Co. Pty Ltd was instigated by me with the firm of chartered accountants, Messrs George Sinclair, Haylen & Co. Although bearing the name of my father, the firm is entirely independent of myself and my father, who is now deceased, the firm having acquired his chartered accountancy practice -

Mr Hurford:

– I take a point of order. I understand that Standing Order 64 relates to personal explanations. Am I correct? If so, can the Minister be asked to come directly to the point as to where and when he has been misrepresented.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:
Mr Dawkins:

– Come on, do not be biased.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Fremantle will come to order.

Mr Dawkins:

– You are biased.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Adelaide will resume his seat.

Mr Hurford:

– May I complete my point of order?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The honourable member may return to the matter directly. The honourable member for Fremantle will withdraw.

Mr Dawkins:

– I will not.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will withdraw or I will be required to deal with him.

Mr Dawkins:

– Deal with me.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I name the honourable member.

Motion (by Mr Howard) proposed:

That the honourable member for Fremantle be suspended from the service of the House.

Mr Sinclair:

– Perhaps the honourable member would like to change his mind. If he did so I am sure that the Treasurer would be happy to withdraw his motion.

Mr Dawkins:

– I will not withdraw.

Question put.

The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar)

AYES: 66

NOES: 27

Majority……. 39

In division-

AYES

NOES

Mr Keith Johnson- Good. Fascist!

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– If the honourable member for Burke does not contain himself he will be required to leave the chamber.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– By whose orders? More than half of the people of Burke sent me here to represent them. One member of the National Country Party cannot put me out. You are a fascist.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! The question is ‘That the honourable member for Fremantle be suspended from the service of the House.’

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask honourable members to maintain the decorum of the House.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– What decorum? None exists. You have destroyed it. Bully boys! You have the numbers. There is not an ounce of decency among the lot of you. You are fascists.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Fremantle is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours.

Mr Dawkins:

- Mr Acting Speaker -

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Fremantle will retire from the chamber.

Mr Dawkins:

– The self-ordained oligarchy of the National Country Party has had its day but the people will rule tomorrow!

The honourable member for Fremantle thereupon withdrew from the chamber.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-I name the honourable member for Burke.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– As far as I am concerned, you can call me any name you like. As far as this chamber is concerned, more than half the people in the federal division of Burke sent me here.

Motion (by Mr Howard) proposed:

That the honourable member for Burke be suspended from the service of the House.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– You can do what you like with me, but I will not leave this chamber under any circumstances. That is entirely up to that mob of fascists over there. I will not leave.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The question is:

That the honourable member for Burke be suspended from the service of the House.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Go for your life; I am not leaving.

Question put.

The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar)

AYES: 66

NOES: 26

Majority……. 40

In division-

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

The honourable member for Burke thereupon withdrew from the chamber.

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the House from making a full statement in relation to the subject of the personal explanation which he seeks to make and the honourable member for Adelaide equal time to respond to that statement from being granted.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion ( by Mr Hurford) proposed:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the House from making a full statement in relation to the subject of the personal explanation which he seeks to make and the member for Adelaide from being granted equal time to respond to that statement.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Is there a seconder to the motion?

Mr Morris:

– I second the motion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SINCLAIR:
NCP/NP

– If I might go back to the beginning and commence again -

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I raise a point of order. The motion just carried does not require any time limit on either the Minister for Primary Industry or the honourable member for Adelaide if the normal time is exceeded.

Mr Sinclair:

- Mr Acting Speaker, on the point of order, I draw your attention to the motion as moved by the honourable member for Adelaide and I suggest that that was the motion that the House just accepted.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-The point of order is not in conflict with the motion to which the House has agreed.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– As honourable members will know, a series of companies with which I am associated have been subject to investigation. The first investigation into the affairs of Reliance Investments Pty Ltd, Allan Walsh (Hornsby) Pty Ltd, Allan Walsh Pty Ltd, G. Beavan Pty Ltd, and Sinclair Pastoral Co. Pty Ltd was instigated by me with the firm of chartered accountants, Messrs George Sinclair, Haylen and Co. Although bearing in part the name of my father, the firm is entirely independent of myself and indeed of my late father, the firm having acquired his chartered accountancy practice some years before his death. This investigation was initiated at my request following the report to me of some irregularities in the accounts by the firm Messrs George Sinclair, Haylen and Co., which was first commissioned by me early in 1976 to bring the accounts of all the companies up to date, this being the time after the death of my father when I first accepted responsibility for them.

In the initial report, the accountants advised that the records and accounts of the companies were out of date and had not been kept in accordance with the requirements of the New South Wales Companies Act under which the companies were registered. In addition, it appeared that a number of cheques had not been correctly identified by the record on the cheque butt. The solicitors for the companies, Messrs Blake and Ring, and the accountants, Messrs George Sinclair, Haylen and Co., thereupon notified the Commissioner of Taxation on my behalf and the accountants notified the Corporate Affairs Commission of New South Wales. A considerable time later a second investigation was commenced. This was on Monday, 22 May 1978 when the New South Wales Attorney-General appointed Mr M. Finnane a Special Inspector under the New South Wales Company’s Act. It appears that, and I quote the newspaper Sunday of 21 May 1978:

The Corporate Affairs Commission opened an (earlier) investigation into the companies in September 1 976 ‘after certain information’ had been received. The Commission reported to Mr Walker there was no evidence of any wrong-doing.

As I say, I am quoting the newspaper Sunday of 21 May 1978. Nonetheless, Mr Finnane Was appointed and, as far as I am aware is still to report. However, from the time of my first instruction to Messrs George Sinclair, Haylen and Co., that firm, together with two other firms of accountants, Messrs Wilson, Bishop, Bowes, and Craig, and Messrs Kevin Dunlop and Associates, continued their separate investigation. This investigation is now complete, together with accounts of all the companies up to 30 June 1978.

These accounts have not yet been cleared by the directors or presented to the adjourned annual general meetings of the respective companies. However, in view of information which has come to me about the reported purchase by the Melbourne Age newspaper of confidential documents relating to the investigation and which, I understand, are to be published in tomorrow’s Age I seek to make this statement tonight.

It had, of course, been my intention to make a full statement to the House when all the details are available. This is still not so as settlement as well as the ratification of the accounts is still to be completed. Details of the accounts will, of course, be available when lodged with the Corporate Affairs Commission as the accounts obviously cannot be audited. As the accounts have not yet been cleared by the respective companies, I am not at liberty to reveal their full detail tonight. However, I can advise some relevant particulars of the investigation.

