House of Representatives
22 August 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 423

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Education

To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of N.S.W. respectfully showeth:

Dismay at the reduction in the total expenditure on education proposed for 1980 and in particular to Government Schools.

Government Schools bear the burden of these cuts, 1 1 . 2 per cent while non-Government schools will receive an increase of 3 . 4 per cent.

We call on the Government to again examine the proposals as set out in the guidelines for Education expenditure 1 980 and to immediately restore an increase substantially in real terms the allocation of funds for education expenditure in 1 980 to Government schools.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kerin, Mr Lucock, Mr Lusher, Mr Ruddock, Mr Sainsbury and Mr West.

Petitions received.

Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of electors of the State of New South Wales respectfully showeth:

That the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act 1 977 should immediately be repealed because:

It provides unfettered power to Ministers to suspend, stand-down and dismiss Commonwealth Government employees and places them in a markedly disadvantageous position as compared with all other Australian workers.

Its use places Commonwealth Government employees in direct conflict with the Government as it circumvents the arbitration tribunals and denies appeal rights.

Its use will exacerbate industrial disputes and inflame industrial relations in the Commonwealth area of employment.

The International Labour Organisation has condemned the Provisions of the Act as being incompatible with the rights of organised labour in a free society.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Gillard, Mr Lusher, Mr Ruddock and Mr Sainsbury.

Petitions received.

Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of electors of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth:

That the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act 1 977 should immediately be repealed because:

It provides unfettered power to Ministers to suspend, stand-down and dismiss Commonwealth Government employees and places them in a markedly disadvantageous position as compared with all other Australian workers.

Its use places Commonwealth Government employees in direct conflict with the Government as it circumvents the arbitration tribunals and denies appeal rights.

Its use will exacerbate industrial disputes and inflame industrial relations in the Commonwealth area of employment.

The International Labour Organisation has condemned the Provisions of the Act as being incompatible with the rights of organised labour in a free society.

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

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 S.A. Pre-School services are inadequate.
  2. The development of adequate services has been curtailed by reduced Federal Budget allocations to Pre-Schools 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 Federal Government increase its allocation for Pre-School education immediately to enable the provision of adequate pre-school services in S.A.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hurford, Mr Jacobi, Mr Wallis and Mr Young.

Petitions received.

Great Barrier Reef : Oil Exploration

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of citizens of the Commonwealth submits:

That off-shore oil exploration within the Great Barrier Reef Region constitutes a serious threat to the richest and most varied living system on earth.

Your Petitioners request that your Honourable House will:

  1. Prohibit oil exploration within the Great Barrier Reef Region,
  2. Declare the entire Great Barrier Reef Region a Marine Park under the Federal Government’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975,
  3. Provide the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority with the staff and resources for effective management of the Region.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Malcolm Fraser and Mr Hurford.

Petitions received.

Citizen Forces Long Service and Good Conduct Medals

The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned members and ex-members of the Citizens Forces of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. On 14 February1975, the then Australian Government deprived the Officers and men of the Australian Citizen Naval Military and Air Forces of the distinctive and historic Decorations and Medals for long service and good conduct, namely the Reserve Decoration, the Efficiency Decoration, the Air Efficiency Award, the efficiency Medal and Long Service and Good Conduct Medals, awarded for long and meritorious voluntary service in the citizen forces.
  2. The proposed substitution of the National Medal for these Decorations and Medals varies the principle of selective recognition of efficient voluntary service in the citizen forces in that it recognises the period of service only and embraces also full time service as well in the defence forces as in the police, fire brigade and ambulance services.
  3. This deprivation caused and is continuing to cause serious discontent amongst personnel of the Citizens Forces who willingly and cheerfully give of their spare time outside their normal full time civilian careers, to serve Her Majesty and Australia.
  4. The Reserve Forces of Australia have been recognised by the present Government as a valuable- and costeffective component of the Defence Forces. Anomalously, whilst the Government is actually supporting recruiting for these Forces it has imposed and continued this deprivation which as foresaid has depressed the morale of the Citizen Forces.
  5. Her Majesty has not cancelled the said Decorations and Medals.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray your Honourable House take appropriate action to resume the award of the several distinctive Reserve Forces Decorations and Medals for Long Service and Good Conduct to members of the Royal Australian Naval Reserve, Army Reserve (CMF) and the RAAF Citizens Air Force.

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

Petition received.

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully say we are concerned about the lack of public participation allowed in the decision making of the Broadcasting Tribunal.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament take immediate steps to dismiss the present members of the tribunal, replacing them with:

  1. Janet Strickland Chairperson.

    1. One elected representative from Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations (FACTS).
    2. One Elected Representative from all public lobby groups who are requesting improved television standards.
    3. One elected representative from organisations whose mem bers work in the television industry.

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

Petition received.

Pornographic Publications

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

That we the undersigned, having great concern at the way in which children are now being used in the production of pornography call upon the Government to introduce immediate legislation:

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

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

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

Petition received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

That the National Women’s Advisory Council has not been democratically elected by the women of Australia;

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is not representative of the women of Australia;

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is a discriminatory and sexist imposition on Australian women as Australian men do not have a National Men’s Advisory Council imposed on them.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the National Women’s Advisory Council be abolished to ensure that Australian womenhave equal opportunity with Australian men of having issues of concern to them considered, debated and voted on by their Parliamentary representatives without intervention and interference by an unrepresentative ‘Advisory Council ‘.

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

Petition received.

Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill

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:

The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Bill 1979, presently being debated in the House of Representatives is an infringement on basic civil liberties. If this bill is passed it will lead to the establishment of an autonomous political police force. It will legalise the following activities:

Phone tapping.

Mail opening.

Forced entry and search of premises.

In addition, if a person exposes an ASIO agent they are liable to a fine of $1,000 or up to 2 years imprisonment with no course of appeal.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that:

The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Bill 1979 be withdrawn.

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

Petition received.

Pensions

To the Rt Hon. the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia residing in the Electorate of Wannon respectfully showeth:

Your petitioners pray:

  1. That the Government adhere to its commitment to take politics out of pension increases by giving automatic increases in line with price rises twice a year.
  2. That the Government imediately grant free medical, hospital and pharmaceutical benefits to any person receiving a portion of the aged pension.
  3. That the Government take steps to grant free medical, hospital and pharmaceutical benefits to all female citizens on reaching age sixty and all male citizens on reaching age sixty-five years.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMrKerin.

Petition received.

Marsden High School Science Block

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petitioners of Marsden High School Parents and Citizens Association of New South Wales respectfully showeth:

That as citizens of New South Wales and Parents of State School children, we are most concerned that the quality of education available in our schools be of the highest standard.

We believe that this can only be achieved by overcoming our inadequate Library /Science accommodation at Marsden High School.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representaives, in Parliament assembled should arrange for:

The construction of a Library/Science Block at Marsden High School.

And yourpetitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Ruddock.

Petition received.

Education

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 reintroduction of tuition fees for tertiary education and the introduction of a loans scheme of student financing as suggested by a research paper for the National Inquiry into Education and Training and as recommended for further study by the Committee of inquiry, would add a significant financial burden to the already low finances of tertiary students.

Your petitioners also note that according to a major study on the abolition of fees made through the University of N.S.W. Tertiary Education Research Centre, it is the category of students presently under-represented in tertiary education who would be most disadvantaged by the reintroduction of fees.

Furthermore, 20 per cent of students surveyed in that study said they would be forced to defer or not enrol if fees were introduced.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

  1. That fees for tertiary study not be reintroduced.
  2. That the grants based Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (TEAS) not be threatened by the introduction of a loans scheme of student financing.

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

Petition 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 1978-79 Budget is of vital concern to offset the rising costs 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 average weekly earnings.

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

Petition received.

Slaughter of Seal Pups

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

That the Australian Government ban all future importation of Seal products whatsoever.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government:

Will implement the cessation of imported Seal products and that a formal protest to be made to the Canadian Government concerning the needless slaughter of the endangered Harp Seal species.

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

Petition received.

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 utilise 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 Yates.

Petition received.

Refugees

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 a grave threat to the life of refugees from the various States of Indo- China arises from the policies of the Government of Vietnam.

That, as a result of these policies, many thousands of refugees are fleeing their homes and risking starvation and drowning. Because of the failure of the rich nations of the world to provide more than token assistance, the resources of the nations of first refuge, especially Malaysia and Thailand, are being stretched beyond reasonable limits.

As a wealthy nation within the region most affected, Australia is able to play a major part in the rescue as well as resettlement of these refugees.

It should be possible for Australia to:

Establish and maintain on the Australian mainland basic transit camps for the housing and processing of 200,000 refugees each year;

Mobilise the Defence Force to search for, rescue and transport to Australia those refugees who have been able to leave the Indo-China States;

Accept the offer of those church groups which propose to resettle some thousands of refugees in Australia.

The adoption of such a humane policy would have a marked effect on Australia ‘s standing within the region.

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

Petition received.

Commonwealth Government Employees Compensation

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of electors of the State /Territory of ACT respectfully showeth:

That compensation benefits payable to injured Australian Government employees and Defence Forces personnel under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 should be increased as a matter of urgency in view of the financial plight of recipients, particularly those suffering long term incapacity and because of the significant increase in the cost of living which has occurred since compensation payments were last adjusted; and

That statutory provision should be made for the automatic adjustment of compensation benefits.

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

Petition received.

page 426

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 426

QUESTION

THE BUDGET

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I refer the Treasurer to projections contained in the Budget which show average weekly earnings increasing by some 9 per cent, consumer prices increasing by at least 10 per cent, net pay-as-you-earn tax going up by a massive 1 5 per cent and no indexation of family allowances. Coupled with the health insurance cost hikes of the May mini-Budget of around 40 per cent, does this mean that we will see a further substantial cut in the living standards of Australian families and further erosion of consumer confidence?

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answer to the honourable gentleman’s question is no. The Leader of the Opposition, the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have over the past few months tried to implant in the minds of the Australian community the idea that its living standards have been reduced under this Government. I say to the Leader of the Opposition and to all of his colleagues that he has a very heavy obligation to the Australian community. If the Leader of the Opposition intends to make allegations about a reduction in living standards I invite him to produce the evidence that living standards have been reduced. The Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues are engaged in a campaign of trying to fix this Government with promises that it has never made and with responsibility for things that it has never done. If the Leader of the Opposition wants honourable members on this side of the Parliament to take seriously his allegations about changes in living standards, let him give us some evidence.

Let him also come clean about what would happen to the living standards of Australians if the taxation policies adopted at the Adelaide conference were implemented. Let him come clean with the Australian people by telling them what would happen to incentive under a taxation system that provided for a marginal rate of 75c or 80c in the dollar. Let him tell the Australian people what the Labor Party’s funny money wealth tax ideas would do to the confidence of small business people and farmers in Australia. In other words, if the Leader of the Opposition wants to be taken seriously as an alternative Prime Minister, if he wants to beat off successfully challenges from within his own movement, let him do two things: Before he makes attacks upon the credibility of this Government, let him produce some evidence and let him have the honesty to come clean about the effect of his own policies.

page 427

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ANTHEM

Mr ROGER JOHNSTON:
HOTHAM, VICTORIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Administrative Services. The Minister is of course familiar with the Australian tune and the fact that the words of Advance Australia Fair’ are not officially the Australian song or anthem. Can the Minister arrange a competition for official words to the Australian tune? The words of ‘Advance Australia Fair’ may well win, but they should be official and not used just through lack of an accepted alternative agreed by the people of Australia.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I thank the honourable member for Hotham for his interest in this matter and for his suggestion. I undertake to give it some consideration when looking at the guidelines for the use of the song.

page 427

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN TOURIST INDUSTRY

Mr JULL:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Following the massive 93 per cent increase in the Budget allocation to the Australian Tourist Commission and the introduction of depreciation allowances for accommodation buildings, how well equipped is the Australian tourist industry to play its part in the world tourist industry? Will these and other Government initiatives still be forthcoming in coming weeks?

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Industry and Commerce · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– I thank the honourable member for Bowman for that question. I take the opportunity of recording the tremendous contribution which he and members of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Tourism made to the development of a better Australian tourist industry. The initiatives brought down in this Budget by the Treasurer are the most significant commitment to tourism by any Australian government. They reflect the importance which has been placed on the tourist industry by the Government. The honourable gentleman mentioned the very significant lift which has gone to the Australian Tourist Commission- a lift of some 93 per cent. Of course, the building depreciation initiative, which was brought down in the Budget, had long been sought by the industry. Apart from those initiatives a number of other significant initiatives will be detailed to the House during the course of the afternoon. In the Budget the export market development grants scheme was provided with $3.25m for the Australian tourist industry this year. A sum of $400,000 was provided in this Budget for a seven year program for the restoration and development of Port Arthur. An amount of $130,000 was provided for further research into the economic significance of tourism. This is to be carried out by the Bureau of Industry Economics. Some $400,000 was provided for research into marine sciences and technologies, of which $300,000 will be directed to studies associated with the Great Barrier Reef. There is a continuing commitment by the Commonwealth to upgrade facilities at Ayers Rock and to rehabilitate the environment. I believe that the industry will respond very warmly indeed to the initiatives which have been taken by the Government. The Government for its part has provided a climate of incentive and opportunity. It is now a matter for the industry. I believe that the industry will now start moving significantly during the years ahead.

Mr Young:

– We have 500,000 unemployed. They can all go off on holiday.

Mr LYNCH:

– For the sake of the honourable gentleman who is interjecting can I simply say to him that this is a very real and significant growth -

Mr Young:

– There are 500,000 unemployed.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide will cease interjecting.

Mr LYNCH:

– I conclude by saying that this is a very significant growth industry. I am sure that it will be one of Australia’s fastest growing industries during the decade of the 1980s, with the full support, I hope, of members on the other side of this House and the industry itself.

page 428

QUESTION

FAMILY INCOMES

Mr CHARLES JONES:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I ask the Prime Minister: Is it a fact that since his Government came to power in December 1975 the wage of the average worker with dependent spouse and two children has increased by $50 a week, but to buy the same amount of goods and services as before now costs $50.8 1 more a week? Is it also a fact that in the same period health costs have increased by $7 a week and direct income tax has increased by $7.50 a week? Does this mean that under the Fraser Government the average Australian working family is now about $15 a week worse off? In view of the Prime Minister’s tax hoax in the Budget of last night I ask him how much more he expects Australian families to pay for his economic incompetence.

Mr HOWARD:
LP

-I will have the -

Mr CHARLES JONES:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question was directed to the Prime Minister. It is a matter for which he is responsible.

Mr Armitage:

– He is the man who has broken the promises.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Chifley will remain silent. It is perfectly acceptable for any Minister to answer the question.

Mr HOWARD:

– In all fairness to the honourable member for Newcastle, I will have the allegations contained in his question analysed and I will provide him with an answer. But having told the honourable member for Newcastle that I will do that, if the honourable member is thinking of arithmetical movements during the period that a government has been in office, I take the opportunity of reminding the House of what happened to personal income tax collections while the Australian Labor Party was in power. During the period of over two years that the present Leader of the Opposition was the Treasurer personal income tax collections increased by 89 per cent. Of course we all remember what the rate of inflation was during that period. If the honourable member for Newcastle wants to get into a comparative arithmetical argument about what has happened to economic indicators during the term of office of the Fraser Government and what happened to them during the term of office of the previous Government, I would be very happy to ask the Leader of the House to provide time for a debate on it because everybody on this side of the House would be more than delighted to have an arithmetical comparison made of the situation under the Labor Government and under the Fraser Government.

page 428

QUESTION

F111 AIRCRAFT

Mr GRAHAM:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Defence whether he can advise the House of the facts concerning a report to the effect that a Royal Australian Air Force F111 aircraft- the first of such aircraft recently modified in the United States for special reconnaissance work- was forced on its return to Australia to land at Kwajalein in the Pacific Ocean, allegedly because of a tropical storm. Can the Minister clear the clouds away from this report?