The report of the accountants states:

On the assumption that all ‘Deemed Losses’ referred to in our letter-

That is the letter from Messrs G. Sinclair, Haylen and Company to the directors of Reliance Investments Pty Limited: . . of 25 September 1 978 are accepted as losses by Misappropriation we express the opinion.

  1. 1 ) The following Funds were misappropriated by the late G. M. Sinclair from:

and also express the opinion:

  1. ) That such Funds misappropriated were applied by the Late George M.Sinclair either to himself or on his account as follows:

I stress that this was over the period of the incorporation of the companies, about 20 years before.

I point out that $250,093.34 is shown in the 1978 group accounts of Reliance Investments Pty Ltd as a loan to Sinclair Pastoral Co. Pty Ltd. This transaction was made to establish liability not to settle the amount outstanding. Together with amounts standing to the credit of Sinclair Pastoral Co. Pty Ltd and the estate of the late George Sinclair of about $174,000 in the accounts these sums remain to be settled between the three family shareholders of the companies. A further sum of $292,031 is identified as losses by misappropriation. That is in the accounts for the year ended 30 June 1978. With respect to this sum, I have written, as trustee of the estate of the late George Sinclair, to the directors of Reliance Investments Pty Ltd on 1 1 April, 1979. 1 quote:

An investigation of the accounts of the above company and its subsidiaries has identified in the year ended 30 June, 1978 an amount of $292,03 1 as losses by misappropriation.

Subject to adjustments yet to be determined between the shareholders and directors of the companies, I accept responsibility for the repayment of this amount as trustee of the estate of the late George Sinclair.

Repayment will be in accordance with arrangements to be determined with the company.

I point out that $4,000 in all in this earlier period is shown as having been paid into my personal account in two lots of $2,000.

This money was repaid as soon as its source was identified by investigating accountants. Other than that the money had been paid into my account by my father, I had not previously been aware of its origin.

As a result of the amounts identified as losses by misappropriation, there has been an understatement of income in the accounts of Reliance Investments Pty Ltd, Allan Walsh Pty Ltd, and Allan Walsh (Hornsby) Pty Ltd for company tax purposes. The report of the investigating accountants reveals that the operating profit before taxation of the group for the years 30 June 1 96 1 to 30 June 1972 inclusive as per financial accounts for those years had been understated by $413,204. Provision has been made in the financial accounts for taxation penalties of $1 13,500 which will be payable by the group for this understatement of income and for late lodgement of company tax returns. The amounts, of course, remain to be assessed and the amount is only the assessment as determined by the view of the investigating accountants. The accounts also identify future income tax benefits calculated at current rates of company tax (a) in respect of provisions for long service leave, holiday and sick pay, $13,865; (b) in respect of losses by misappropriation charged in the accounts and not ascertained until after balance date, $31,252; and (c) in respect of taxation losses carried forward at balance date, $32,857: This is a total of $77,974. The companies entitlement to these benefits is qualified in the accounts by a number of conditions which are set out by the accountants.

As my father is deceased, it has not been possible to identify the detail of the amounts shown as losses by misappropriation or of those shown as losses deemed to be by misappropriation, or determine finally the reason for or the exact nature of these payments. However, in order to ensure complete equity between the parties I have, as I will explain briefly, accepted responsibility for the lot. How they were made and to where was totally unknown to all surviving directors and shareholders until revealed by the investigation of the accountants. Subsequent to my father’s death, a number of loans were made by the companies to myself, the Sinclair Pastoral Co. Pty Ltd, and other shareholders. The loans to myself and the Sinclair Pastoral Co. Pty Ltd have been repaid with interest, other than for amounts now identified as loans but which were intended as and when advanced to the individual shareholders were identified as advances against dividends. Monies borrowed by me and the Sinclair Pastoral Co. Pty Ltd attracted interest from the date on which each loan was taken out until repayment at the rate of 10 per cent per annum. They were each loans at call. The completion of necessary formal ties required under the New South Wales Companies Act and the lodging of necessary annual reports and accounts has not yet been completed. Accordingly, some relevant details cannot yet be revealed. Equally, at this stage, I make no comment on the separate investigation being undertaken by Mr M. Finnane.

I stress, as on the earlier occasions when the matter has been canvassed in this House, the companies are proprietary companies and the details are correctly for the three shareholder families alone to resolve. Since my father’s death, there has been detailed consultation between all the shareholders, the investigating accountants, solicitors, and counsel for each party, taxation authorities, and representatives of the Corporate Affairs Commission. There is no matter affecting the public interest other than in the liability for taxation, tax benefits claimed, and the statutory obligations under the relevant Company’s Act. These matters have all been pursued independently altogether of myself in accordance with advice that has been previously tabled in this House by a letter from Mr O’Reilly, the Commissioner of Taxation which verifies that statement. With appropriate professional advice, every effort has been made by me and my fellow directors to regularise the affairs of all the companies as expeditiously yet as accurately as possible in spite of the death of two of the original shareholders and the incapacity of the third and the fact that many of the documents necessary to complete these accounts dating back, as I say, more than 20 years, have not been available. All tax liabilities currently assessed and all outstanding accounts have been paid as they fell due. None as far as I am aware is currently outstanding other than in the normal course of business or with respect to tax liability as yet to be assessed. I deeply, personally, regret the circumstances of the amounts identified as losses by misappropriation and am in negotiation with other shareholders to resolve all matters outstanding between us. The companies were developed from very small beginnings by my father and I have no doubt that were he alive an explanation would have been forthcoming of these transactions. Although not personally liable for the losses by misappropriation in the strictly legal sense, I believe there is no other fit and proper action that I can take than to ensure that they are repaid and that no shareholder suffers because of actions of which none of us were aware; I certainly was not.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-There are clearly still many, many questions that have to be answered. The first one is: Why is it that an article which may or may not appear in a national newspaper tomorrow morning flushes out this statement tonight? Why is it that we were within 24 hours of this Parliament’s going into recess with this grave statement- these grave allegations against the Minister- still hanging over him without any explanation to this Parliament? I remind this House that 24 November last year, seven months ago, was the last time that the Opposition raised the question in this House. On that occasion it had been 34 months since these problems first came to the fore. It is now 41 months since we first learnt of the defalcations that have taken place, since, indeed, all the suspicions that must be aroused further by this statement from the Minister first came to light. Many of the questions which I raised in this Parliament on 24 November 1978 are questions that still have to be answered.

The first one is the one I have alluded to. Why has it taken 41 months for this sort of statement to be made? And it is only the first instalment. Why indeed does it have to be an article which may be published in the Melbourne Age tomorrow that has flushed out this statement? That is my first question. The second question is: Why has this Minister made misleading statements about this affair, not only in this House but also on the Willesee program on a previous occasion and in answers to questions asked by the former Leader of the Opposition. I can go through some of these quotations. The Minister said on 12 October 1977:

It has been reported that there is a deficiency of more than $250,000 in company funds. There are no amounts outstanding which have not been accounted for within the company or between the shareholders.

That is a quotation from this Minister himself on one of these occasions.

There were many other occasions. I have mentioned the Willesee program. I mentioned the questions put by the former Leader of the Opposition. These are all to be found detailed in Hansard of 24 November 1978, on page 3402 and following pages. I need not go further into them tonight. Why have we not had drawn to the attention of this House the national significance of these defalcations? There is the amount of tax that has been forgone because of the $542,125 which is now a claim against these companies. Why was that not drawn to the attention of this Parliament before? Why indeed did the Minister get up tonight and pretend that this was a personal explanation when there are these matters of national concern involved in these affairs?

Let me continue. Maybe I could just interpose here that this is not just a question of a fair go for the Minister. There is the matter of a fair go for the Australian people, who have a Minister like this involved in the affairs of this country. Let me continue with some of the questions which were raised in the House at that time. To what extent can we be certain that the accountants’ report is an independent one, inasmuch as the accountants were the firm of the father of the Deputy Leader of the Country Party himself? Why have we not got an explanation of the fact that there was a solicitor who was looking after the disparate interests of the many groups involved in this affair? There is no evidence coming forward that the explanation given by the Minister is built on an objective analysis of the affairs as they are today, grave though the admissions are that are in those statements.

However, I will end on this note. Why indeed is it that we have had the Lynch affair, with that Minister being stood down; the Garland affair, with that Minister being stood down when grave allegations were made against him; the Robinson affair, with that Minister being stood down when there were matters like this hanging over his head; not to mention the Withers affair as well? There probably would be others I could mention if I were not speaking on the spur of the moment. Why is it that this Minister, with an amount of over half a million dollars at stake, with at least $200,000 of that being public funds because of the claims for taxation, has not stood down and has not taken his medicine as the others had to take their medicine during the time of their investigations? I end as I began. We are only just beginning to see the tip of the iceberg. This is only the first instalment. It is a totally unsatisfactory statement as far as I am concerned and, I believe, as far as any objective observer of this scene is concerned.

page 3074

NOTICE

The following notice was given:

Mr Hodgman to move

That this House expresses its grave concern at proposals to increase air fares between Tasmania and Victoria, and other States, by as much as ten per cent, and calls upon the Government to negotiate with the domestic airline operators in order to obtain either an exemption or a concessional reduction for Tasmania, from the impact of such a substantial increase.

page 3075

QUESTION

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONSUPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Air Navigation Regulation 106 A (Question No. 31 17)

  1. 1 ) What are the trading names and who are the proprietors of each of the 59 travel organisations referred to by him in his answer to question No. 815 (Hansard, 8 June 1978, page 3385).
  2. ) What legal action has been instituted against the travel organisations concerned.
  3. What are the names and proprietors of any other travel organisations investigated by his Department in respect of Air Navigation Regulation 106 a.
  4. What was the result of each of those further investigations and have prosecutions been launched against any of those travel organisations; if so, which organisations.
  5. 5 ) What specifically are the certain evidentiary problems referred to in his answer to parts (c) and (d) of question No. 815.
  1. 1 ) and (3) It would be inappropriate for me to disclose the names and proprietors of organisations that are under investigation by my Department, as such disclosure could harm their commercial activities.
  2. and (4) Since Air Navigation Regulation 106a was amended in April 1976, no court action has been brought against an airline or agent. However, a High Court action was brought against my Department in 1978 by the Australian Union of Students following departmental investigation of that organisation. The court subsequently found in favour of the Department.
  3. Cases referred to the Crown Law Authorities are treated confidentially. Premature disclosure of specific evidentiary problems that have arisen would breach this confidentiality and possibly prejudice further investigations by my Department. However, it is appropriate to say that problems do arise with evidence that is found to be of a hearsay nature and which, without further corroboration, does not justify legal proceedings.

Stocks of Weapons: Usable Nuclear Material (Question No. 3256)

  1. 1 ) Does the Government have available to it accurate information on the accumulation of weapons-usuable nuclear material in other countries.
  2. If so, what quantities of (a) uranium enriched beyond 20% in the isotope U235, (b) separated plutonium of weapons grade or reactor grade or (c) other separated weapons-usuable nuclear materials existed in (i) the military stockpiles of (A) the United States (B) the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (C) Great Britain (D) France and (E) China, (ii) the non-military fuel cycles of these nuclear weapons states (iii) the fuel cycles of non-nuclear weapons states, in total, and, in particular, (A) Argentina (B) Australia (C) Brazil (D) Canada (E) the Federal Republic of Germany (F) India (G) Iran (H) Italy (I) Japan (J) Korea (K) Pakistan (L) South Africa and (M) Sweden and (iv) the fuel cycles of East European states in the year for which statistics are most recently available and each of the previous 2 years.

Questions (1 ) and (2) The Government does have some information available to it on the nuclear potential of countries of strategic interest to Australia which must remain classified. I should point out, however, that nuclear weapon states do not publicise information about their holdings of nuclear materials for weapons purposes. In nuclear weapon states and in non-nuclear weapons states where International Atomic Energy Agency ( IAEA) safeguards apply to civil nuclear programs, detailed inventory information is made available to the IAEA, but is confidential to the inspected party and the IAEA. It is only in the event of noncompliance that confidentiality would be set aside and relevant information would be disseminated in accordance with Article XII of the IAEA Statute.

South African Embassy: Supply of Educational Material (Question No. 3616)

  1. 1 ) What Government-funded education institutions receive material from the South African Embassy.
  2. What is the content of this material.
  3. Is it designed to promote the values of white South African society.
  4. How often is it sent out.
  5. How is it used by those educational institutions which receive it.
  6. What is the cost of this material and who is responsible for this cost.
  1. ) to (6) Government education institutions both in the ACT and the NT do receive some free material from the South African Embassy. The selection of material sent to institutions varies, and includes titles such us ‘South African Digest’, ‘Informa’, and ‘Panorama’. The frequency of distribution is not known.

It is a matter for individual institutions to decide what is done with the material received. Generally it appears that it is not widely used.

Social Security Benefits (Question No. 3625)

  1. 1 ) What is the (a) number of recipients of social security benefits and (b) amount of those benefits paid by the Department of Social Security, where the application of benefit followed loss of employment or inability to find employment since 1 December 1975.
  2. How do these figures compare with those figures to be provided in answer to question No. 3607.