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Yes, the aircraft did put down at Kwajalein on its way back from the United States. The report which appeared in today’s Australian is grossly inaccurate and I am very sorry -

Mr Young:

– The one about taxes?

Mr KILLEN:

– The honourable member for Port Adelaide is getting so cranky that I think he needs a grease and an oil change. What happened is that the automatic de-icing system in one engine of the aircraft failed. The pilot then turned to the manual backup de-icing system and his professional judgment was that the aircraft should put down. No mention was made of those facts in the article. I think a very great disservice has been done to the profession of journalism by what I would describe as a very mischievous report.

page 428

QUESTION

JUNE QUARTER NATIONAL ACCOUNTS

Mr WILLIS:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– I address to the Treasurer a question concerning the national account statistics which were released last night and which show that real non-farm product declined by 0.9 per cent seasonally adjusted in the June quarter. I ask: Is the Treasurer alarmed at this slump in economic activity? Were these figures available to the Government when it drew up its Budget? Is the Treasurer concerned that last night’s very contractionary Budget will intensify this downturn and bring about a major depression?

Mr HOWARD:
BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– If I may reply to the last part of the honourable gentleman’s question first, the answer is emphatically no. I believe that the level of the deficit which was struck in last night’s Budget is appropriate in the present economic circumstances and will be very widely received as the most appropriate response to the economic circumstances at present. The honourable member for Gellibrand has some familiarity with national account statistics.

Mr Haslem:

– Not too much.

Mr HOWARD:
LP

-He is more familiar with national account statistics than are some of his colleagues. He will know that those statistics have a great capacity to vary from quarter to quarter. Obviously, if that figure is a correct reflection of what occurred during that quarter, it is not a figure that pleased us a great deal. The honourable member asked about the availability of the figures. The answer to that question is that those figures formally became available to the Government only a few days ago and knowledge of those figures would not have been available to the Government for any longer than about five or six days. So any question of there being any massive capacity for us to alter things if we had wanted to, which we would not, does not arise.

page 429

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE

Mr ALDRED:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Minister for Defence. Does the Minister feel that last night’s Budget facilitates a greater degree of very necessary self-reliance on the part of the Australian Defence Force, especially in the areas of equipment and training?

Mr KILLEN:
LP

– The short answer to the question is yes. It would be my hope and expectation that I will be able to make a statement on defence expenditure, probably tomorrow if that meets with the convenience of the Leader of the House and the House itself.

page 429

QUESTION

JOINT PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE

Mr WEST:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the Government’s admission last night -

Honourable members interjecting.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Cunningham will resume his seat. The proceedings of the House cannot continue while the noise continues on my right. The honourable member for St George will not interject again.

Mr WEST:

– In view of the Government’s admission last night that unemployment will be higher in 1 980 than it was in 1 979, and in view of the savage slashing of its meagre employment and training programs, will it now agree to the setting up of a joint parliamentary committee to investigate and develop new and imaginative manpower programs to allow this country to get back to work?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

– The honourable member for Cunningham obviously has not read exactly what was said last night.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I take a point of order. This is the third question which the Prime Minister has refused to answer. Does that indicate that he is on strike?

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

Mr HOWARD:

– The honourable member for Cunningham obviously has not read exactly what was said in the Budget Speech and papers about the question of unemployment, and by his question he demonstrates the very narrow vision that the Labor Party has concerning the problems of unemployment. He also demonstrates-

Mr West:

– I asked the Prime Minister the question.

Mr HOWARD:

– The honourable member asked a question about unemployment because he was worried about the jobless in Australia. Why does he not listen to the answer? The fact of the matter is that the Labor Party is totally obsessed with the idea that the only way -

Honourable members interjecting.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. There is far too much interjection on my left. I direct my remarks especially to the honourable member for Melbourne. He must cease interjecting.

Mr HOWARD:

– If members of the Labor Party were really as concerned about unemployment as they profess to be and if they were really worried about the capacity of the Australian economy to create more jobs, which is the only lasting solution to the problem of unemployment- not some of the gimmicky solutions that are urged upon us by spokesmen for the Labor Party- they would think again about the consequences of some of the policies they adopted at the Adelaide Conference of the Labor Party, such as the policy that they adopted regarding foreign investment. It so happens -

Mr West:

– I take a point of order. Mr Speaker, I ask you to request the Treasurer to make his answer relevant. My question related to the provision of adequate manpower programs.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I uphold the point of order and ask the Treasurer to remain relevant to the question.

Mr HOWARD:

-The honourable member’s question asked about the Government’s attitude towards unemployment. He says he is worried about manpower programs. One of the most effective responses to unemployment in this country is to have more jobs, and one of the best ways to have more jobs is to have more investment in this country. One of the effects of the policies that were adopted by the Labor Party in Adelaide would be to make more overseas investment in this country far less likely.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. I have been very lenient today. It is the day after Budget day and obviously honourable members wish to ask questions relating to the Budget. But the behaviour in the House at present is way below that which can be expected from a national parliament and it must cease as from now.

Mr HOWARD:

-The Labor Party is obsessed with the belief that the most effective way of reponding to the unemployment problem is to adopt policies which are specifically tailored to create jobs without recognising that the most effective way of creating jobs in this country is to follow economic policies which encourage both domestic and overseas investment. That is why the policy which the Labor Party adopted at the Adelaide conference, if implemented, will scare away foreign investment from this country and is so counter-productive to its concern about the level of unemployment in Australia. Part of the foreign investment policy adopted by the Labor Party at its conference in Adelaide was to establish within the Foreign Investment Review Board something that could be described as nothing short of a unit to spy on multinational corporations that might want to establish their operations in Australia. If the honourable member for Cunningham is really worried about the level of unemployment in Australia, he will urge his party to adopt a more realistic attitude towards both domestic and overseas investment in this country.

page 430

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

Mr Corbett having addressed a question to the Minister for Trade and Resources-

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member’s question is out of order.

page 430

QUESTION

FAMILY ALLOWANCES

Mr ARMITAGE:

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does the 48 per cent increase in the consumer price index from 1975-76 to 1979-80 mean that the value of family allowances for a family with two children has declined by $3.70 over the last five years? Does the Government’s failure to index family allowances mean that the Government is being dishonest with families?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the Treasurer.

Mr Armitage:

– I take a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order. I anticipate what the honourable gentleman wants to say.

Mr Armitage:

– I have not made my point of order yet.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Well, under those circumstances, I will hear the honourable member.

Mr Armitage:

-Mr Speaker, my point of order is that this is the fourth occasion this afternoon on which the Prime Minister has got Charlie McCarthy to answer his question.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Bryant:

– I wish to speak to the point of order. Questions may be put to a Minister relating to public affairs with which he is officially connected. It is true that the Treasurer may be running the country but unless we can get any Minister to whom a question is directed to answer it -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. He has been here so long.

Mr Bryant:

– That is right. This is the first time that there has been that sort of ruling.

Mr Armitage:

– I raise a point of order. These are questions directed at the integrity of the Prime Minister -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman is not raising a point of order. He is making a protest.

Mr HOWARD:
LP

– I would genuinely like to know how the honourable member for Chifley has arrived at the allegation that the consumer price index has gone up by 48 per cent in the period that he cited. I may be living in ignorance of some hidden deflator that he uses in these things. Perhaps he is thinking of some earlier years before 1975 when the rate of inflation increased in a very short period. The honourable member for Chifley, like the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Newcastle, is trying, once again, through Question Time, to establish that the living standards of the Australian community have been reduced during the term of office of this Government.

Very simply, the facts of the matter are that this Government has given to Australian families, through the family allowance scheme, one of the most revolutionary social reforms that this country has seen. At the time the family allowance scheme was introduced it was hailed not only by members of this side of the House; it was acknowledged also by members of the other side of the House. Members of the Opposition now have a fondness for the family allowance scheme that was not evident when they were in office between 1972 and 1975. Like most other major social reforms, it was introduced by a government of Liberal persuasion and not a government of Labor persuasion.

page 431

QUESTION

AIR NAVIGATION CHARGES

Mr CADMAN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Did the Minister for Transport hear the Treasurer last night announce increases in air navigation charges of 25 per cent? How will these increases affect the cost of travel in Australia? For instance, will they put up the fares from Sydney to Melbourne or from Melbourne to Perth by amounts as high as 10 per cent?

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · LP

– I have been rather staggered to read some of the Press reports following the announcement by the Treasurer last night that air navigation charges would rise by 25 per cent. One usually well informed writer seems to have become a little carried away in his newspaper which happens to be the Daily Telegraph. The article he wrote is headed ‘Steep rise in air fares tipped.’ I will not name the writer; I will be kind to him. The article states:

The cost of air travel will soar as a result of big increases in air navigation charges to airlines.

That article is typical. Most of the reporters did not put their names to their articles. The writer of the article to which I have referred was the only one I could find who did. To get the matter in perspective, let me give some examples of what an increase of 25 per cent in air navigation charges will mean to the travellers of this country. I ask honourable members to understand that air navigation charges add up to less than 5 per cent of the total costs of an airline. Therefore, they are not overly significant although some people would like to make them so. On the Sydney-Perth route- that is about as far as one can travel from one side of the country to the other- the one way economy fare is $241.50. The increase in air navigation charges would be $2.42. On the Melbourne to Hobart route the charges would be 60 cents. From Canberra to Sydney they would be 33 cents. I give those examples to show the steep increase in air fares as tipped by certain newspaper reporters this morning.

page 431

QUESTION

HEALTH INSURANCE RATES

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the Prime Minister’s demonstration of his lack of numeracy on the AM program this morning, I direct my question to the Treasurer. Is it a fact that the increase in basic health insurance rates from 1 September will amount to about $3 per week for major funds and to $4 to $5 for insurance at higher rates? Even ignoring the increase in the patient contribution for pharmaceutical items and the extra costs due to the proposed deletion of many of these items from the list, does this not mean that the great majority of taxpayers with wages at or below average weekly earnings will see the Christmas tax cut more than eaten up by the higher health insurance costs alone?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

-The extent to which individuals are affected by the increased health charges and changes in their take home pay as a result of the surcharge coming off on 1 December will vary according to their circumstances. I make one point to the honourable member for Prospect: To make a straight comparison between the increase in health insurance premiums and the increase in take home pay is to tell only half the story. What the honourable member for Prospect fails to understand is something that my colleague the Minister for Health has said on many occasions, namely, that there is no such thing as a free health care service. Indeed, if the arrangements that were announced on 24 May had not been instituted and the Government had sustained the same levels of Commonwealth subsidy for the health service, it would have been necessary for us to have a higher rate of taxation than will prevail throughout the course of this year. So it is totally misleading for the honourable member for Prospect and the Leader of the Opposition to make that simple comparison.

page 431

QUESTION

FAMILY INCOMES

Mr HOWARD:
LP

-Mr Speaker, while I am on my feet may I have your leave to correct an answer that I made earlier?

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr HOWARD:

– I made a very bad mistake. I misled the House in some figures I gave. I said that income tax collections over a two-year period that the Labor Party had been in government had increased by about 89 per cent. I have since had that figure checked. I found I was wrong. I apologise to the members of the Opposition. The fact is that between 1972-73 and 1974-75, income tax collections went up by 88.6 per cent, so I was wrong. But, from 1972-73 to 1975-76, which includes virtually all of the time that the Labor Party was in government, income tax collections went up by 254 per cent. I am really very sorry to have misled the House.

page 432

QUESTION

PORT ARTHUR

Mr BURR:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It follows on from the question asked by the honourable member for Bowman. Can the Minister give more information to the House regarding the provision in the Budget for the restoration and development of Port Arthur? In particular, has there been any agreement with the Tasmanian Government that would prevent that State Government reducing its contribution to the restoration of Port Arthur as a result of the generosity of the Federal Government?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– In response to the final part of the honourable gentleman’s question, I indicate clearly that it certainly is not the Commonwealth’s intention to allow the Tasmanian Government to welsh on the opportunity which this Budget initiative provides. It is designed very much to add to expenditures in the Port Arthur region and not to substitute for existing expenditures by the Commonwealth Government. The honourable gentleman can be assured that this point will be watched.

Apart from what I mentioned in response to an earlier question on tourism, I think this is one of the most significant initiatives which the Government has taken in respect of the tourist industry in the Tasmanian region. Port Arthur, which would be well known to honourable members on both sides of this House, is an historic site of national significance. The need for Commonwealth support for that site has been strongly pressed with me by the honourable member for Wilmot. I visited the site recently. I pay him full credit for the contribution which he has made in supporting what is a very significant Commonwealth initiative. The Government will provide funds to the Tasmanian Government on a $2 for $ 1 basis over the next seven years for restoration of the region, with $400,000 being provided by the Commonwealth for this purpose during 1979-80. 1 repeat that this commitment of funds is designed to add to the existing expenditure on Port Arthur and we certainly will not allow- the Tasmanian Government to welsh on the opportunity provided.

page 432

QUESTION

THE BUDGET

Mr HAYDEN:

– I ask the Treasurer a question. It follows the correction he made a few minutes ago to an earlier answer and it will give him the opportunity to make a further correction. Does the 15.4 per cent increase in receipts announced in last night’s Budget mean that the share of receipts to gross domestic product has shown a substantial jump to 25.9 per cent over last year’s figure of 25.2 per cent? Is the average share of receipts to gross domestic product for the four coalition Budgets about 25.7 per cent compared with only 24.5 per cent for the three Labor Budgets? Does this increase in the total tax confirm that the Fraser Government is a high tax government and that this is a high tax Budget?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

-The Leader of the Opposition ignores the fact that during the whole time that his party was in government- he was a senior member of that government and for a period was Treasurer in that government- it followed the most profligate monetary policy that this country has seen since the end of World War II. It financed its large deficits by increasingly resorting to the printing presses. I do not have at my fingertips the figures quoted by the Leader of the Opposition. I will check the claim made by him and if I have any comment to make on it I will do so.

Mr Innes:

– I raise a point of order. It relates to the procedures of this stage of the parliamentary process. This stage is supposed to be set aside for questions without notice and the competency of Ministers- in particular, the Treasurer at Budget time- is on display as they have to stand up and answer the questions. The fact is that today this procedure is being by-passed. If questions are to be taken down and answered at leisure at some time in the future, the whole purpose of asking questions without notice will be defeated.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order.

page 432

QUESTION

WHEAT EXPORTS

Mr FISHER:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics predicts a wheat crop of 13.5 million tonnes this year, following last year’s record crop of 18.4 million tonnes. Will the Minister advise the House on the likely effect of these crops on grain handling and storage facilities and the projected carry-over from last season? Can the Minister also indicate the advantages to pasture and grain industries of the depreciation changes?

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

– There is no doubt as far as the grain industry is concerned, given the industrial troubles first in New South Wales and then on the waterfront around Australia, that the carry-over at the end of this season will be significantly higher than forecast and that there will be a requirement for every wheat grower to look at his on-farm storage facilities and determine whether, by retaining that part of his crop that he can on his farm, he can assist in ensuring the delivery of the crop in the best possible state. Yesterday’s announcement by my colleague the Treasurer of the introduction of the accelerated depreciation allowance of 20 per cent, which is, of course, supplemental to the investment allowance on eligible storage, means that there is a very real incentive for every wheat grower to take advantage of that and to examine the adequacy of his on-farm storage facilities.