  1. (a) There were 2,896,000 grants of unemployment benefit between 1 December 1 975 and 20 April 1 979:

    1. Total expenditure on unemployment benefit between 1 December 1975 and 30 April 1979 was $2,493m.

  2. Question 3625 relates to unemployment benefit whereas Question 3607 concerns widows pensions.

Entry of Flag of Convenience Registered Vessels (Question No. 3639)

  1. 1 ) How many flag of convenience registered vessels have entered Australian waters or Australian ports during each of the last 5 years.
  2. ) In which country was each registered.
  3. What was the nationality of the shipowner in each case.
  1. ) and (2) The data sources available to the Department of Transport at present do not enable these questions to be answered without the expenditure of an impracticable amount of manual data processing effort.

However, certain information is available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics concerning vessels registered in countries which have been identified by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development as offering openregistry facilities. This information is given in the table below. The honourable member should note that the details in the table represent the total number of individual ‘openregistry’ vessels which arrived, i.e. each vessel was counted each time it arrived during the year and not only on the occasion of its first arrival. Therefore individual vessels may have been counted more than once.

  1. Particulars of the nationality of the owners of these ships are not recorded by my Department or the Bureau of Statistics. However, for an appreciation of the international situation concerning the ownership of open-registry vessels, I refer the honourable member to a report by the Secretariat of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development entitled ‘Beneficial Ownership of Open-Registry Fleets’ (document TD/222/Supp.1 ). The report gives statistics on the country of ownership and country of registry of open-registry fleets in terms of the number of vessels and their deadweight tonnage.

Royal Commission on Human Relationships (Question No. 3651)

  1. Will the Attorney-General release the Working Party’s report on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Human Relationships concerning rape and other sexual offences referred to in answer to question No. 3190 (Hansard, 29 March 1 979, page 1379).
  2. When will the Government make its decision relating to the changes recommended by the Royal Commission.
  1. 1 ) As indicated in the answer to question No. 3 1 90 (Hansard,29 March 1979, page 1379) this matter is the subject of further consideration by officers of my Department. In the circumstances, it would not be appropriate for me to release details of the Working Party’s deliberations at this time.
  2. Whatever decisions are made will be made only after full consideration of all the issues.

International Air Fares (Question No. 3696)

How many APEX fares have been sold to Australian nationals travelling out of Australia on all routes on ( a ) Qantas and (b) the foreign carrier on each route, for travel during (i) February, (ii) March, and (iii) April 1979.

The airlines or travel agents, when selling tickets, make no distinction between Australian nationals and foreign visitors nor do they make any distinction in their bookings of the country of commencement of travel of the passenger. Therefore, 1 am unable to supply the information requested.

International Air Fares (Question No. 3697)

How many Apex fares have been sold to foreign nationals travelling to Australia on all routes on (a) Qantas and (b) the foreign carrier on each route, for travel during (i) February, (ii) March, and (iii) April 1979.

These figures are unavailable for the same reasons as outlined in the answer to Question 3696.

International Air Fares (Question No. 3698)

How many passenger movements have been recorded using the new APEX fares (a) into and (b) out of Australia during (i) February, (ii) March, and (iii) April 1 979.

Total figures are not yet available for all airlines in both directions and figures are not available for April. However, the following figures have been obtained:

These figures include passengers travelling on the old APEX, new APEX, Budget, APOW and GIT fares. They do not include Lufthansa figures as these have not yet been made available. These figures, covering the first two months in which new low fares applied, reflect pent-up demand. It is expected that inward and outward passenger movements will even out as the pent-up demand diminishes. This trend is already reflected in the early forward booking figures for the next few months.

Seats on Air Services out of Australia (Question No. 3701)

Under the present Air agreements how many seats may be sold each week on services out of Australia on (a) K.L.M. Royal Dutch Airlines, (b) Alitalia, (c) Lufthansa, (d) Philippine Air Lines, (e) Singapore Airlines Ltd, (f) Thai Airways international, (g) Garuda Indonesian Airways and (fi) Olympic Airways (when operating).

Coastal Surveillance (Question No. 3730)

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been called to a report in the Australian Financial Review of 29 April 1 979 which states that he has called for a report on the effectiveness of Australia’s coastal surveillance: if so, is the report accurate.
  2. ) What circumstances led him to call for the report.
  3. By whom will the report be prepared and what timetable has been set for its preparation.
  4. Will he make the report available to the Parliament on its completion.
  1. 1 ) J am aware of the particular media report; however it is not entirely factual.
  2. It is routine for my Department to keep me informed of significant events related to coastal surveillance. The recent refugee boat arrival at Derby prompted me to request a report on recent boat arrivals.
  3. I have received the report which was prepared in my Department.
  4. As the report is related to day-to-day activities of coastal surveillance I do not believe it appropriate to make the information available.

Opinion Polls (Question No. 3756)

  1. 1 ) How many opinion polls or surveys have been commissioned or carried out by his Department in each year from 1975 to date and how many have not been completed.
  2. For each of the opinion polls or surveys, (a) which companies or private individuals were commissioned, (b) what was the subject matter and purpose and (c) what was the cost.
  1. 1 ) Three-Project GOSHU in 1975, Project ARCADIA in 1977 and Survey of National Images and Attitudes- a continuing study of public opinion in the Philippines 1959-1977.

  2. (a) International Research Associates, Manila, carried out all three surveys.

    1. Project GOSHU surveyed Japanese attitudes towards Australia. Project ARCADIA surveyed Australian attitudes to China, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, the UK, the USA, the USSR, and the Federal Republic of Germany. The Survey of National Images and Attitudes surveyed publicattitudes to Australia in the greater Manila area. The survey compared attitudes towards the USA, Australia. China. Japan, the USSR, and Spain.
    2. $50,000 for the three surveys.

Opinion Polls (Question No. 3774)

  1. 1 ) How many opinion polls or surveys have been commissioned or carried out by his Department in each year from 1975 to date and how many have not been completed.
  2. For each of the opinion polls or surveys, (a) which Companies or private individuals were commissioned, (b) what was the subject matter and purpose and (c) what was the cost.
  1. 1 ) Five surveys have been undertaken by my Department since 1975. Three have been completed and two are on-going.
  2. (a), (b) and (c) Details of the five surveys are as follows: In 1978 a survey was conducted for the Housing Costs Inquiry by P. A. Consulting Services Pty Ltd. The survey, on Exploring the Housing Attitudes of Future Home Buyers in Four Australian Cities, was to ascertain the preference of the next generation of first home buyers for different types of housing. The survey has been completed at a cost of $60,000.