The Australian Agricultural Council, prior to its last meeting, asked its officers to examine the availability of permanent storage. The conclusion was that it would not be desirable for a significant increase to occur in that permanent storage to meet the occasional record crop. However, this year with an increase in sowing of wheat to about 11 million hectares, which is greater than the 10.8 million hectares which yielded last year’s record crop, it is probable that there will be very serious delivery problems, both from the farm to permanent storage and from permanent storage to the ship side, unless there is some improvement in temporary storage round the country. That was recognised by this report to the Agricultural Council. It also identified the assistance which would be given for onfarm storage facilities which, of course, will now be further assisted through the financial stimulus provided by the Budget. This Budget provides very real assistance to the rural community throughout Australia. I believe that as a result, given the improved marketing conditions to which this Government has significantly contributed, the reduced inflationary pressures that are demonstrable in the comparison of the figures given by my colleague the Treasurer earlier today, the farming community can look forward to the 1 979-80 year with a considerable measure of optimism.

page 433

QUESTION

NOMINAL DIRECTORSHIPS

Mr BARRY JONES:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I direct my question to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. I refer to the Minister’s responsibility for the Commonwealth companies Act. Will the Minister confirm that there is no provision within the Act for the appointment of nominal directors? Is it a fact that acceptance of appointment as a director involves responsibilities imposed under various acts and that directors are then liable for failures to meet these obligations which cannot be avoided by pleading ignorance or assuming the status of nominal director? Is it not a fact that the concept of nominal director is unknown to the law and a contradiction in terms, like being a nominal minister or a nominal ship ‘s captain?

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

– I will be happy to give very careful consideration to the honourable member’s question and let him have an answer at a later date.

page 433

QUESTION

COAL LEVY

Mr BAUME:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the reduction by $2.50 a tonne of the coal export levy on underground coal, but not on open cut coal, assist the southern coal mines in New South Wales firstly, to preserve jobs and secondly, to guarantee the mine development programs involving additional employment now under way?

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

-The coal levy is a tax that this Government does not like. It is a tax that was put on by the previous Labor Government. I venture to say that if it had continued at $6 a tonne, many of the coal mines and particularly the underground coal mines would have been out of business now and there would have been very heavy unemployment in those regions where the mines exist. Fortunately, the Government has been able to reduce that levy substantially. As there were particular problems emerging with the underground coal mines because of low profitability and with some of them getting into a loss situation we were able to make further adjustments so that the levy was reduced from $3.50 to the figure now applying of $1 a tonne. I am sure that this will be a great help to those mines on the south coast of New South Wales.

The reduction of the levy for underground mines gives a benefit to all exporters of high grade coking coal. Even those open-cut mines in the Bowen Basin area of Queensland have underground mining operations too and so they also get the benefit. An important aspect of the decision this Government made regarding the coal levy was that all new projects established will pay, for the time being, only $ 1 a tonne. This Government wanted to avoid any hesitancy that companies might have in going ahead and bringing about more development. Certainly, the coalmining industry is one of the greatest potential areas of development for this country and it would be a pity if this levy were to jeopardise that development in any way whatsoever. I am sure that in the light of the Budget that has been brought down and with the perceptions throughout this country and overseas, companies will now come to Australia and invest huge amounts of money. If these companies saw the

Government not taking a firm line on the management of the economy and the control of inflation, there might be some reservations on their part. But with the combination of a reduced levy and the overall general attitude towards the Budget, I believe the future for the coalmining industry is very bright.

page 434

QUESTION

PENSION ELIGIBILITY OF MEMBERS OF ALLIED ARMED FORCES

Dr CASS:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– I refer the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs to the Budget decision to extend war service pension eligibility to members of allied armed forces back to the beginning of World War 1. 1 ask the Minister: Does it include Italian born migrants who fought in World War I, but exclude all Italians who fought in World War II? Does it exclude all Greek, French and Yugoslav partisans who fought in World War II on our side? What is the status of Germans now living in Australia? Does it include Vietnamese refugees? Are Turkish, Lebanese and Syrian ex-soldiers excluded from the decision because they fought against Australia in World War I?

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Primary Industry · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

– The question involves quite a lot of information.

Opposition members interjecting.

Mr ADERMANN:

– Do they want an answer? Mr Speaker, there will be a full explanation when the legislation is brought in. To cover the questions the honourable member has asked, I think that they are mainly answered if he is told that these Service pensions will be applicable under the same types of conditions as are applicable to Commonwealth ex-servicemen; that is, regarding residential and other qualifications. They will be available to ex-servicemen who served as members of a formally raised force of an allied country- that would answer his question in regard to partisans and others- who served in a theatre of war, who at no time served with enemy forces, who have resided in Australia for ten years and who satisfy the various income tests. That broadly covers the question, but I will have to look at the fine details. I have no problem with the question, but there are a number of aspects in it. If they are not answered before the legislation is brought in, I will answer them when it is.

page 434

QUESTION

TASMANIAN ELECTION

Mr HODGMAN:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– In view of certain dire predictions circulating in Tasmania a few weeks ago, is the Prime Minister now free to confirm that each and every one of last night’s Budget measures for Tasmania was decided and indeed locked up weeks before Mr Lowe called his recent phoney snap election?

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

– I understand that there is a suggestion in Tasmania that Mr Lowe knew what a good Budget it would be and therefore was determined to have an election before the Budget came down.

Mr Young:

– I raise a point of order. Mr Lowe is not the only State Premier. I hope that the Prime Minister comes to South Australia between now and 15 September for the South Australian election.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide will resume his seat.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– All essential Budget decisions, including those so importantly affecting Tasmania, were taken and completed before I left for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting at Lusaka; in other words, before the Tasmanian election.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I draw the attention of the right honourable gentleman to the fact that whilst it is a matter of courtesy to speak to the person -

Mr Innes:

– He looks better that way, anyway.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Melbourne will remain silent. The right honourable gentleman is in fact turning away from the microphone and the sound is not being heard in the chamber.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. In that case I will repeat what I said. All essential Budget decisions were taken before I left for Lusaka, before the Tasmanian election took place. I must agree that there was a certain amount of frustration on the part of the Treasurer and myself who knew what the decisions were, but because the Tasmanian election was to precede the Budget, obviously we could not talk about them. The decisions announced relating to Tasmania during the Budget Speech last night are completely consistent with the policies of this Government which has done a great deal to assist that State, as indeed all States of the Commonwealth. I think it was Mr Batt in the Tasmanian Parliament who some time ago indicated a long list of new investment projects being undertaken in Tasmania- including the $30m Burnie paper mills expansion- which were taking place as a result of our policies and as a result of freight equalisation in particular. It is worth noting that these policies have a direct bearing on employment. If it were not for the introduction of freight equalisation in relation to Tasmania, employment would be very much lower in that State. Investment has taken place, industries have kept going and some industries have expanded as a result of freight equalisation and as a result of making markets available in other States. Without freight equalisation, this would not have been possible.

The same can be said of many of the Government’s policies. The policies of this Government have given more attention to the State of Tasmania than ever before in the history of Federation. I am certain that it is understood that this has occurred substantially because of the energy and vigour of the Tasmanian members of Parliament in this House and in the Senate. I have no doubt that that attention to Tasmania will be reflected whenever the only poll that counts is ultimately undertaken.

page 435

INTERNATIONAL BAUXITE ASSOCIATION

Protocol to the Agreement Establishing the International Bauxite Association: Reservations Entered by Australia to the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities of the International Bauxite Association; and amendments to the Agreement Establishing the International Bauxite Association.

page 435

AUSTRALIAN CANNED FRUITS BOARD

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

– Pursuant to section 36 of the Canned Fruits Export Marketing Act 1963 I present the annual report and accounts of the Australian Canned Fruits Board for 1978,

page 435

AUSTRALIAN TRIPARTITE MISSION

Mr STREET:
Minister for Industrial Relations · Corangamite · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Australian Tripartite Mission to study the training of skilled workers in the metal and electrical trades in Japan, Korea, Hong Kong and the Philippines.

page 435

AUSTRALIAN TRADE UNION TRAINING AUTHORITY

Mr STREET:
Minister for Industrial Relations · Corangamite · LP

– Pursuant to section 58 of the Trade Union Training Authority Act 1975 and section 25 (2) of the Trade Union Training Authority Amendment Act 1 978 1 present the report of the Australian Trade Union Training

Authority for the period 1 July 1977 to 31 July 1978.

page 435

AUSTRALIAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL

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

– Pursuant to section 6 of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978 I present the report of the Australian Science And Technology Council on Marine Sciences and Technologies in Australia: Immediate Issues.

page 435

EDUCATION AND TRAINING FOR SOCIAL WELFARE PERSONNEL IN AUSTRALIA

Mr HUNT (Gwydir-Minister for HealthFor the information of honourable members I present a report entitled: ‘Education And Training For Social Welfare Personnel In Australia’ by Ms Eva Learner. This report was distributed to honourable members during the adjournment.

page 435

NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for National Development · Bass · LP

– Pursuant to section 6 of the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act 1978 I present copies of agreements made under the provisions of that Act relating to New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia.

page 435

URBAN AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for National Development · Bass · LP

– Pursuant to section 8 of the Urban And Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act 1974 I present copies of an agreement relating to Queensland and a project approval relating to South Australia under the provisions of that Act.

page 435

TOURISM

Ministerial Statement

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Industry and Commerce · Flinders · LP

– by leave- The 1979-80 Budget is a milestone for the development of tourism in Australia. It contains the most significant commitment to tourism by any Australian Government in our history. When I reported to the House on tourism on 5 April 1 979 following the report of the Select Committee on Tourism I stressed the importance which the Government attaches to the work of the Select Committee. A number of the Committee’s recommendations have been adopted in this Budget.

I would like to mention specifically the contribution made by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Jull), the Chairman of the Government Members’ Committee on Tourism, Senator Peter Rae, and the members of their committees. They should see the very significant increase in government support for tourism in this Budget in part as a response to their representations on behalf of the industry. The Budget clearly demonstrates the Government’s confidence in the future of tourism as a growth industry in this country. Indeed we believe it will become one of Australia’s fastest growing industries during the decade of the 1980s.

These measures represent the Commonwealth’s contribution to an effective partnership between the Commonwealth, the States and private enterprise to ensure that the promise of this industry is fulfilled. Tourism is one of the world ‘s major industries. In economic significance it is second only to oil among international industries. At present Australia receives only a one per cent share of world tourism. We must do betterand we will. Recent trends show strong growth in visitor arrivals.

If current growth rates are maintained, Australia will receive more than one million overseas visitors in 1981. By 1983, the number of foreign tourists visiting Australia will be more than double the level achieved last year. This will not be achieved automatically or without determination and effort. But the proposals contained in the Budget together with decisions previously taken by the Government will provide a favourable climate for strong, continuing growth.

Tourism is already an important sector of the Australian economy. Recent calculations have shown that the industry’s contribution to gross domestic product, both direct and indirect, amounts to about 2.7 per cent. This is an equivalent level of economic importance to the motor vehicle industry and not far below mining, which contributes 3.5 per cent. The industry also provides employment for about 2.5 per cent of the Australian work force. Foreign exchange earnings from tourism are currently around $370m a year. So when I indicate that the number of overseas visitors to Australia may double by 1983 I am referring to some hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign exchange earnings and about 30,000 additional jobs. It is the potential importance of tourism to Australia that has led me to make this statement drawing together the main features of the Budget as it affects tourism. The specific measures include:

Depreciation of buildings for the accommodation of travellers as a taxation deduction; an increase of 93 per cent in the operating budget of the Australian Tourist Commission to $8.2m; $500,000 to be provided over the next two years for domestic tourism promotion with $200,000 included in the 1979-80 appropriation of the ATC; a commitment to the development and restoration of facilities at Port Arthur over the next seven years with $400,000 being provided in 1979-80; some $2m to the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service for works at Uluru and Kakadu national parks; sufficient funds to the Northern Territory Government to enable substantial progress to be made in the development of the Yulara tourist village to service visitors to Ayers Rock; $3.25m for grants under the export market development grants scheme in respect of the travel and tourist industry; an additional $130,000 to the Bureau of Industry Economics for further research into the economic significance of tourism; almost $600,000 for studies related to the Great Barrier Reef; an increase in the proportion of after tax trading profit which a private company may retain free of undistributed profits tax from 60 per cent to 70 percent to encourage further development and growth in the industry; and $36,000 to join the World Tourism Organisation

Perhaps the most significant of the measures I have mentioned is the depreciation allowance. The industry has long sought to have depreciation on accommodation buildings made allowable as a deduction for taxation purposes.

Almost all overseas countries provide such an allowance, and the lack of it in Australia has adversely affected the level of investment in accommodation facilities. Indeed this was recognised in the Liberal and National Country parties’ statement on tourism, which said:

As soon as economic circumstances permit (the Government will) introduce depreciation allowances Tor eligible income producing buildings.

This commitment is now being met. The purpose of this new provision is to encourage the extension of Australia’s tourist accommodation facilities to provide for the expected growth of overseas visitor arrivals. Additional hotel rooms are needed urgently, particularly in the major cities, but also in rural centres. Legislation to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act will be introduced later in this session of Parliament after discussions with industry representatives. Broadly, the amendments will provide for depreciation on new income producing buildings, such as hotels, motels and guest houses, used for the accommodation of travellers and consisting of at least 10 guest rooms to be allowed as a tax deduction. The fixed annual allowance of 2Vi per cent of the original eligible cost will apply to such buildings commenced after 21 August 1979 beginning in the year in which the building is first used to provide traveller accommodation. In the case of multiple purpose buildings the allowance will be restricted to those parts of the building related to the accommodation of travellers, such as bedrooms, lobbies, reception, dining areas, conference rooms, bars and kitchens.

The Government has very significantly increased the budget of the Australian Tourist Commission to $8.2m. This represents an increase in the Commission’s allocation of 93 per cent over last year’s appropriation of $4.24m, which itself was a record 37 per cent increase over the previous year. Competition is high in every market in which Australia seeks tourists. Lower air fares alone will not draw the numbers we seek. The fares make it possible for many more people to come, but there remains a need for effective marketing to acquaint them with what Australia has to offer. The Australian Tourist Commission’s offices serve areas which produce more than 85 per cent of our visitors. The new budget will enable the Commission to compete for the first time on something like equal terms in our major overseas markets with other national tourist organisations.

The Commission will spend $1.3m on promotion in North America. This is six times the promotional budget for North America of only two years ago. The program will include the largest advertising campaign ever conducted by the ATC. Specialised programs will be aimed at groups with shared interests which can be pursued in Australia, such as yachting, skin-diving or gemstone hunting. The Commission will increase the resources it directs toward reinforcing the healthy growth of visitor numbers from the United Kingdom and Europe. This year nearly $ 1 m will be spent in continental Europe, where the Commission services 10 different countries in seven languages from its office in Frankfurt. Journalists from major markets in Europe will visit Australia under an ATC program to write about Australia and Australians for leading newspapers and magazines. The Commission’s London office has been allocated a budget of almost $600,000 which will be spent on a substantial advertising campaign and continuing work with the British travel industry on the promotion of special interest tours.

The ATC’s promotion budget for Japan has been tripled, to almost $500,000. The Commission will mount a much-needed advertising campaign to make a broader spectrum of potential Japanese travellers aware of Australia as a tourist destination. The Commission will encourage tour wholesalers to produce more varied tours and will run promotions to capitalise on the Japanese holiday traveller’s preference for group travel. Promotional activities in the South East Asian region will also be increased. The Australian Tourist Commission will also have a budget of $170,000-nearly double that of last year- for promotion in New Zealand, at present our major market. An almost non-stop series of campaigns will involve promotions advertising and the distribution of a specially prepared book, listing a comprehensive range of tours. The Commission will also continue and expand a number of existing programs. These include the printing and distribution of promotional literature and bringing out leading travel agents from each of its markets for workshops.