In 1977 a community needs survey at Puckapunyal was conducted by Dr G. Balmar of Le Trobe University on behalf of my Department. The purpose of the survey was to ascertain from Army families at Puckapunyal their preferences in alternative dwellings design, style and siting arrangements, and their attitudes to existing community facilities and preference for additional facilities. The survey was completed at a cost of $6,000.

Since 1 975 a quarterly survey has been completed by John Jackson and Associates, on anticipated commencements for non-residential construction. The purpose of the survey is to provide early forecasting of non-residential building and civil engineering commencements and to provide an indication of activity levels in the industry. The survey is continuing at a cost of $ 1 6,250 per quarter

Bteween 1975 and 1 977 quarterly surveys were conducted by my Department (within the Building Division of the former Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development) in co-operation with the Australian Federation of Construction Contractors ( (AFCC). The survey was of AFCC members, and its purpose was to measure current work-loads, activity and employment in the civil engineering sectors for which no suitable official statistics were available at that stage. The survey has been completed; it was not significant and not separately costed, and was funded from administrative overheads.

Since June 1975 on a quarterly basis my Department has conducted a survey, in association with the Australian Institute of Quantity Surveyors, monitoring work-loads in quantity surveyors ‘ offices. The purpose of the survey is to provide an early indication of likely activity levels in the nonresidential building and civil engineering construction industry. The survey is continuing and is funded from administrative overheads.

Beef Classification (Question No. 3833)

  1. 1 ) Did his Department or the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation contribute a submission to the Prices Justification Tribunal on the advisability of carcase classification of beef; if not, why not.
  2. ) Can he say which organisations made submissions and whether their submissions were in agreement with his Department’s or the AMLC’s statements on beef classification.
  3. What facilities were made available to the Tribunal to see carcase classification in operation in Western Australia and to make an objective assessment of its value.
  1. 1 ) The Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation contributed a written submission to the Prices Justification Tribunal’s Inquiry into charges and margins for beef marketing and processing.

The submission did not include any statements on the advisability of beef carcase classification as this subject was considered by the Corporation to be outside the terms of reference of the Inquiry. Beef classification has no impact on current slaughtering and processing charges as it is still in a limited trial stage. Members of the Inquiry visited the Corporation and held general discussions with the Chairman and senior staff. These discussions did not cover classification in any detail and staff involved in carcase classification studies did not participate.

The Department of Primary Industry did not make a formal submission to the Inquiry. Departmental officers provided assistance and information to the Tribunal on various aspects of beef marketing. Among papers made available to the Tribunal staff were some BAE research papers on carcase classification, but no request for comment on beef carcase classification was received by the Department.

  1. A list of individuals and organisations who tendered submissions is provided in Appendix B of the Tribunal’s report. Information is not available on which submissions contained references to beef classification.
  2. The Tribunal was given every opportunity to examine the wide range of matters of interest to it. Offcers of full cooperation and assistance from relevant authorities were received from State Governments, following a direct approach from the Prime Minister. This included Western Australia where, at the time of the Inquiry, manual beef carcase classification trials were in progress at three commercial abattoirs. I understand that, in the time available, members of the Tribunal were unable to visit some important beef cattle areas, including Western Australia. The Tribunal held discussions, however with representatives of organisations and enterprises involved with meat production and marketing in that State and received submissions from three Western Australian organisations.

Transfer of Aboriginal Housing Functions (Question No. 3838)

  1. Has the Minister agreed to the establishment of a working party to consider the transfer of Aboriginal housing functions to the Northern Territory Government.
  2. If so, will (a) the members of the former Aboriginal Housing Panel or similarly qualified and experienced people, (b) the Institute of Aboriginal Studies and (c) Aboriginal communities and co-operatives affected, be consulted before any administrative change is made and will the terms and results of those consultations be promptly published.
  1. 1 ) and (2) No, but a working party of Commonwealth and Northern Territory officials has been established to consider whether some State-type programs including housing implemented in the Northern Territory by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs should be transferred to the Northern Territory Government.

Land Rights Legislation (Question No. 3839)

  1. 1 ) Will land rights legislation be amended to provide for full and effective communication and detailed specification of views between the parties concerned including traditional Aboriginal owners and their communities before minerals or public rights of way are taken from Aboriginal land.
  2. What consultation with Aborigines will occur before any amendments are (a) finally drafted and (b) moved in Parliament.
  1. 1 ) The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 already provides for full and effective communication with traditional owners and other Aboriginals interested in the land in respect of any proposal relating to the use of that land.

In particular, I draw the honourable member’s attention to sections 19 (5), 23 (3) and 68 (2) of the Act. These sections prevent Land Councils from taking any action in any matter in connection with land held by a Land Trust unless the Land Council is satisfied that-

  1. the traditional Aboriginal owners (if any) of that land understand the nature and purpose of the proposed action and, as a group, consent to it; and

  2. any Aboriginal community or group that may be affected by the proposed action has been consulted and has had adequate opportunity to express its view to the Land Council.

    1. (a) and (b) As the Act already provides for full and effective communication with traditional owners and other Aboriginals, amendment to the Act as envisaged in part 1 of the question is not intended. In respect of any other amendments which might be contemplated, full consultation with Land Councils will take place where those amendments bear upon the role of Land Councils or the Land Trusts. In the case of any other amendments, for example, that to provide legal assistance for groups appearing before the Aboriginal Land Commissioner, such consultation is not considered necessary.

The honourable member’s question implies that amendments announced in my media release of 27 April 1979 concerning roads and minerals will reduce Aboriginal rights. The amendment in respect of public roads is not being proceeded with because Land Councils have not yet completed consultations with affected communities, and the amendment in respect of minerals, which is merely intended to clarify ownership, in no way deprives Aboriginal people of rights they currently have under the Act.

Exhibition Exposition’ (Question No. 3845)

  1. ) Has his attention been drawn to the book Exhibition Exposition which was compiled by Mr Tom McCullough to document the 7th Mildura Sculpture Triennial in 1 978.
  2. If so, was the 1978 Triennial supported by the Australia Council and to what extent.
  3. Did the Australia Council contribute to the cost of preparing and publishing Exhibition Exposition: if so, what sum.
  4. Did the Mildura City Council impound and burn copies of Exhibition Exposition at the end of 1978 or at the beginning of 1979.
  5. Was the Commonwealth consulted by the Mildura City Council before destroying the books: if so, what was the Commonwealth’s response.
  6. If the Commonwealth was not consulted, what action has it taken or will it take to recover the Commonwealth moneys lost by this act of wanton destruction.
  1. 1 ) I am aware of press reports concerning Mr McCullough’s book.
  2. to (6) I am advised by my Department as follows: that the Australia Council made grants to support the Triennial of $ 1 5,000 in 1 977-78, and $8,000 in 1 978-79. that the Australia Council did not contribute to the cost of preparing and publishing Exhibition Exposition; the Council made a grant of $3,000 towards the Exhibition catalogue. that the Australia Council received a letter dated 26 January 1979 from the Mildura Council which stated that copies of the publication had been burnt. The Australia Council understands that a decision to burn the copies was taken by the Mildura Council at its meeting on 25 January 1979. that the Australia Council believes that its grants to the 1978 Triennial have been properly accounted for and that no further action is necessary.

Motor Vehicles Purchased under Contract (Question No. 3862)

  1. 1 ) What is the quantity of each model type of motor vehicle being purchased under contract C2/78/ 104 referred to on page 96 of Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 24 April 1979 (G 16).
  2. ) For what purpose is each model type being purchased.
  3. Are the vehicles being purchased as replacements for vehicles in use: if so, what is the average age and kilometrage of each model type being replaced; if not, what is the justification for purchasing the new vehicles.
  4. Who were the unsuccessful competitors for the contract.
  5. Is it proposed to purchase more vehicles of similar model types during 1978-79; if so, how manyand for what purpose.

  1. 1 ) Quantities and types of motor vehicles being purchased under this contract are:

    1. Holden Utility, HZ series, model 8WM80-10:
    2. b ) Holden Kingswood Station Wagon HZ series, model A9K-59;
    3. ) Holden Panel Van HZ series model 8WM70-12.
  2. Each model type is used for carriage of stores, tools and equipment and associated personnel transport at airports and other departmental establishments throughout Australia.
  3. 3 ) Of the 8 1 vehicles being purchased under this contract, 77 are for replacement purposes and 4 are additions to the departmental fleet. The average age of the vehicles to be replaced is 6 years and their average odometer reading 99,400 kilometres. The four additional vehicles are required for use at:

Port Hedland, WA- Buildings Officer for airport inspections;

Meekatharra, WA- Electrical Technicians for equipment maintenance;

Moorabbin, Victoria- Radio Technicians for equipment maintenance;

Mt Macedon, Victoria- Radio Technicians for development of a radio link.

  1. Ford Sales Company of Australia Limited, Campbellfield, Victoria.
  2. No.

Road Safety: Alcohol (Question No. 3863)

  1. 1 ) Which person or persons will be involved in the development research on a nationwide drink-driving campaign under contract Q4/89/20 awarded to B. and J. Elliott and Associates referred to on page 97 of the Commonwealth of A ustralia Gazette of 24 April 1 979 (G 1 6 ).
  2. What qualifications are possessed by the person or persons concerned.
  3. Into what aspects of drink-driving will their research be directed.
  4. When will their research be completed.
  5. When will the drink-driving campaign referred to in the contract be launched.
  6. What will be (a) its intended audience: (b) its format and (c) its duration.
  7. Will the success or otherwise of the campaign be monitored: if so, will the results of the monitoring be made available to the Parliament and the public.
  8. 8 ) Who were the unsuccessful tenderers for the contract.
  1. 1 ) and (2) Mr B. J. Elliott, B.Comm. (App.Psych.) Hons., Dip. Ed., M.A.Ps.; Mr J. R. Peberdy, B.A.; Mr A. J. Reark, B.A., B.Ec, M.B.A.

  2. An in-depth study of people who drink and drive, to determine what aspects of the behaviour of various groups are likely to be susceptible to change, and to investigate the sociological characteristics of those who are involved in alcohol-related accidents. Overall, the project aims to:

    1. review information on effectiveness of past efforts to influence road users to not drink and drive,
    2. develop a range of alternative approaches for a drink-driving publicity campaign based on field research,
    3. pilot lest these approaches and develop a strategy for nationwide use.
  3. September 1979.
  4. The pilot test campaign will be implemented in Tasmania subsequent to September 1979.
  5. Proposed audience, format and duration will be determined as part of the current project.
  6. Results will be monitored to determine effectiveness, and made available to the public per medium of an Office of Road Safety Report.

  7. The four unsuccessful competitors for the contract were:

    1. H. C. Mackay Pty Ltd, P.O. Box 626, Bathurst, NSW 2795.
    2. b ) Peter Kenny Pty Ltd, 52 Victoria Street, Paddington, NSW 202 1.
    3. Spectrum Research Pty Ltd, 29 Drummond Street, Carlton, Victoria 3053.
    4. Hansen-Rubensohn-McCann-Erickson Pty Ltd. 167 Kent Street, Sydney, NSW 2000.

Road Safety Film Research Project (Question No. 3864)

  1. 1 ) Which person or persons will be involved in the road safety film research project under contract RS18, awarded to the Caulfield Institute of Technology, referred to on page 97 of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on 24 April 1979 (G16).
  2. What are the qualifications of the researchers involved.
  3. Into what specific aspects of road safety will their research be directed.
  4. When is the research expected to be completed.
  5. What aspects of road safety will be dealt with by the film mentioned in the contract.
  6. What will be the duration of the proposed film.
  7. When will the film be released.
  8. What distribution will the film have.
  9. Who were the unsuccessful tenderers for the contract.
  1. and (2) Mr C. Cameron, M.A., M.Sc. Head. Department of Applied Psychology; Dr A. Keulemans. B.Comm. (Hons.), Grad. Dip. (Human Communications) Ph.D, Principal Lecturer in Communication Studies; Mr J. Flaus, B.A. (Hons.) Senior Tutor in Communication Studies: Mr R. H. Clarke, Senior Technical Officer. Educational Development Unit; Mr W. F. Wiles, M.A., F.I.E.Aust.. F.I.Mech. E., F.R.Ac.S., Senior Lecturer, Department of Mechanical Engineering: Mr P. Davidson. B.A., Research Assistant.
  2. Research will be directed into the use of audio visual aids in initial driver training, including a critical review of an existing scries of ‘How to Drive’ films, so as to provide detailed specifications relating to content and methods which can be followed in the production of a revised series.
  3. September 1979.
  4. The previous series of 13 films covered topics such as car handling, maintenance, driving techniques, night driving and road craft. The revised films will be produced in line with contemporary knowledge of training methods, desirable material for instruction and audio visual techniques.
  5. Duration of the films will be determined following completion of the study.
  6. Not known as yet.
  7. Films will be made available for purchase by, or loan to, all organisations involved in initial driver training.

  8. The two unsuccessful competitors for the contract were:

    1. Ms W. Macdonald, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Melbourne.
    2. Dr R. K. McKelvey, Department of Psychology, Monash University.