A new 30-minute film on Australia will be made and distributed world-wide in six languages. International visitor surveys and research studies will continue, aimed at determining the holiday requirements of particular market segments in the United States of America, United Kingdom, Germany and New Zealand. Whilst significantly increasing its involvement in overseas tourism promotion, the Government also recognises the importance of domestic travel to the Australian tourist industry. A special allocation of $500,000 has therefore been made to the Australian Tourist Commission for the promotion of domestic tourism in 1979-80 and 1980-81. Of this, $200,000 has been made available for 1979-80. The funds will be used for promotional activities aimed at creating a greater awareness among Australians of the range of tourist attractions available in their own country.

Although the promotion of domestic tourism is primarily a State and industry responsibility, there is a need for co-ordinated action at the national level. The Australian Tourist Commission is the appropriate body to undertake such umbrella promotional activities. The tourist industry is of major importance to Tasmania where it has achieved significant growth during the past decade. The Callaghan report on the structure of industry and the employment situation in Tasmania concluded that tourism could play an increasingly important part in developing the State’s economy. As a result of this report, a committee of Commonwealth and State officials was established and it was agreed that the development of a major tourist attraction would provide the most effective means of assisting Tasmania ‘s tourism growth.

The Port Arthur region was considered to be the area of greatest potential as a tourist attraction. This point was strongly represented to me and to the Cabinet by the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr). I pay particular tribute to the significant part he has played in bringing this proposal to fruition. I recently visited Port Arthur with the honourable member. This historic site is of national significance and could become a focal point of interest for a very significantly increasing number of overseas visitors. Its development and conservation have reached a critical stage because of increasing visitor numbers and the need to stabilise and preserve the ruins before major deterioration occurs. After discussions with my colleague the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott), who is responsible for matters relating to the National Estate, the Government has decided to make a significant contribution to the growth of tourism in Tasmania by providing substantial funds to restore and develop the Port Arthur region over the next seven years. Funds will be provided on a $2 Commonwealth for $ 1 Tasmania basis with $400,000 being provided by the Commonwealth during 1979-80.

In view of Australia’s commitment to support multilateral co-operation in the search for solutions to global development problems, the Government has decided that Australia should join the World Tourism Organisation. The cost in 1979-80 is approximately $36,000. The WTO is the only intergovernmental organisation whose activities cover all sectors of tourism on a world-wide basis. Membership of the WTO now exceeds 100 countries. When I became the Minister responsible for tourism, the lack of adequate research soon became apparent to me and I directed the Bureau of Industry Economics to undertake a major study of the economic significance of tourism. Some important findings have already been released and a further report is expected in October. This research will not end there. An additional $ 1 30,000 has been provided in the Budget to enable the BIE, in association with the tourist industry branch of my Department, to expedite and expand its studies into the economic significance of tourism. Private enterprise is also funding some important research into tourism at present. It is to be hoped that this trend will increase as more companies accept a responsibility for advancing their industry.

The Great Barrier Reef has the potential to become one of Australia’s major tourist attractions. However, we must ensure that the development of tourism to this region takes place without causing environmental damage. This will involve extensive research. Funds totalling $400,000 will be provided for research in the marine sciences and technologies of which $300,000 will be directed to studies associated with the Great Barrier Reef. Work on the development of services to inform the public on the scientific and other unique features of the reef has been carried out by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. An additional $50,000 has been included in the Budget to enable the Authority to expand and expedite its work in this regard. The Government will also be providing the Authority with $2 14,000 in 1979-80 for research to enable it to declare and manage marine parks on the reef.

Ayers Rock is an outstanding natural attraction of national and international significance. Regrettably the development of the Yulara Tourist Village to service visitors to the Uluru National Park has been delayed for far too long. As a result of discussions between the Commonwealth and Northern Territory, agreement has been reached on funding arrangements for the Territory. I am assured that this will enable the Northern Territory Government to make substantial progress on the development of the village. In addition, funds provided to the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service for the restoration, maintenance and provision of facilities in the Uluru and Kakadu national parks have been more than doubled to some $2m.

Honourable members will agree that this Budget is a major step forward in the Government’s program for the development of tourism to and within Australia. The introduction in February this year of the Government’s new international civil aviation policy has resulted in significant reductions in air fares between Australia and several of our major tourist markets. Lower fares to and from other countries are currently under negotiation. A major aim of the Government’s new international air fares policy is to stimulate tourism to Australia. Early figures indicate an increase of 28 per cent in short-term arrivals of overseas visitors for the six months to June 1979 compared with the same period in 1978. For the same period, preliminary estimates show that short-term departures of Australian residents for overseas destinations increased by less than 13 per cent. These figures testify to the success of the Government’s policies. A welcome feature has been the rapid growth in the holiday component of overseas visitor arrivals. In the period March-June 1 979 the number of holiday visitors from overseas has increased by 45 per cent over the same period of 1 978.

In line with the Government’s policy of facilitating the development of tourism, a new domestic air fares package with savings of up to 30 per cent and 40 per cent for overseas visitors and Australians, respectively, was introduced on 27 May this year. The main objectives of the new fares are to encourage overseas visitors and Australians to travel more widely within Australia. Legislation was enacted in 1978 to extend coverage of the Export Market Development Grants scheme to the travel and tourist industry. Under the EMDG scheme a taxable grant of 70c in the dollar is payable to the suppliers of eligible travel and tourist services which are promoted overseas. These services include accommodation, passenger transport, vehicle rental, tourist attractions, tour guide, tour escort and interpreter services, convention centres, package tour operators and inbound tour operators. The maximum grant payable to any claimant in any grant year is $ 100,000 plus up to $25,000 for eligible expenditure on Government sponsored promotions. These are overseas promotions organised by the Australian Tourist Commission and the StateTerritory departments.

In the highly competitive world travel market we must make a major effort if we are to induce tourists to come to Australia. The industry will need to promote its attractions and facilities forcefully and imaginatively in overseas markets and this package of assistance measures to the industry will provide the springboard for the industry to do this. The Government has created the climate. The next stage is up to the industry. It must now take the initiative and plan for the future with determination and vision. I have no doubt that leading companies in the industry will respond to the Government’s initiatives. The potential growth of tourism is almost limitless. We are determined to enable it to realise its full potential as one of Australia’s fastest growing and most valuable industries. I present the following paper:

Tourism- Ministerial Statement, 22 August 1979.

Motion (by Mr MacKellar) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

– It is traditional in a democratic system for members of the

Opposition to tear into the Government. But on this occasion I must congratulate the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) on his statement which contains many worthwhile initiatives which we of the Opposition have been seeking for a long time. I am sure that the industry will be very gratified that many of the things that it has sought have at long last been introduced. I have had a ten-year interest in tourism and it is very gratifying to see that as a result of the work that I and many other honourable members on both sides of the House have done the tourist industry finally is getting the recognition that I believe it deserves. I would have thought that the Minister might pay tribute to some of the work that has been done on this side of the House. I would like also to pay tribute to the late Frank Stewart for the superb job that he did. If he were alive today I am sure that he would feel gratified that some of the initiatives that have been introduced by the Minister will- I hope- be the beginning of a very significant growth in what I believe one day will be probably one of Australia ‘s major industries.

Mr Lynch:

– Could I interject to say, with respect, that I would like to endorse those remarks of the honourable member and have it placed on record that I agree with his reference?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

-The action is slightly irregular but the Minister’s intentions are beyond question and I think the practice might be permitted.

Mr COHEN:

– I am particularly pleased to see a very substantial increase in the amount of money being spent on promoting Australia overseas. We have been missing out sadly in this area. At the moment I understand that the figures would probably show that Australia has in the region of 700,000 visitors, but of course many of those would be from New Zealand, many would be businessmen, and many would be visiting friends and relatives. We have been missing out on the international leisure market from Great Britain, Germany in particular, Japan and the United States. I would imagine that this money will be directed towards bringing those people to Australia. I have not had the opportunity to analyse the figures, but I imagine that the actual amount of money spent on promotion will be more than doubled if the administrative costs remain the same.

I would like to congratulate the Minister on the $200,000 which is being spent on domestic tourist promotion to encourage Australians to tour Australia in off-peak seasons. I do not think I need to enlarge upon that. I have mentioned this many times before. It is essential that we encourage Australians to see their own country. There is nothing more to be said in regard to tax deductibility for depreciation of income producing buildings. We fought for this as far back as 1971-72. The Minister will be getting a swollen head, but these are very welcome initiatives.

Dr Cass:

– Stop buttering him up so much.

Mr COHEN:

– I will get in some criticism; I will not let him get away with it completely. This is an excellent initiative. I suspect that it will not cost as much as Treasury would fear, but I think it will need to be watched. If it does get out of hand at some stage in the future one might have to turn on the tap, but probably this would not be fora long time. We do not want to see the building industry involved only in the construction of hotels and motels. I am sure that this matter can be watched.

I will deal later with the question of Port Arthur. I am interested in getting more details of the $2m being spent on the Uluru and Kakadu national parks. I have not had a chance to see the details of this expenditure. The research on the economic significance of tourism is very welcome. I particularly commend the work being done by the Bureau of Industry Economics. The work that the Bureau has done probably has gone a long way towards setting the ground for the Minister to be able to get this proposal through Cabinet. This work has been valuable because it has given the industry and the economists the information that they lacked. Most of the time we have been talking in the dark about the significance to Australia of tourism. We were very often guessing. Now we know that the tourist industry is worth to the Australian economy almost as much as the car industry and is not far behind the mining industry. I understand that the final report is likely to be even more glowing than the interim report. We look forward to that report.

I know that the Minister cannot answer at this stage, but I would like to ask how much of the $3.25m for export development grants was taken up last year? I heard that very little, if any, was taken up in the year within which it was introduced. I do not know why the industry has not taken advantage of these grants. Perhaps it did not have the opportunity to do so because the grants were implemented not all that long ago. I would be very interested to hear from the Minister at a later stage as to what is happening in that area so that we know what is likely to be spent and what is proposed by the industry. I feel that the Minister is stretching the long-bow in claiming that there are so many benefits for private companies. I think there is a specific tourist benefit which is available to all private companies. I doubt whether all the research on tourism which is being carried out would be restricted to the Great Barrier Reef. It would be in the general area.

Having said all the nice things I now wish to make a few criticisms in the whole area of tourism. I still think we have to look more closely at a national strategy. There is a tendency, and there has been, for a lot of the things to be done in an ad hoc or piecemeal fashion. This is all right for a start, but let us get on with a national strategy and make sure that we do not lose the impetus achieved from the re-interest of the Government in tourism. I have been a strong advocate of developing what I call a tourist track around Australia. This would involve bringing people in through the northern parts of AustraliaTownsville, Darwin and Perth- and developing a track down the coast of Australia and through the Queensland areas- Cairns, Mackay, Rockhampton, the Gold Coast, Sydney, through to Canberra, Melbourne and Tasmania, back up to Adelaide, and then either out through Alice Springs and Darwin or through Perth. In doing this we will encourage people to come to Australia because they will not be forced, as they are now, to back-track when they want to see parts of Australia. At the moment most of the tourists coming here visit the south-east corner of Australia- Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra. In the main that is where they are going. We are not getting the development in areas where we have our greatest tourist attractions- the Barrier Reef and the Northern Territory. There must be development and we have to start by building an international airport in Townsville.

Over the last few months I have been fortunate enough to talk to some top people employed in Trans-Australia Airlines. One thing that is well known in Australia is that we are unable to offer domestic air fares as cheap as we would like. Air fares in Australia are high. There are reasons for that and I accept some of those reasons. We cannot introduce the large, wide-bodied aircraft because if we were to do that at the moment we would be forced to restrict the number of nights between our major capital cities and our major regional cities. It is far better for the Australian traveller to have more frequent flights. It has been suggested to me by top people employed in the international and domestic aviation” areas, that TAA would like to buy three airbuseswidebodied aircraft- and that it would use those in flying from the regional areas of Fiji, Nandi, Honiara, Noumea, Singapore, Port Moresby and Bali, that they would be able to fly them into Australia through Townsville, across Australia and out the other way. I am sorry if I am being a little vague in my explanation. By so doing they would be able to keep their aircraft going 24 hours a day, which they cannot do at the moment because of airport curfews. If they are allowed to buy three air-buses and are allowed to fly on the regional routes they would be able to reduce significantly the cost of air fares within Australia. This has already been discussed in the domestic review of flying and has been accepted as something that can be done.

I was quite staggered to find out from top TAA executives that they can do this and want to do it. The only thing that is stopping them is that Ansett Airlines of Australia does not have the money and will not be able to buy the air-buses. As a result TAA is being prevented from doing so. We all know the reason for the reduction in air fares. It is not because more people are travelling or because the airlines are more efficient; it is because wide-bodied aircraft have reduced the costs of flying. The international 747s, 380s and so on, will seat 240 or 260 people as against 90 to 1 80 in the Boeing 707s and the DC9s. So once we reduce domestic aircraft costs in Australia we will really be on the way to developing a very significant domestic tourist industry as well as encouraging international tourists.

I take this opportunity to criticise the Minister for one thing. He and a number of Government members have been raising constantly the question of penalty rates. As I have said before, I came to this matter with an open mind and the more I heard from the industry, the more I realised that they were talking absolute nonsense. I want to quote- I have quoted him before- Mr Roger Kirby, the managing director of the Travelodge chain of hotels and motels. Travelodge owns 47 Australian motels with 4,000 rooms and is the biggest accommodation chain in Australia. Mr Kirby had this to say:

Penalty rates are a very small proportion of our total costs. They are 3 per cent of our revenue and 1 5 per cent of our total wages bill. We can live with them quite happily. Our best estimate is that if we were to remove penalty rates from our payroll it would reduce our average room cost by only SOc. The average award rate for one of our maids is $137 a week and after eight hours they get an extra 30c an hour.

Anybody who has travelled overseas will know that the cost of accommodation and food in cities like London, New York, Stockholm and Tokyo is way above that in Australia. In many placesLondon, for example- the wage costs are much below Australian costs. I would also like to see more done in the area of man-made attractions. It is good to see that the Government has reintroduced funds for man-made attractions. This was a great initiative of Frank Stewart. He did a magnificent job with regard to Old Sydney Town, Lachlan Village and Sovereign Hill. The Government’s grant in regard to Port Arthur is bringing back something that Frank Stewart introduced. However, there is a lot more we can do in this area. I do not believe that it need cost a lot of money. We could do it on a dollar for dollar basis or on a $ 1 for $2 basis with the States and local communities. We could plan two, three or five-year programs and develop our existing attractions such as those I have just mentioned. Perhaps we could do something in those StatesWestern Australia, South Australia and Queensland- where there are no man-made attractions of this nature. For a very small amount of money, say, $ 1 m or $2m a year, we could get a lot done.

I might add that even though the Government has introduced depreciation deductibility for accommodation, we need also to look at some deductibility in the future for private enterprise man-made attractions. Here I mean things like Sea World and Marineland in Surfers Paradise. I will talk to the Minister about this matter later but I point out that there is quite a deterrent to those people who build some of these attractions which have to be pulled down because they may be of interest for only five, 10 or 15 years and then rebuilt. These people will not do so because they cannot get tax deductibility. Another thing that I should like to mention, and I will be raising it again in the Budget debate, is that it is a pity that with all the work being done on the Great Barrier Reef, the Government has not made a decision to declare fully the Great Barrier Reef marine park. That is essential if we are to ensure a long-term tourist industry for Australia. Overall, I congratulate the Minister and the Government on a job well done, but let us not believe that the job is completely finished. There is a lot more to be done yet.

Debate (on motion by Mr Bungey) adjourned.

page 441

IMMIGRATION POLICY

Ministerial Statement

Mr MacKELLAR:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · Warringah · LP

– by leave- I should like to elaborate on three matters mentioned in the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Howard) concerning matters within the immigration and ethnic affairs portfolio. A decision has been taken by the Government to introduce an annual charge on overseas students undertaking courses at Australian universities and colleges of advanced education. This is one aspect of decisions on a new policy for private overseas students taken by the Government following a comprehensive review of overseas student policy. The Government believes that the overseas student program has helped to promote better understanding of Australia, its people and attitudes. The program has made an important contribution to international cultural exchange and goodwill and provided benefits to developing countries, especially those in areas close to Australia, through additional educational opportunities and skilled manpower training for their people. However, in the period since 1973, the policy has not worked as effectively as it should have to meet the general objectives of the overseas student program.

The criteria for entry have been based mainly on the inability of students to obtain enrolment in courses in their home countries. This has sometimes led to students proposing to undertake courses of little value to the home country but thereby gaining preference over other students of higher academic ability and other students seeking to undertake courses which would be useful to the home country. In addition, although students have been admitted on the clear understanding that they would return to their home countries on completion of their studies, substantial numbers have sought and obtained permanent residence. Almost 75 per cent of students completing formal studies in recent years have applied successfully for resident status. This development has negated the main objectives of the program.

The Government has acted to remove arbitrary limitations on the number of overseas students who may be approved for study in Australia. It has also decided on important changes following the review of policy and procedures. The Government recognises that such policy changes can have implications for other countries which have traditionally sent large numbers of students to Australia. Accordingly, the proposed changes are being discussed with the governments of the main source countries of students before their implementation. The views of those governments will be considered carefully before the proposals are finally implemented.

The Government believes that schemes for people wishing to come here for English language studies, specialised training and under student exchanges are particularly useful in achieving the objectives of the private overseas student program. In future, no numerical limitations will be applied to them. These schemes will be closely monitored to ensure that there is no undue strain on Australian resources or loss of opportunity for Australian students. In addition, many of the restrictions placed on the eligibility of people to participate in these schemes will be removed. In the main, people entering Australia for English language and specialised training courses pay commercial fees and, therefore, will be exempted from the proposed overseas student charge.

New private student criteria are being developed for selecting students from among the tens of thousands of persons applying annually for entry to Australia for studies. The criteria pay particular attention to training capacity in Australia without displacement of local students and take into account such factors as academic ability, the value of the proposed course to the applicant and the home country, country of origin and opportunities for study in the home country. Priority in selection will go to students sponsored by home governments and others such as those granted scholarships and those undertaking post-graduate research within Australian universities. These criteria should enable more students to be accepted from a wider group of countries. Preference will be given to those with high academic ability and those wishing to acquire qualifications that will be of particular use to them in their future careers. The criteria will apply next year to those students seeking to come here for the 1981 academic year.

Provision will be made for entry for secondary studies from certain countries where there is a need for, or advantage in, providing training at this level. There will also be cases where there are special links with Australia. Whilst there will be no limits on numbers accepted, it is not expected that the numbers in this category will be substantial as most countries now have extensive secondary educational systems and many prefer their students to complete their basic education in the national system.

I turn now to the proposal to introduce an annual charge on overseas students as announced by the Treasurer in the Budget Speech.

A constraint on the numbers of private overseas students approved to come to Australia to undertake formal courses of study has been the cost to Australia of providing these educational opportunities. The average annual tuition cost per full-time student at universities is estimated at around $5,500 per annum and at colleges of advanced education just over $4,000 per annum.

Australian students do not pay fees. However, in their case part of the cost of their education at tertiary level comes from Consolidated Revenue contributed in part through tax by their families. No such contribution is made by overseas students or their families although many are well able to afford such costs and, indeed, would have to pay fees if the student undertook higher education in the home country.

The level of charges has been determined after taking account of costs and fees charged by other comparable countries. The Government has been conscious of the need to set charges at a level which will not unduly deter overseas students from undertaking studies in Australia. The new charges to be met by overseas students will range between $1,500 and $2,500 per annum depending on the course chosen. They will apply from the beginning of 1980 to new students and to students changing courses where the student undertakes an award course at a university or college of advanced education. Legislation will be introduced in the near future for this purpose.

Other governments have sought Australia’s assistance in educating their citizens, particularly at tertiary levels. In view of this and because of the Government’s firm belief that it is in Australia ‘s interests to develop cultural exchange and international understanding, the new policies have been designed with a view to an increase in the number of students who will be admitted for study at Australian universities and colleges of advanced education. The revenue from the new charges will facilitate this and offset the additional public cost of the increase in overseas students studying in Australia. I emphasise that the above charges apply to private and sponsored overseas students. Australia will continue to provide substantial assistance through the Colombo Plan and similar aid programs. Overseas students sponsored under bilateral arrangements will have their charges paid under aid arrangements.

In my statement of 7 June 1978 to the House on immigration policy, I indicated that while other temporary residents would no longer be eligible for permanent resident status while in Australia, private overseas students would continue to be eligible for permanent residence pending the review of the private overseas student policy. A high proportion of private overseas students has obtained permanent residence in Australia at the conclusion of their studies. Their failure to return to their home country has largely negated the primary objectives of the overseas student program. The

Government has decided that, in future, overseas students will be required to leave Australia on the conclusion of their studies. Applications to return to Australia for residence will not normally be received or considered within two years. This requirement has received general support from overseas governments consulted. Accordingly, and in view of the need to clarify the situation of many people who will soon complete their studies, the Government has decided that this requirement will be effective immediately. This means that applications from overseas students in Australia for resident status will not normally be considered. Applications already lodged will be determined under the policy applying up to now.

The new policies will make the private overseas student program more effective and facilitate opportunities for an increased number of people to study in Australia within the limits of Australia’s educational and training capacity, lt is envisaged that most of the increased numbers will be drawn from the traditional source countries of students such as the Association of South East Asian Nation countries, Papua New Guinea and the South Pacific. We expect these initiatives to ensure that Australia attracts well-qualified students and those who will acquire special skills or expertise of particular value to them in their chosen careers in their home country. Overseas governments, especially those in the major source countries, will be invited to take advantage of the new policy by sponsoring increased numbers of students to study in Australia and by indicating their training needs and priorities for inclusion in the new selection criteria. The proposed policy changes will contribute significantly to international cultural exchange and understanding. They should also provide major additional benefits to developing countries through increased educational opportunities and skilled manpower training for their people.

I turn now to the adult migrant education program. This is a national program funded and co-ordinated by the Commonwealth. It provides initial settlement courses in English language and information about Australia for new arrivals, migrants and refugees, and provides further English language learning opportunities for both recent and earlier arrivals. Most courses are provided by State education services under arrangements with the Commonwealth Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The cost of these courses is met from the appropriations for the adult migrant education program in the Commonwealth Budget.

The objectives and targets arising from the Galbally report and accepted by the Government have meant a strengthening and refocusing of the English language education program for adult migrants and refugees as well as a substantial increase in activity. The sum of $24. 1 m is to be appropriated for the operation of the migrant and refugee education program in Australia during 1 979-80. This is an increase of just over 33V4 per cent on the $ 1 8m spent on operational costs in 1 978-79. It is four times the amount spent in 1974-75. A further $820,000 is to be appropriated to establish facilities including educational accommodation for the initial program. The emphasis in 1979-80 will be on the development of community settlement centres.

The Galbally report recommended that the permanent nature of the adult migrant education program should be given practical recognition by establishing for it a rolling three-year program. When tabling the report on 30 May 1978, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said that the adult migrant education program would be established as a three-year program. The same level of funds as provided for 1 979-80 will, as a minimum, be maintained in 1980-8 1. If warranted, additional funds will be provided in that year. Funds for 1981-82 will need to reflect the intakes of migrants and refugees planned for next year and also the outcome of the surveys, which have now commenced, of the English language needs of migrants.

Finally, 1 would like to elaborate on the reference in the Budget Speech to the introduction of charges for certain services provided by my Department. It is Government policy to recover the costs of administrative services by imposition of charges, wherever this is practical and consistent with other policy objectives. In keeping with this policy, the Government proposes to introduce charges for seven services in the areas covered by my portfolio:

Processing an application for the grant of a further temporary entry permit- $20; processing an application for change of status, that is from a temporary entrant to a permanent resident- $50; processing an application for grant of a return endorsement- $20 or $30 at an overseas post; conducting English language tests at overseas posts- $25; processing an application for evidence of resident status- $20; obtaining information by way of cables initiated by applicants or clients- $ 15; assessing a person ‘s overseas professional or technical qualifications- $20.

The first four charges will require legislative authority and 1 will be introducing a Bill, probably tonight, to amend the Migration Act. The remaining charges can be implemented administratively without legislation. It is proposed that all charges, with the exception of English language testing, will come into effect from 1 November 1979. The charge for English language testing for persons overseas will have the same date of effect, that is 1 January 1980, as for the charges I outlined at the opening of this statement.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

– by leave- In general, I do not think that we have very much to criticise in a large part of the substance of the statement by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar). It is quite clear that the overseas student program was initiated for very worthy purposes in order to help mainly the countries from which the students came to get the skilled people they required and to provide training which was often not available in those countries. We undertook, by virtue of our overseas student program, to help provide that training. It has undoubtedly made a contribution, as the Minister has mentioned, to increasing understanding, international cultural exchange and so on. But it is also clear, as the Minister has stated, that in recent years the program has not been working as effectively as it should have been.

One needs only to note the point raised by the Minister, namely the number of students who finish up remaining in Australia. He gave the figures. Almost 75 per cent of students completing formal studies in recent years have applied successfully for resident status. That being the case, quite clearly the purpose of the exercise has been defeated. It has worked very well for the students. They have done two things. They have achieved a level of training, education and qualification which they may not have been able to get in their home countries. At the same time, they have had an easy run in becoming permanent residents of this country. They have, in fact, deprived their own homelands of the advantages of the contributions made by us and, presumably in part by their own countries in allowing them and perhaps in some cases helping them, to come here. The Opposition is pleased to note that the Minister is discussing this problem with the governments of the main source countries and that their views will be considered carefully before the proposals are finally implemented. I suggest that this House also be given the opportunity to discuss those proposals . before they are implemented.

The Minister has made the point that these criteria will apply to private students as well as to those who come here under various assistance programs. The Opposition has no objection to that in principle but awaits the details with interest. I trust that even these details will be discussed by the House before a final decision is taken. I do not think this is an area in which partisan political party views ought to prevail. It ought to be a subject for bipartisan discussion. I am not seeking the opportunity for discussion in the hope that I will be able to tear the Minister to shreds. I am seeking it in the hope that together we will sensibly consider these proposals. The Opposition would be in the same fix as the Government in trying to unravel this problem.

On the question of the cost, the figures given by the Minister illustrate dramatically how much the Australian taxpayer contributes to the education of these people. I do not say that in a derogatory sense. I am simply recognising that the parents of our own students pay in part, through the taxes they pay, for the education of their children, whereas the parents of overseas students are relieved of that burden. I do not necessarily disagree with that in the case of the students who do not have the resources themselves as their parents are not well off. In cases where the home countries of students feel that they should be given this opportunity for training, quite clearly Australia should continue to pay their costs.

The Minister has made the point that overseas students sponsored under bilateral arrangements will have their charges paid under the aid programs. Quite clearly we as a country will be making a contribution to that. At the same time it seems unreasonable, as noted by the Minister, to allow the people who are well able to paywherever they might go- to be able to take advantage of the free tuition in our colleges of advanced education and universities. They receive the training at no cost to themselves. The burden is completely on the Australian taxpayer. The Opposition agrees with the Minister’s proposals in that regard.

Mr MacKellar:

– They will not be able to do that now.

Dr CASS:

– Precisely. We agree with the Minister’s proposal to change that. However, despite the charges that the Minister is proposing to impose, there will still be a significant contribution from the Australian taxpayer. So Australia is not being completely mean in this regard. There will still be a significant burden on the Australian taxpayer. The Minister pointed out the problems we have with the private students who complete their training and then seek to stay in Australia. Many of them succeed in doing so. This is not in the spirit of the scheme. It was established to try to help the home countries to get more qualified people. In essence, the scheme finishes up as an easy way for some people to obtain higher training and, by virtue of that training, gaining permanent resident status. However, it presents a problem. I am sure the Minister has noticed it as he has plenty of representations on behalf of the people who pose this problem.

The difficulty often is that once these students are trained they find that their skill is not required in their home country. The Minister alluded to that early in the discussion. Students may choose courses that are not likely to be needed in their home countries. We are faced with a very difficult problem when we are faced with requests for residence status from students who have been here many years and who have done very well in their studies in a discipline for which there is no call in their home countries. Out of compassion one feels that there is no choice but to allow them to stay in Australia. At the same time that defeats the whole purpose of the exercise. I sympathise and agree with the moves that the Minister is contemplating. I hope that some way can be found to overcome the problem.

The Minister stated that he expects source countries to continue to take advantage of these facilities and perhaps to indicate their training needs and priorities. 1 suggest that in order to overcome these embarrassing personal problems it may be necessary to reach agreement with the source countries to ensure that students who have finished their course of training, even when sponsored by their own governments, are guaranteed employment. I do not know how the Government can do this but I think it is worthy of discussion. Students may manage to gain approval or sponsorship to come here under some sort of generous move from their own country, but if there is no guarantee of a job at the end of their course Australia is still likely to be faced with the same dilemma. Students may return home and then say: ‘I have come back home. I cannot use the skills I have. All your money has been wasted. As an individual I am being wasted. My government can do nothing about it. Please let me stay in Australia.’ It will take a tough person to resist that sort of call. I suggest that in the negotiations with the home countries it may be possible for the Minister to reach some agreement with their governments on guaranteeing employment for these people once they have been trained.

I wish to refer briefly now to the subject of adult migrant education programs. Some of these matters will come up in subsequent legislation and we can elaborate on them later on in the actual Budget discussion. I fear that, despite the increase in funding, it is a case of still too little funding. I do so in two respects firstly, the length of time provided by this funding for training in the English language is possibly too short for new arrivals to this country. I notice that the Minister is conducting a survey into the matter, so maybe we will know more about that later. But my hunch, based on discussion with members of the ethnic communities and so on, is that six weeks is not an adequate time for migrants to become skilled enough in the English language for the purposes for which the Government wants to give them training, namely, to ensure they can better fit into jobs and that they can find their way around and have better access to their rights as members of the Australian community. In other words -

Mr MacKellar:

– We are looking into that.

Dr CASS:

-I acknowledge that. I did say that I had noted that the Minister was conducting an inquiry. I am just giving my hunch about what that inquiry will find. My guess is that, despite the increase in funding, it will still prove to be not enough. I concede the point that what I am about to say is possibly covered in other facets of the Budget proposals but I want to make the point, because I think it is significant, that this funding will not be sufficient to ensure that the children of migrants, whether born overseas or here, who wish to retain some association with the culture of their parents and to retain facility in the language of their parents will be able to do so. The Government needs to spend much more money in the education system to ensure that there is bilingual or multi-cultural education or education to guarantee that all children have a facility in more than one language. This would apply also to English-speaking children. In a sense one could argue that in giving special training to migrants to ensure that they speak English adequately and maintain their own mother tongue and in ignoring the Anglo-Saxon student one is making the Anglo-Saxon student a deprived person because he is finishing up with a facility in only one language.

page 446

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

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

High Court Justices (Long Leave Payments) Bill 1 979.

Judges (Long Leave Payments) Bill 1 979.

page 446

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY RESEARCH LABORATORY

Report of Public Works Committee

Mr BUNGEY:
Canning

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

Relocation of the Royal Australian Navy Research Laboratory (RANRL) from Rushcutters Bay to the Royal Edward Victualling Yard Premises at Pyrmont, New South Wales.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 446

HEALTH CARE

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

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

-I have received a letter from the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The spiralling and inequitable costs of health care for the average family, caused by the Government’s erratic and illconsidered policies.

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-

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-The matter of public importance which the Opposition is raising today is a very significant one especially when taken in the context of the Budget which was presented last night. I shall start off by referring to a source which could certainly not be accused of being biased in favour of the Australian Labor Party. I refer to the secretary of the Voluntary Health Insurance Association, Mr James Mansfield. Speaking three weeks ago, he said that with health insurance contributions for comprehensive cover increasing in some States from $650 per annum to possibly $850 to $900, it had reached the point where the existing voluntary system had priced itself out of reach of the community. Health funds were facing a massive dropout of contributors because health insurance was just not worth the cost for many people. He said health insurance contributions had risen by 257 per cent in four years. I repeat that contributions had risen by 257 per cent in four years. Even if funds removed the more comprehensive benefits such as dental and optical, contributions had still increased by 215 per cent compared with the consumer price index rise of 135 per cent.

He said that in four years there had been eight major changes to the system. A national policy on health with clear objects needed to be designed rather than the ad hoc changes which had occurred as the result of budgetary pressures. The cost per medical service had risen from an average cost unit of $6.50 under a Labor government in 1974 to a projected $16.52 by June 1980. That is an increase of 162 per cent. That was stated by the secretary of the Voluntary Health Insurance Association of Australia. I think all honourable members know that the Voluntary Health Insurance Association is the lobbying group for the private funds.

It is depressing that health insurance and health care costing in Australia are being administered to a large extent by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet rather than by the Department of Health. The other day I was sorry to see that the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) brought out Press statement 85/79 which obviously he did not have checked by his Department. In urging people to continue medical insurance from 1 September, he spoke about the obligations on people to pay up to $20 towards the cost of medical services on each visit to a doctor. The statement continued:

Some illnesses required a number of different services and a number of visits over a period of time, and the total cost could be high.

The statement then cited the Minister’s personal experience:

For example, a simple injury (like the chipped bone in his wrist he had sustained recently) would involve a number of consultations with his doctor, together with X-rays and pathology tests.

Obviously, if he had had that statement checked by his Department he would have found that if the doctor who was treating him charged him on the basis of individual consultations, he was breaking the law. There is a single item for a fracture of the wrist. It is certainly interesting to hear that the Minister had to have pathology tests for a fractured wrist. The only sorts of pathology tests that would be carried out by a hospital in the case of an injury of that kind would be blood alcohol tests or something of that description and I am sure that such tests would not have been indicated in the case of the Minister.

Let us look at what the Treasurer (Mr Howard) said today at Question Time. In my question I suggested that the increased costs in health insurance alone would exceed the benefits to all those people in Australia on or below average weekly earnings. I think the Treasurer, having answered lots of questions on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) today, got rattled. He gave a perfectly honest reply. He said: ‘Well, if you do not pay extra for health insurance, we will have to keep the surcharge going forever’. That is exactly the point that we are making. It is a sleight of hand trick. The Government reduces taxation but puts on a compulsory tax in some other way. Surely taxation is a contract between a government and its people, that for a certain amount of money, collected on a progressive basis generally from a community, it will deliver certain services to that community. If it fails to deliver certain services in exchange for that taxation, then that lack of delivery can be considered to be an increase in taxation.

This Government, in the olden days at least, has often proclaimed itself to be a low tax government. Of course, we know and I think the people of Australia now know, that it is an extremely high tax government. The total of taxes and charges which the Government will collect this year is $27,000m. That represents a 54 per cent increase in revenue since this Government came to power. Specifically as far as income tax is concerned, this year the income tax received from individuals has been increased by 1 8.2 per cent and the increase in revenue generally is 1 5.4 per cent. Now a higher proportion of total revenue comes from income tax than was the case before. This is a government which claims that it is a low tax government and that it wants people to be able to decide for themselves where they spend their money. That is completely untrue.

The Government has what I would call a yo-yo policy concerning health insurance. The Minister, in defending the new charges by the funds this year, says in his statements that they are better than the charges in November 1978. But the time with which he should compare the charges is of course November 1 975 when he became the Minister. There has been a very significant increase in costs to every Australian family since November 1975. It is easy to compare the present with pre-November 1978. Last year on an annual basis the Government injected some $650m into the health scheme. But now it has withdrawn that money. The people will have to pay for it in another way. The Government has now decided that the money it was collecting as a surcharge to pay for that $650m contribution to the health care system it will now return as a political gimmick. But the people will have to pay in some other way. It is exactly the same sort of gimmick as the social security and veterans ‘ affairs indexation gimmick.

The Government gets a lot of publicity and tries to get a lot of political kudos by saying that it is introducing six-monthly indexation from next May. Of course, the point is that this Government abolished six-monthly indexation. We had six-monthly indexation. This Government abolished six-monthly indexation last October. The Labor Party opposed the abolition of six-monthly indexation. In February this year one of the first motions that we moved in this House was to reintroduce six-monthly indexation. The Government voted against that proposal. If we look at the cost of health insurance in Australia, we find that it is difficult to judge who is doing the ripping off.

During the recent holidays I went overseas. I went to Japan and China. Before leaving I decided that whilst I do not have any health insurance in Australia I had better take out some health insurance to cover me while overseas. For $29 1 took out health insurance for 30 days for a $6,000 cover. For $43 one can get insurance for 60 days for a $6,000 cover. That covers up to $6,000 worth of hospital and medical expenses and expenditure on drugs. It also covers one for anything that is stolen from one’s luggage and for travel and accommodation expenses of relatives or friends who may have to act as escorts if one has some medical problems. In the event of death, the body is brought back to Australia, if one is keen on that sort of thing. This insurance covers a person for loss of accommodation expenses and travel expenses because of strikes or because of some other unforeseen circumstances. All this is offered to the public for $43 for 60 days. Sixty days is more than eight weeks so we will call that eight weeks at about $5 a week. For $5 a week one gets all that cover no matter where he is overseas. He can be in much more expensive countries than Australia. He gets full hospital and medical cover for $5 a week. Yet, in Australia, to get the same sort of cover, he would have to pay something in the order of $20 a week. Why do Australians have to pay about $20 a week to get this sort of cover in Australia, whilst if they were overseas they could get that cover for $5 a week? Surely the Minister can do better than that.

Let me now deal with an amendment which was foreshadowed yesterday relating to changes to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. This amendment allows for an increase of 25c from $2.50 to $2.75 per item available under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Act. That in itself is a significant increase for many people in the community but it is especially so for the disadvantaged person. This Government quite correctly provides that a doctor can treat a patient as a disadvantaged patient and the Government will pay a fee of 75 per cent in full payment for that treatment. The term ‘disadvantaged person’ certainly includes people, for example, who are on unemployment benefits or sickness benefits or on many other social security benefits without having the benefit of the pensioner health card. These people still have to pay $2.75 for each individual prescription.

If a person who is on unemployment benefits attends a doctor he gets medical treatment, provided the doctor agrees, for nothing. The Government pays for this under bulk billing and I agree it should. But if these people need to have two prescriptions filled because of some acute condition and many times they do- one treatment for the infection and another treatment to stop the cough or the pain or whatever- they are liable for an amount of $5.50. There ought to be some provision for this. 1 know that the Opposition has repeatedly asked for it, I am sure that the Pharmacy Guild of Australia has asked for it, and I would not be surprised if the Australian Medical Association has asked for it. It should be possible that if a patient can be declared a disadvantaged patient by the doctor for the purposes of medical treatment he can be declared a disadvantaged patient for the purposes of the supply of pharmaceuticals.

In an aside last night the Treasurer also mentioned that there will be a reduction in the list of those pharmaceuticals available under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Act and that the aim is a reduction in cost to the Government of $20m in this financial year. It is quite obvious that a reduction of $20m in government expenditure on pharmaceuticals in this financial year will involve the withdrawal of a very significant proportion of pharmaceuticals from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Act. This is wrong. It is a bad way of approaching this matter. Until now, governments have always taken the line that they appoint an advisory committee to recommend to the Government what kind of substances should be available under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Act. There should not be this sort of pressure on the committee to knock relevant and important drugs off that list. I forecast now that honourable members of this Parliament on both sides of the House will receive many complaints when these changes are carried out. I hope they are carried out before the next Federal elections. It will be interesting to see how long the Government will be prepared to stand up to the pressure from all the groups in the community which will be complaining about the removal of very important drugs from the list, drugs which are used for chronic conditions or whatever. It is interesting to note that the Ralph Committee has not reported as yet, or certainly the report has not been tabled in this House. That, in turn, will cause an increase in the cost of pharmaceuticals. Therefore, drugs valued at more than $20m may be removed from the types of pharmaceuticals provided.

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

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

– Once again the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) is really doing his best to encourage people not to insure privately for medical and hospital costs. I dare say he is doing this in the hope that people who take his advice will ultimately get their fingers burnt and then turn their wrath on the Government. Quite clearly, I say to people who may be interested in this debate this afternoon- and I have said it on a number of occasions- that they need to weigh their own personal financial position very, very carefully indeed before they decide to drop private health insurance or before they decide not to insure privately. An episode of medical expenses can prove very costly. Unless these people have the resources to meet those costs up to $20 with the Government meeting the expenses thereafter they could well be in some difficulty. My advice to people is opposite to that which the honourable member for Prospect seems to be constantly proclaiming. Although the Government has withdrawn some subsidy from the health insurance scheme, the new arrangements which come into force after 1 September will be still subsidised very substantially by the Government. The Government will pay all those scheduled fees above $20. The Government’s contribution to medical costs will be of the order of $580m or $590m during this financial year.

With regard to hospital insurance the average cost of a hospital bed in this financial year is anticipated to be of the order of $154 a day, yet the cost to the insured contributor will be $50 for a bed in a shared room and $75 for a bed in a private room. So honourable members can see that there is a very substantial subsidy from both the State and Commonwealth governments on a dollar for dollar basis towards costs of private hospital insurance. From memory, the total subsidy that the taxpayers are putting into health insurance would be approximately $ 1,600m to $ 1,700m. I do not have the exact figures in front of me, but it certainly would be a very substantial sum. Because of budgetary circumstances the Government stated in May, and it was debated in this Parliament, that it would be withdrawing the 40 per cent medical benefits subsidy up to $20 per service, the saving to taxpayers’ revenue being approximately $2 10m in a full year.

The Government also agreed with the States that there should be a 25 per cent increase in the hospital bed charges in the State public hospital system. The changes to the level of Government subsidy to medical insurance do not fundamentally alter the health insurance system that was introduced as from 1 November last year. The disadvantaged are protected when the doctors direct bills them to the Department of Health. There is no change to the system whereby pensioner health benefit card holders will be treated for 85 per cent of the scheduled fee with a pensioner paying no more than $5 for any service where the doctor seeks to charge the pensionerin most circumstances he does not. In all States except Western Australia and, I think, South Australia, contributors will be able to obtain basic medical and basic hospital insurance cover at premiums that are less than were applying prior to 1 November last year. I seek leave to incorporate a table in Hansard which spells that out.

Dr Klugman:

-Do you have the comparison for November 1975, too?

Mr HUNT:

-Not 1975. Of course, a lot of costs have gone into the system since then.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Dr Klugman:

– Yes, but I would like recorded in Hansard the fact that the 1975 figures are the important ones.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Mr HUNT:

– The important thing is that in ali States excepting Western Australia and in South Australia where an open health insurance fund will be 10c a week higher, funds will be offering premiums that will be less than those that were applying nearly 12 months ago. This will occur in spite of a smaller government subsidy for medical insurance, a rise in State government hospital bed charges and Mr Justice Ludeke ‘s determination on doctor’s fees. In regard to the statement that the honourable gentleman referred to, made by Mr Mansfield in South Australia who was quoted as having said that in four years health insurance premiums increased by 257 per cent, in four years from 1972-73 to 1976-77 the actual increase in total health costs in Australia was of the order of 260 per cent. I want to go into those figures a bit further because I want to demonstrate that people are paying a very high price for the great explosion that occurred in health costs in those four years- particularly those three disastrous years when the Labor Government was in office.

The Opposition’s record in triggering off the explosion in health costs to the Australian community should never be forgotten. Indeed, while I am Minister for Health I will do my best to make sure that the Australian Labor Party and the people of Australia are reminded of the fact that it was the Australian Labor Party that was in government during this great explosion. The Whitlam Government started the spiralling health costs in this country. Those three disastrous years left a very expensive legacy in many areas, but nowhere is it more evident than in the costs of health care. There is a simple but fundamental truth that bears repeating this afternoon. Health costs have to be paid by the community by one means or another, whether by taxes, by imposing levies, by health insurance premiums or by direct payments out of one’s pocket. The community will not escape the bill.

The health appropriation in this year’s Budget is $2,835m. It is 10 per cent of the Budget. In the last financial year 86c out of every $1 collected by means of personal income tax from the Australian people was spent to meet the cost of health and social welfare at the Commonwealth level. But there is a limit to the amount that a government can spend; that limit is the taxpayers’ tolerance. Yet at the South Australian conference of the Opposition’s party it was proclaimed as a policy objective that a Federal Labor Government would introduce a universal health scheme to be financed by an income related contribution. Going back to the Medibanktype system would mean raising $500m over and above what is being raised through the tax system at present. There is no doubt that the ALP, if elected, would restore the same old Medibank system that existed before. There is no doubt that a Labor Government would start another great cost explosion in the health area, resulting in higher taxation through levies and so on.

Let us look at the record of the Labor Party while in Government in controlling ‘spiralling’ costs. That word ‘spiralling’ is used in the matter of public importance that is before the House. The Whitlam Government was elected to office in December 1972, and in 1972-73 the total cost of health care in this country was $2, 505m. By 1975-76 it had exploded to $5,660m. There was a 1 25.9 per cent increase in three years.

Mr Humphreys:

– Why?

Mr HUNT:

– The honourable member may be able to explain. I hope he can explain it, because it needs explaining.

Mr Humphreys:

– Because of the doctors. You know it is.

Mr HUNT:

-I will refer to the doctors. What the Labor Government did about doctors is also worth repeating in this Parliament. The annual cost increase of health care in 1972-73 was 12.2 per cent over the earlier year. By 1 975-76 it was exploding at the rate of 35 per cent. By 1977-78, the last year for which we have official figures, it had come down to a 10.7 per cent increase over the previous year. Health costs as a percentage of the gross domestic product went from 5.89 per cent in 1972-73 to 7.84 per cent in 1975-76. So there is no doubt that this great spiralling of health care costs occurred under the Labor Government. In the period 1975-76 to 1977-78 national health expenditure rose by 26 per cent as against the Labor Government’s 125.9 per cent during its three years in office. We have reduced the rate of acceleration to about 10 per cent per annum.

The same story applies to hospital costs. When the Fraser Government came to office health costs were exploding at 35 per cent per annum. The rate of increase was slowed to about 10 per cent per annum, a far cry from the years during which the Opposition was in office. But the damage was done and we are all paying a very high price for what occurred. Yet honourable members opposite have the gall to endeavour to capitalise on the damage they caused while they were in government. It was the Labor Government that wrecked the health system in Australia. It was the Labor Government that abolished the honorary medical system by which doctors gave free medical service in our hospitals. It was the Labor Government that started the great explosion in doctors’ fees. So much so -

Mr Humphreys:

– Why don’t you tell the truth?