Flags Purchased under Contract (Question No. 3865)

  1. 1 ) What is the description and purpose of the flags being purchased under contract LP3474 referred to on page 97 of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 24 April 1979 (G16).
  2. Where are they to be used, and how often.
  3. 3 ) How many flags will be supplied.
  4. In which country were the flags manufactured.
  5. Who were the unsuccessful competitors for the contract.
  1. 1 ) The flags purchased under this contract are official Commonwealth of Australia’, 1830 mm x 930 mm, for display at Commonwealth-owned or leased locations administered by the Department of Transport.
  2. These flags are displayed continuously at airports, lightstations and various offices throughout Australia.
  3. Two hundred.
  4. Australia.
  5. The unsuccessful competitor for the contract was The Flag Centre, Wayville, S.A.

Departmental Forms Purchased under Contract (Question No. 3870)

  1. 1 ) What are the departmental forms being purchased under contracts S1 199, S1224, S1 225, S1 226, S1 229, S1245 and S1 246, referred to on page 97 of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 24 April 1 979 (G 16).
  2. How many of each type are being purchased and for what period is each quantity expected to suffice.
  3. 3 ) Who were the unsuccessful competitors for each of the contracts.
  1. 1 ) The departmental forms being purchased under these contracts are:

S 1 1 99- Folders, outward letter

S 1 224-Strips, flight information board, buff

S 1225-Seals, security

S 1 226- Strips, meteorological data

S 1229- Message forms, administrative

S 1245- Strips, flight progress board

S1246- Strips, flight information board, white.

  1. ) Quantities of each type of form being purchased are:

S1199-400 packs of 50

S1224- 2,200 packs of 100

S 1225- 200 packs of 500

S1 226- 1, 000 packs of 100

S1229- 1, 750 pads of 100

S1245-2,475packsofl00

S 1246-2,200 packs of 100.

The quantities being purchased represent an estimated 12 months usage.

  1. Unsuccessful competitors for each contract were:

S1199- Nil.

S1224- The Dominion Press, North Blackburn. Victoria.

S 1225- Nil. W. J. Cryer is the only company having the requisite security clearance for the production of seals.

S1226- Sands and McDougall (Aust.) Pty Ltd North Melbourne; Active Offset Pty Ltd, Melbourne.

S1229- Fraser and Jenkinson Pty Ltd, West Heidelberg, Victoria; Grange Printing and Office Supplies Pty Ltd. North Melbourne.

S 1245- Tasmanian Government Printer, Hobart, Sands and McDougall (Aust.) Pty Ltd, North Melbourne: Fraser and Jenkinson Pty Ltd, West Heidelberg.

S 1246- Tasmanian Government Printer, Hobart; The Dominion Press, North Melbourne, Victoria; Thistle Press, Gardiner, Victoria; Victorian Printing, Blackburn, Victoria; D. Altshul and Co. Pty Ltd, Preston, Victoria.

Road Safety Posters Provided under Contract (Question No. 3871)

  1. With what subject or subjects will the road safety posters provided under contracts S 1254 to S 1259 and S 1288, referred to on page 97 of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 24 April 1979 (G 16) deal.
  2. To whom and by what means will they be distributed.
  3. When are they expected to be released.
  4. Who were the unsuccessful tenderers for the contracts.
  1. 1 ) The subjects dealt with in the road safety posters referred to are:

Contract No. S 1254 (three posters)- gap discrimination in crossing of roads, bus safety and bicycle safety.

Contract No. S1255 (one poster)- child pedestrian safety.

Contract No. S1256 (one poster)- driver behaviour in vicinity of pedestrian crossings.

Contract No. S1257 (one poster)- pedestrian behaviour.

Contract No. S1 259 (one poster)- road signs.

Contract No. S1 288 (one poster)- night-time pedestrian safety. (Contract No. S 1258 refers to repairs to machinery: it is not related to road safety posters ).

  1. In accordance with long standing co-operative arrangements, copies of these posters will be distributed to Road Safety authorities in the States and Territories, Education Departments, Community Services Groups, Industry, and members of the interested public.
  2. These posters are expected to be available for distribution by end ofMay 1979.
  3. Unsuccessful competitors for each contract were:

S1254- A. E. Keating Pty Ltd, North Melbourne, Victoria; Wilke and Co., Clayton, Victoria; Tudor Printery Pty Ltd, Port Melbourne, Victoria; Tooronga Press Pty Ltd, Malvern, Victoria; G. W. Lane Publications Pty Ltd, Middle Park, Victoria.

S1255- A. E. Keating Pty Ltd, North Melbourne, Victoria; Tooronga Press Pty Ltd, Malvern, Victoria; G. W. Lane Publications Pty Ltd, Middle Park, Victoria.

S1256- A. E. Keating Pty Ltd, North Melbourne, Victoria; Wilke and Co., Clayton, Victoria; Tudor Printery Pty Ltd, Port Melbourne, Victoria.

S 1257- Wilke and Co., Clayton, Victoria; G. W. Lane Publications Pty Ltd, Middle Park, Victoria; Tooronga Press Pty Ltd, Malvern, Victoria.

S1 259- Tooronga Press Pty Ltd, Malvern Victoria; G. W. Lane Publications Pty Ltd, Middle Park, Victoria; Tudor Printery Pty Ltd, Port Melbourne, Victoria.

S1288-Alexander Bros Pty Ltd, Mentone, Victoria; Tudor Printery Pty Ltd, Port Melbourne, Victoria; Tooronga Press Pty Ltd, Malvern, Victoria.

Annual Report: Department of Foreign Affairs (Question No. 3912)

  1. 1 ) What legitimate contribution to informing the Parliament and the people of Australia is made by the 6 photographs of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the 3 photographs of the Prime Minister and the 2 photographs of other Ministers included in the 68-page 1978 Annual Report of the Department of Foreign Affairs.
  2. Is a rate of one photograph of a Minister to every 6 pages rather excessive.
  3. ) Is there here evidence of a personality cult or cults.
  1. to (3) The Department aims to provide a record of Australia ‘s direct participation in international affairs over a 12-month period. This naturally involved Australian Ministers, and particularly the Foreign Minister. The photographs referred to also include 13 Heads of State or Government of other countries, three ministers of foreign governments and three heads of international organisations. There are another 10 photographs in the Report, representing a wide range of Australia ‘s international relations.