Mr HUNT:

-I am telling the truth. I will give a bit of truth that the honourable member might not want to hear. Between 1973 and 1975 when the Opposition was in office the increase in medical fees for benefit purposes rose, on an indexed base of 100, from 1 13.2 to no less than 207.6. 1 would like, with the leave of the Opposition, to incoporate this document in Hansard.

Dr Klugman:

-I ask the Minister to show us what is in it. It obviously has more information.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin:

Carry on and we will decide at a later stage whether it should be incorporated in Hansard or not.

Mr HUNT:

– The great explosion in doctors’ fees occurred in the years of the Labor Government. Since then there has been a much reduced rate of increase in doctors’ fees for medical benefit purposes. The great increase occurred during the three years when the Labor Party was in government. Indeed, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) signed the irresponsible open-ended hospitals agreement with the States. The States put it over him, hand over fist. The Fraser Government has had the difficult task since 1976 of restoring not only the Australian economy from the disastrous state it was in when inherited from the former Labor Government; it has had the difficult task of getting the health system back under some sort of control.

One recalls the frauds, the rip-offs, the scandals, the pathology debacle and the open-ended hospitals agreements. There were no medical services committees of inquiry established in any of the States. In the Australian Capital Territory we had the salaried doctors at the throats of the private practitioners and vice versa. In the Northern Territory the salaried doctors were receiving 30 per cent less remuneration than other salaried doctors in Australia. We only had half the required staff that were necessary. It was a national disgrace.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted for the document to be incorporated in Hansard.

Dr Klugman:

-I will make a comment when the Minister has finished.

Mr HUNT:

– I make no apology for having taken some tough decisions in an effort to bring a sense of responsibility and a state of control back into the health system. The Government has had a most difficult task indeed. The Australian people are suffering. The Government - and everyone else in the community are suffering. The whole lot of us are suffering as a result of the great cost explosion during the years of Labor government.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister’s time has expired. Is leave granted for the incorporation in Hansard of the document to which the Minister referred?

Dr Klugman:

-I wish to make a brief comment on the document before granting leave for its incorporation. The document is entitled ‘Index of Changes in Medical Benefits Schedule Fee Levels’. Let it be noted that it shows that in the time of the Labor Government the number of units increased from 1 13.2 to 179, an increase of 66 units. Since then the number of units has gone from 179 to 271.9, an increase of 93 units. Let it be quite clear that the figure for 1 January 1976 was not attributable to the Labor Government.

Mr Hunt:

– It was indeed. The inquiry was held under the Labor Government.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

-The speech of the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) fell into the usual pattern of his speeches on matters of public importance. It was in two parts. Firstly, we had his stale rhetoric on the actions of the Whitlam Government and, secondly, we had his quite incredible display of complacency about the mess over which he now presides. I will discuss briefly both of these matters. Firstly, in reference to the Whitlam Government’s period of office, it is quite clear from the results of every gallup poll that what the Australian people are now interested in is the health scheme for which the Minister is responsible. After four years of ad hockery- of jumping, twisting, turning and changing the policies- he is completely responsible for the health policies under which we now live.

The other feature of his speech, which is a feature of all his speeches on matters of public importance, was the kind of complacency he displayed about the whole situation, about what his Government is doing. In this regard I refer him to a speech of the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), who in my view is the only man on the Government side who talks about health insurance reasonably and with some sense of humanity. On 4 June 1979 he commented on the scheme about which the Minister is so complacent. He talked about the withdrawal of the 40 per cent government subsidy, which the Minister has defended, as being an abortion. He regretted the changes that had taken place; he worried about the 20 per cent maximum payment and the way in which it would operate. More importantly- I will be very interested to hear his comments today- he said even at that stage:

This raises the parallel problem that chronically ill people are presently placed under financial stress by repeated medical benefit prescriptions at $2.50 a time.

This amount has been raised. There is at least one honourable member on the Government side who is seriously concerned and who is not complacent about what is being done to the health schemes of this country for which the Minister is responsible. Within a period of 18 months at the most the Minister will be called to reckoning in relation to those schemes. It will be of no use his uttering the stale rhetoric about what happened in 1972-75.

I think that it is important to see, as my colleague the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) did, this health insurance scheme as part of a strategy now being pursued by this Government to add to the financial burdens of the ordinary people while still conveying the illusion of its being a low tax government. It has embarked upon increasing the burden of the ordinary citizen in a number of ways. But there are three characteristics that run through this evasive strategy. Firstly, the Government uses a fine principle with which we all agree- but it uses it in a shoddy way- to defend what it is doing. But the real reason for its actions simply is the Budget deficit. Secondly, it has little concern for the equity of its proposals. Thirdly, and quite surprisingly, it rather ignores the inflationary potential of its proposals. We can relate this approach both to the matter before the House now and to the petrol levy.

For instance, in regard to the petrol levy, quite clearly the principle being used is one with which we all agree, namely, that we must conserve energy resources. However, we all know that the energy situation of Australia would allow us to do that in a more gradual way. That fine principle is being used simply to solve the deficit problems of the Government. The petrol levy is designed to save the deficit, not Australian energy supplies. Equally, the excuse offered time and time again by the Minister for Health for health insurance changes is the spiralling health costs in this country. We all agree that those costs have to be faced. But the Minister knows and his party knows that that is not the reason for the introduction of these changes. They were introduced simply to solve the immediate deficit problems of the Government.

In the case of both the petrol levy and the health insurance changes there is no real concern for the equity problems that arise. A lot of work has yet to be done regarding the petrol levy but I have no doubt that it will prove to be a highly regressive tax in the way in which the burden is felt in this community. Thirdly, the inflationary potential of both the petrol levy and these health insurance changes seems to have been neglected. Surely these problems could have been faced without adding to the kind of inflationary impact that they will have on society. Those measures are part of a strategy. We have to see them in terms of a strategy in which the Government maintains the illusion of being a low tax government by these kinds of evasive devices.

If we look at the costs that will be imposed on the ordinary person as a result of these health insurance changes and if we look at the situation in all the States- I know that the increases are different in Queensland and that they are very different in my own State, so we have to try to average them out- we find that as a conservative estimate people will be paying an extra $100 a year for a basic cover. For some forms of full cover people will be paying an extra $200 a year. But, as a conservative estimate right across the board, people will be paying an extra $100 a year from 1 September 1979 for basic hospital and medical cover. Thus the tax relief amounting to $4 a week which will follow the promised abolition of the tax surcharge from 1 December 1 979 will be almost completely eaten up over the course of the year by the increased premiums paid by those who cover themselves with health insurance.

The general expectation in the community and certainly amongst the health funds is that there will be some increase in the number of those who simply abandon insurance. Before these changes were announced we knew that approximately 25 per cent of the population was not insured. Indeed, Mr Mansfield of the Voluntary Health Insurance Association of Australia fears that there will be a massive drop-out by contributors because voluntary health insurance is pricing itself out of the community’s reach. Who will contract out? If we are to adopt a responsible system we have to look at these things. Firstly, there are people who will not be able to afford the $8, $9 or $10 a week basic cover. People will drop out simply because the burden has become too great. In many instances people will do this unwisely and problems will be created for them, but they will drop out of health insurance because of the weekly cost burden. Secondly, many young and healthy people will tend to drop out of the health funds, because if people are reasonably young and healthy they will be prepared to take the risk of not paying health insurance. Thirdly, some wealthy people in our community will drop out of the health funds because they have the resources to meet major medical or hospital costs. In addition they can claim these costs as a tax deduction. These are the types of people who will drop out of health insurance: Those who cannot afford it, the young and the healthy, and the wealthy people in the community who have the resources to meet unexpected medical costs. In other words, the whole universal system of health insurance cover is already compromised and is likely to be increasingly compromised.

One of the real worries in the community- I think this is why in the latest gallup polls health is beginning to turn up again as a major matter of social concern in this community- is that we are returning to the pre-Medibank system. We now have approximately 80 competing private insurance funds, with all their overheads, administrative costs and advertising costs.

Mr Hunt:

– We have had them all along.

Dr BLEWETT:

-But you are giving them a much bigger share of the market. You have brought the situation back to that of the preMedibank period. The whole of the Government’s policy has been to bring the private health agencies back into the centre of health insurance in this country. We are running into exactly the same problems as those we encountered with them prior to 1972. Increasingly people are being faced with a complex and puzzling set of options. The Sax report pointed out that one of the principles of any medical insurance system should be at least to provide relatively simple options so that people can make rational choices. I have said already that a significant proportion of the population is not covered by health insurance. One of the reasons why we had to alter the health system in the early 1970s is that a significant part of the population was in no way covered. Finally, the insurance burden is inequitable in its incidence and increasingly burdensome on the ordinary members of the community.

The Minister said- I agree with him- that the community pays the bill in one way or another. It has become a platitude. It is a very favourite one of his. But we can agree with it. In one way or another, through tax, levy, insurance or some other system, the community will pay the bill. But what we say- and this is the basis of the policies we will be compelled to introduce either at the end of next year or even at the end of this year if things go well- is that in determining this bill we will be guided by four principles which the Government has neglected. Firstly, the system must be efficient. The mounting evidence of the kind of mess we are now in shows that it is not an efficient system. Secondly, the burden has to be spread equitably; that is, we have to have a system which is equitable. That means bringing most people into the system so that the burden of health care costs in this community rests not on a narrowing group of the sick but right across the community. Thirdly, it has to be simple. We have to have a relatively simple system. Fourthly, above all, it has to be a universal system. I am suggesting that they are the principles upon which the Government needs to judge its policy. The Government will have to change its policy again. Let us be quite frank. If the Government survives for more than six months it will have to change its present health policy. I suggest that next time the Minister, rather than allowing the

Budget deficit to dominate his thinking and being told what to do by the Treasury officials, should work towards a scheme which is firstly efficient, secondly equitable, thirdly simple and fourthly universal.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

-Every nation has problems with spiralling health care costs. Health care is absorbing an increasing percentage of gross domestic product and in government supported health schemes an increasing percentage of government budgetary expenditure. I shall list a few of the reasons for this. The provision of health care is labour intensive and labour is very expensive in Western nations. There has been an upgrading of the status and conditions of those in the labour force in the health care industry. There is high technology, which is expensive. We have an aging population which requires a greater degree of health care. No doubt, for many people at certain stages of our development as a nation health care has assumed a high priority in their attitudes to expenditure, either personal or governmental.

Unfortunately, in spite of increased spending the state of the individual’s health in Australia, and I would say in most Western nations- or the collective health of those individuals, the health of the nation- has not shown any corresponding improvement. In fact some of the increased expenditure may be even counter-productive. In advanced countries ways of containing or attempting to contain health cost increases are adopted. In a socialist system this is done by restricting access. A person cannot see the doctor in his official hours but has to see him afterwards although the doctor is still paid privately. Also access is restricted by the price mechanism in the more capitalistic societies or by a mixture of both factors in mixed systems.

If one looks at the record of this country over the past three years, particularly the government sector of health care expenditure, one sees that the increase in government expenditure on health care in 1975-76 rose by 35 per cent on the figure for 1974-75. In 1976-77, the first full year of this Government’s term of office, the increase had dropped to 14. 1 per cent and the next year it dropped to 10.7 per cent. I believe that the figures for the financial year just ended are not yet available but presumably the figure will be somewhat over 9 per cent. It is anticipated that the figure for the financial year we have just commenced will be about 9 per cent. This figure will be about the average of the general increase in government expenditure. Turning to the proportion of gross domestic product spent on health care costs in Australia in the last few years, we see that in 1 974-75 the figure was 8.9 per cent. That amount reflects total health care costs paid by all sectors that contribute, whether government or private. In 1975-76 the figure was 7.84 per cent; in 1976-77, 7.76 per cent and in 1977-78 the figure was 7.89 per cent. In other words, this Government has stabilised the percentage not just of government expenditure but of total health care expenditure in this country. This government has been successful in slowing the spiral to about the average cost increase for expenditure in society as a whole.

Labor’s argument about the effect of spiralling health care costs for the average family is obviously wrong. Labor loses the first round because the figures prove otherwise. This Government has contained spiralling health care costs in Australia, not just in the government sector but in total health care costs as a percentage of GDP. Labor can argue that if one looks at just the government sector one can see that there has been a transfer out of the government sector to the private sector because of the Government’s changes. These transfers may have been borne individually or collectively through health insurance. Labor can argue that after 1 September there will be a transfer of a few more per cent of costs. To my knowledge the figures of total health care costs in Australia for the financial year just concluded are not to hand. But the figures I cited previously show that this Government has slowed the spiral and that the figures are very close to the general increase of costs in this society from one year to the other.

The Government has done this through a number of measures. Let us look at a couple of them. Firstly, it has been successful in reducing inflation from the runaway days of the Labor Government. The doctors have been abused here today by interjection. I remind the honourable member who interjected that the Labor Government did not do anything about the doctors when it was in power. So it is rather pointless to make such interjections today. The Opposition should concede that there was a 22 months freeze on doctors ‘ fees in Australia and that obviously has been a contributing factor to the present situation. No matter how health care services are provided in this nation- whether by government, the private sector, the individual or a combination of both- they are not free. They are paid for by one means or another, such as taxes, by contributions to health funds or by direct payments to medical care providers. But if the treatment is provided by government some people say that it is free. But obviously it is not free: It is paid for by our taxes. If the honourable member who is seeking to interject will wait a minute he will realise that I have already beaten him on one point and I am about to deal with the second point. If the government commitment to provide health care is open-ended, as it was under the Labor Government, obviously the cost escalation or spiral through the government system, through a tax-based system, will run away even more.

The honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) and other Labor Party members in this Parliament today and yesterday have been trying to argue several impossible things at the same time. Firstly, they have been saying that taxes imposed by this Government are too high. Secondly, they have said that the Government should spend more money on health, welfare, education or other things. The honourable member shakes his head. Obviously in this debate he is saying that the Government should have been taking up more of total health care expenditure. The Opposition is also saying that inflation is too high. Putting all these arguments together makes an impossible situation. Even in this debate today the honourable member for Prospect referred to the increase in taxation in this year. The honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett), who followed for the Opposition, also referred to indirect taxes. He seems to live in a dream world and to believe that somehow or other there can be one form of government expenditure that is not inflationary, that does not increase costs or taxes in some way but that there can be another form that is quite different. It is of interest that if the tax rates applying when Labor lost office in 1975 applied today the average family would be paying $ 1 6 a week more in tax. In addition, a further 500,000 people in this country who do not have to pay tax today would be paying tax if the Labor rates were still applied. Also, the cost of Medibank would have escalated, as would the costs of the other schemes that Labor introduced if they were still operating. So those tax rates would not have been sufficient by themselves to pay for a Labor Government of today. Either by stealth through the higher inflation that Labor had accelerated or through deliberate increases in tax rates the tax burden of the average Australian would have been far greater.

The system would not be free. That situation is part of the spiralling alternative health care system that Labor had introduced. It is of no use Labor saying either that its total scheme would involve less cost- as I said, the evidence points otherwise- or that its scheme would be more equitable. How can Labor’s scheme be more equitable if a dramatic increase in taxation is required to fund it? Even if Labor in government, as I believe its supporters proposed in Adelaide, were to introduce a maximum tax rate of 75c to 80c in the dollar- and there are too few wealthy people in this country- and even if it brought in a capital gains tax, death duties and a resource rent tax, all sectors of the Australian public would be required to pay more in taxation to fund Labor’s far more expensive health care scheme. Labor’s proposed scheme would be far more inefficient because it would have to be administered through a vastly expanded bureaucratic system. The inequities that the Opposition talks about would also exist in its scheme. In conclusion, one can say that this Government has not exacerbated the spiralling of costs; it has reduced it. It is not true for the Opposition to say that the Government has increased the inequities.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

-The discussion is concluded.

page 456

STATES GRANTS (ROADS) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend further the States Grants (Roads) Act 1977 by providing an additional $3 8m in Commonwealth grants to the States for roadworks in 1979-80. The Bill also provides for an increase in quotas for State road expenditure from their own resources. Honourable members will recall that the States Grants (Roads) Act 1977 originally provided for grants totalling $475m to be made available to the States in each of the three years 1977-78 to 1979-80. When the Act was introduced in 1977I announced that it was the Government’s intention to adjust the grants for 1978-79 and 1979-80 so that they would be maintained at a level equivalent in real terms to the 1977-78 amounts. Accordingly, the Act was amended last year to provide an additional $33m in grants for both 1978-79 and 1979-80 bringing the total in each of these years to $508m. The Bill now before the House provides for the level of the grants for 1979-80 to be increased to $546m, an increase of almost 7.5 per cent over the amount provided in 1978-79.

The Bill gives effect to the Government’s decision on roads assistance which of necessity had to be taken and announced earlier this year. The States have often emphasised the need for early advice of Commonwealth funding levels in order to assist the development of their annual road programs. The additional moneys which were provided last year were in general allocated among road categories pro rata to the original allocations. This Bill also provides for a pro rata allocation of the increased funds for 1979-80. This will effectively ensure that the priorities inherent in the original allocations are maintained.

In line with the Government’s view that road funding is a responsibility of all three levels of government, each State will be required to fund an increased quota of road expenditure from its own resources in order to qualify for Commonwealth assistance. The Government has decided that State expenditure quotas for 1979-80 should, as in 1978-79, be increased by the same percentage as the Commonwealth grants. I should emphasise that the quotas represent minimum expenditure requirements which the States are free to exceed according to the priority which they attach to their road programs. The details of the legislation are quite straightforward. The Bill provides for the repeal of the schedules to the States Grants (Roads) Act 1977 and for their replacement with new schedules setting out the increased Commonwealth grants by road categories and the increased State quotas. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 456

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PERSONAL INCOME TAX SHARING) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

– I move:

The main purpose of this Bill is to increase the annual percentage of net personal income tax collections allocated to local government under the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976 from 1.52 per cent to 1.75 per cent. In his election policy speech in November 1977, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) announced that the share of net personal income tax collections allocated to local government would be increased to 2 per cent by 1 980-8 1 . The increase proposed in the Bill is a major step towards fulfilling that promise. One of the aims of the Government’s federalism policy is that State governments and local authorities should have maximum independence and flexibility in determining their priorities and carrying out their functions. Accordingly, the Government has placed emphasis on the provision of ‘untied’ funds to them through giving them access to a share of personal income tax revenue.

As a result of the tax sharing arrangements which were introduced in 1976-77, general revenue or ‘untied’ funds made available to local authorities have increased very substantially- by 145 per cent in the three years to 1978-79. The proposed increase in local government’s percentage share of income tax revenue in 1979-80 means that local government’s entitlement in 1 979-80 will be $22 1 . 74m. That represents an increase of no less than 23.6 per cent on last year’s amount. In the light of the budgetary difficulties facing the Government, that is a generous increase indeed. I note that it will not be possible to provide the funds for local government at this new higher level until the legislation is amended as proposed in this Bill.

In addition to increasing the percentage share of net personal income tax collections allocated to local government, this Bill is intended to permit reviews from time to time of the relative State shares of the funds provided for local government under the tax sharing arrangements. The State percentages are set out in sub-section 5 (2) of the Act and were revised in 1977 following a review by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. At present, sub-section 12(2) of the Act states that the Minister- in this case, the Prime Minister- shall, before 30 June 1981, arrange for the question of whether any change is desirable in the percentage distribution table set out in sub-section 5(2) to be referred to the Commonwealth Grants Commission for inquiry and report by the Commission. This sub-section may be read as providing for one review only, and as one such review has taken place, an amendment is proposed to make it clear that the matter may be referred to the Commonwealth Grants Commission on future occasions.

Honourable members may recall that in introducing the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1977, my colleague, the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer, told the House that following a suggestion by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) consideration was being given, in consultation with the States, to the question of making specific provision in the legislation that the Commonwealth Grants Commission should follow equalisation principles in future reviews of States’ shares of the local government tax sharing entitlement.

The matter of principles and procedures to be followed in relation to future reviews of State relativities and whether any of the principles and procedures should be included in the legislation was subsequently referred to the Commission for inquiry and report. The outcome was the Commission’s special report 1979 on financial assistance for local government tabled recently in this House.

Copies of the special report have been sent to the States and their views on the recommendations sought. We shall be examining the matter when the States have made their views known. Further legislation may be required then. In the meantime, and irrespective of the outcome of these processes, the Government has considered it desirable to take the opportunity to widen the provisions of sub-section 12 (2) to permit reviews of the States’ percentage shares from time to time. It is in the interest of local government throughout Australia that this Bill receive passage promptly and I commend it to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned. (Quorum formed)

page 457

LOAN BILL 1979

Bill presented by Mr Howard on behalf of Mr Eric Robinson, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to provide legislative authority needed to meet the prospective deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund in 1979-80. At the same time it will, together with authorities expected to be available under other legislation, provide the borrowing authority needed to finance the estimated overall Budget deficit for the financial year. Honourable members will be aware that, for many years, there has been legislation for these purposes in the legislative programs of successive governments.

In my Budget Speech I announced that the prospective overall Budget deficit for 1979-80 is estimated to be $2, 193m. Except insofar as funds are available from accumulated cash balances or other miscellaneous financing transactions, this deficit must be financed by net borrowings. Such net borrowings must, of course, be within proper legislative authority derived from the Parliament.

The overall Budget deficit takes into account all relevant transactions of the three separate funds used to record the Commonwealth’s receipts and expenditures. These funds are the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the Loan Fund and the Trust Fund. The amounts which may be paid from each fund are limited to the amounts legally available to it.

Underlying the overall deficit estimated for 1979-80 is an estimated deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of $ 1,604m. Details of the current estimate of the Consolidated Revenue Fund transactions are set out, for the information of honourable members, in table 3 of Budget Paper No. 4- Estimates of Receipts and Summary of Estimated Expenditure for the Year Ending 30 June 1980. As payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund cannot exceed moneys available in it, it is necessary either to reduce payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund by charging to Loan Fund some expenditures normally met from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or, alternatively, to supplement the receipts of the Consolidated Revenue Fund from some other source. Appropriate legislative authority is needed for such transfers. The simplest and traditional means of providing appropriate legislative authority is a Loan Bill of the type I am now presenting.

This Bill will authorise borrowings for defence purposes in order that defence expenditure, which would normally be met from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, may instead be met from the Loan Fund. The Bill authorises borrowing for defence purposes. I should make it quite clear, however, that it does not authorise any defence expenditures additional to those which have already been authorised by Parliament in Supply Act (No. 1) 1979-80 or which will subsequently be authorised in Appropriation Acts for this financial year. It will simply allow reallocations of defence expenditures between the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the Loan Fund to be made during the remainder of the financial year, following the enactment of this legislation.

In this regard I draw the attention of honourable members to clause 8 of the recently introduced Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1979-80, which makes that Bill subject to the provisions of the proposed Loan Act. I should also mention that, as borrowings under this legislation will be for the purpose of financing defence expenditure, those borrowings will not require approval from the Australian Loan Council. The Bill includes a specific limit to the amount of such borrowings that may be undertaken. This limit is directly related to the level of defence expenditure which is expected to be made from the date of enactment of the Bill to 30 June 1980. Honourable members will be well aware that, at this early stage, the estimate of the Consolidated Revenue Fund deficit is inevitably a qualified one. The actual figure for the year will be affected by presently unforeseen developments during the year which could cause departures from current estimates of receipts and payments of the Fund. In setting a limit on borrowings for inclusion in the Bill these inherent uncertainties need to be recognised. The limit that has been included is $ 1 ,800m. This provides a reasonable margin over the estimated Consolidated Revenue Fund deficit of $ 1,604m. Borrowings under this proposed legislation will be undertaken within the framework of the monetary policy objective to which I referred in my Budget Speech. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 458

NATIONAL HEALTH 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:

This Bill provides for an amendment to the National Health Act to increase the general patient contribution for pharmaceutical benefits, as announced by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) in his Budget Speech. I draw honourable members’ attention to clause 3 which will increase from $2.50 to $2.75 the maximum amount that approved pharmaceutical chemists may charge for the supply of a pharmaceutical benefit under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. This increase will take effect from 1 September 1979. As in the past, pensioners holding a pensioner health benefits card will not be charged for pharmaceutical benefits. Similarly no charge will be made for repatriation pensioners. lt is now just over a year since the patient contribution was set at $2.50 and this increase of 25c is broadly in line with the movements in prices and incomes since then. Increasing the patient contribution is one of the means by which the Government can curtail the increasing expenditure on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. This small increase is expected to result in a saving of $5.1m for the Government in the financial year 1 979-80. 1 commend this Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 459

MIGRATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1979

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

Second Reading

Mr MacKELLAR:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · Warringah · LP

– I move:

As announced by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) on 21 August in the Budget Speech, the Government has decided to introduce charges to recover certain administrative costs currently incurred by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The proposed charges are:

The introduction of these charges is consistent with the Government’s policy of achieving cost recovery for services provided by departments. Charges for these services are generally in line with the practice of other comparable countries.

In Europe and North America it is usual to charge for a wide array of immigration and consular services. For example, the United Kingdom and United States of America charge for cables is identical with that now proposed. The USA charges $20 for immigrant visas and also charges for documentary evidence of status. All Australian visas will continue to be issued free of charge. Several Australian professional bodies already charge for assessment of the qualifications of persons educated overseas and this principle is now to be extended to the Government’s service. In other countries educational institutions have to carry the responsibility of assessing the language skills of applicants for admission from other overseas countries.

The charges will be mainly incurred by people who are not Australian citizens and will place those persons resident in Australia in a position similar to Australian citizens who must pay for passports in order to travel overseas. With the exception of charges for English language tests at overseas posts, it is proposed that all charges will be levied from 1 November 1979. The English language test fee will be charged from 1 January 1980.

In order to implement charges for the first four of these services, an amendment to section 67 of the Migration Act 1958 is required. The remaining three charges will be raised administratively as the services are not recognised under the Act but are provided as a service only on request.

The amendment to the Act to give effect to the implementation of the first four charges is proposed by clause 5 of the Bill. The clause will permit the making of regulations imposing fees in respect of these services. The necessary regulations to prescribe the level of charges are currently being prepared.

It should be noted by honourable members that under the existing provisions of section 67, fees can be prescribed in respect of any documents issued under the Act. Advice has been received that the present form of entry permits and evidence of grant of change of status in Australia are not documents as such but stamps placed upon a person’s passport. In order to avoid the need to give these authorities separately in documentary form, an amendment to the section is needed to enable the charges to be raised. In the interests of flexibility, it is desirable that the empowering provisions of section 67 be cast as broadly as possible to facilitate the introduction by regulation of any future charges without the need for further amendment to the Act. The amendment will thus permit the prescribing of fees to cover a broader category of services than that presently proposed.

Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill make two minor machinery amendments to the Act. Clause 3 will amend the definition of an authorised officer to empower the Minister to appoint any person to perform any or all of the duties conferred upon authorised officers by the Act. At present the Minister is empowered to appoint only officers of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Customs officers and members of the Commonwealth, State and Territory Police Forces as authorised officers.

The amendment will enable the Minister to appoint officers of the departments of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Resources and, in some instances, persons employed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom Government, to grant visas and return endorsements to persons wishing to travel to Australia. These appointments will be made only in those situations where Australia is not represented in the particular overseas country or where officers of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs are not employed at overseas posts.

Clause 4 of the Bill amends section 3 1 of the Act to make it an offence for a person to produce false documents, papers, et cetera, not only to an officer but also to an authorised officer. The amendment is necessary as a result of the introduction of the statutory visa and return endorsement system by the Migration Amendment Bill 1979 which is currently before the Senate. As only authorised officers may, under that Bill, grant visas and return endorsements, it is necessary to ensure that those persons who apply for a visa or return endorsement for travel to Australia are liable to a penalty for producing to an authorised officer false information in an attempt to gain a visa or return endorsement. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned. (Quorum formed).

Mr Fife:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Despite the calling of a quorum, there are still only three members of the Opposition present in the chamber.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman)There is no point of order.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I ask you: Does not the Government have an obligation to have more than three people in the chamber, which was the case when I called the quorum?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Hughes knows that that is not a point of order. I call the Minister.

page 460

NITROGENOUS FERTILIZERS SUBSIDY AMENDMENT BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of the Bill now before the House is to extend the operation of the nitrogenous fertilisers subsidy scheme for a further year until 3 1 December 1980 at a rate of subsidy of $20 per tonne of nitrogen content. The current subsidy of $40 per tonne of nitrogen content will continue to be paid until 3 1 December 1 979. The extension of the operation of this scheme was foreshadowed by my colleague the Treasurer (Mr Howard) in his statement to the House on 24 May 1979 concerning decisions on expenditure and taxation. The cost to the Government of this scheme during 1980 is estimated to be $5m.

The reduction in the rate of subsidy during 1980 is in accordance with an earlier Government decision, announced in the 1976-77 Budget Speech, that the subsidy on nitrogenous fertilisers would be phased out. This decision followed the Government’s consideration of a report by the Industries Assistance Commission on 5 September 1975. In that report the Commission recommended that the subsidy should be progressively reduced and cease on 31 December 1978. However the Government decided to review the scheme on an annual basis and set an appropriate rate of subsidy taking into account the outlook for the user industries and the need to maintain budgetary restraint over public expenditure.

The Bill proposes that from 1 January 1980 until 31 December 1980 subsidy will be payable in respect of locally produced nitrogenous fertilisers which are sold for use in Australia as fertiliser and also in respect of imported nitrogenous fertilisers which are either used in Australia as a fertiliser by the importer or are sold by the importer for such use in Australia. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 460

NORTHERN TERRITORY SUPREME COURT (REPEAL) BILL 1979

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

A quorum having been called and the bells being rung-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman)There is no point of order. (Quorum formed).

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill and those associated with it represent the last major step in the assumption of responsible self-government by the Northern Territory. Under the Northern Territory (SelfGovernment) Act 1978, the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory exercises legislative power in respect of the peace, order and good government of the Territory. Honourable members will know that the Northern Territory Government now also exercises executive authority, pursuant to the Northern Territory (SelfGovernment) Act 1978, in respect of almost all State-type functions. Accordingly, with the traditional view of the division of governmental powers into legislative, executive and judicial arms in mind, it only remains for the Northern Territory Government to assume responsibility for the judicial arm of government.

Responsibility for the Territory’s lower courts was transferred to the Northern Territory Government on 1 January 1978 with most of the Attorney-General’s other State-type functions. But at that time it was felt inappropriate to transfer the Supreme Court- the highest judicial organ in the Territory courts structure. In view of the constitutional development of the Territory since then, including the creation of the Northern Territory Government as a separate legal entity from 1 July 1978, the Government has decided that the Supreme Court should be under local legislative and executive control. This decision, I should make it clear, followed representations from and discussions with the Northern Territory Government.

The Northern Territory Supreme Court Act 1961 now provides for the establishment and constitution of the Court. This Bill will repeal that Act which will be replaced by Northern Territory legislation providing for the establishment and constitution of a new Territory Supreme Court. That Court will not be the subject of Commonwealth legislation, except in respect of the conferral of Commonwealth jurisdiction upon the Court and necessary transitional matters.

Clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill are transitional provisions ensuring the continuation