Incidentally the 1975 Report included, inter alia, 5 photographs of former Prime Minister Whitlam and 5 photographs of Senator Willesee, my predecessor as Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Kingsford-Smith Airport: New Flight Routes (Question No. 3921)

Has there been an increase in new flight routes over new suburban areas for aircraft into and out of Kingsford-Smith Airport during (a) January, (b) February, (c) March and (d) April 1979: if so, what are the reasons.

There has been no change made this year to the flight routes serving Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport.

Red Wine Surplus (Question No. 3959)

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that a surplus of red wine exists in Australia.
  2. ) If so, is this causing concern to this important industry.
  3. Have any steps been taken to find export markets for this surplus production.
  1. 1 ) Yes. The Industries Assistance Commission, in its draft report on Grapes and Wine, found that whereas in the early 1970s the stocks/sales ratio of dry red table wine varied between 3:1 and 3.5:1 since the mid-1970s it has been about 4:1. In its April 1979 report on The Australian Grape and Wine Industry, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics (BAE) found that as at 30 June 1978 80 per cent of wineries considered their 1978 red wine stock levels were too high and, while an improvement in the stocks situation was occurring, 63 per cent expected that their 1979 red wine stocks would be too high.
  2. ) There is concern in the industry over the surplus of red wine and also of the surplus of wine grapes which in the 1 979 vintage was, according to industry sources, about 30,000 tonnes and was concentrated in the South Australian producing regions. As mentioned above, wineries are taking steps to bring stocks of red wines into balance with sales.

The BAE concluded in the report mentioned in (1 ) that aggregate demand and supply (of grapes) will be in balance in the next few years at around 770,000 to 780,000 tonnes given normal seasons. This does not take account of supply/demand relationships for any particular variety of grape and moreover it should be noted that balance could be upset by substantial annual yield fluctuations due to climatic factors’.

  1. The industry is active in seeking export markets for Australian wine. The wine companies have agents in many overseas markets and their efforts are supplemented by the activities of the Australian Wine Board and the Trade Commissioner Service. The Government is encouraging exports under the recently introduced Export Now program while continuing to provide funds through the Overseas Trade Promotion Committee, the Export Market Development Grants Scheme and the Export Expansion Grants Scheme.

These activities are made against a background of exports that arc often at cut-prices from wine industries in the European Community and competition from Eastern Europe which may be more related to gaining hard currencies than making economic sales. Low prices and high shipping costs from Australia limit opportunities to realise export sales. I understand that in one instance in order to gain a sale for fortifying spirit in Europe, Australian producers would have been required to sell at a price which would not cover manufacturing costs let alone the value ofthe grapes.

Income Limits for Repatriation Pensioners (Question No. 3968)

  1. ) When were limits for income from other sources affecting the provision of fringe benefits for repatriation pensioners last increased.
  2. ) Are the limits fixed at $33 per week for a single person and $57.50 for a married couple.
  3. What would these limits be now if they had been updated in accordance with the consumer price index.
  1. 1 ) The income limits for fringe benefits, administered by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, are identical to those applied by the Department of Social Security and, in the past have been adjusted simultaneously.

Fringe benefits, such as concessions in rates and public transport fares, are administered by State and Local Governments. These authorities frequently use the possession of a Pensioner Health Benefits card as a test for eligibility.

The income limits for fringe benefits were last increased on 27 September 1973.

  1. Yes:
  2. $62.10 for a single person and $108.15 for a married couple.

Electricity Reticulation: Torres Strait Islands (Question No. 3996)

  1. 1 ) Has the Government undertaken to provide funds to Queensland for electricity reticulation in the Torres Strait Islands or elsewhere; if so (a) in which settlements, (b) when was the commitment made and (c) what time constraints were suggested.
  2. What steps have been taken to cost and encourage development of the Australian National University’s proposals for small solar-powered pilot electricity generators in isolated communities where petroleum-powered alternatives are unusually costly, along the lines of those projected for the Western pilot scheme by the New South Wales Government.
  1. 1 ) To the best of my knowledge, no undertaking has been given to provide funds to Queensland through my Department for electricity reticulation in the Torres Strait Islands or elsewhere in reserve communities.
  2. 1 have referred the matter of solar power electricity generators to my colleague the Minister for Science for his consideration.

Solicitors’ Trust Accounts in Canberra

In directing my question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General, I refer to action currently being taken concerning the misuse of solicitors’ trust funds by legal practitioners in New South Wales. I ask the Minister: Can he give an assurance that solicitors’ trust funds in the Australian

Capital Territory are being administered and maintained according to the law? Is he satisfied that the present arrangements for the auditing of solicitors’ trust funds in the Australian Capital Territory are adequate to protect the public- interest? Is he aware that solicitors in the Australian Capital Territory are permitted to nominate their own auditors? In view of the New South Wales experience, will he consider reviewing the existing arrangements so that auditors of solicitors’ trust funds in the Australian Capital Territory arc made accountable to the public rather than to the Law Society, as is the case in New South Wales?

The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

The Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory is responsible, under the Legal Practitioners Ordinance of the Territory, for the general oversight of administration and maintenance of solicitors’ trust accounts. I have no reason to believe that the relevant law is not being observed.

The present arrangements for the auditing 6f solicitor’s trust accounts seem adequate to protect the public interest but that is not to say that they are incapable of improvement. A Bill for an Ordinance to amend the Legal Practitioners Ordinance, which I referred to the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly for consideration late last year, contains some amendments in this area. The Bill was recently approved by the Assembly and will soon become law. My Department will also give close attention to the matters raised by the honourable member in the course of a general review of the Ordinance that is now in progress. Regard will be given to the relevant laws in force in the States and proposed reforms of them in the course of that review.

Sankey Case: Counsel

Will the Minister ascertain the basis of M r Rofe ‘s appointment in the Greek conspiracy trial to rebut any inference that the appointment related to his acting against the four former Labor Ministers? Further, will the Government now undertake inquiries to establish that no persons associated with the Government maintained Mr Sankey in his action in order to assist him with legal costs, which would appear to be well above his capacity to pay?

The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

I was not personally concerned in the decision to brief Mr Rofe Q.C. It is the practice in matters of the magnitude of the alleged social security conspiracy case to retain senior counsel who are very experienced in criminal proceedings. Mr Rofe Q.C. is very experienced in such proceedings and has for many years acted for the Commonwealth in criminal trials, both as a junior counsel and as a senior counsel. The decision to retain him in the alleged social security conspiracy case was not related to his acting for the informant in the proceedings Sankey v. Whitlam and Others.

I have no information concerning the financing by Mr Sankey of his proceedings and I do not consider that it would be appropriate for me to undertake any inquiries in that regard.

House adjourned at 11.46 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 6 June 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1979/19790606_reps_31_hor114/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant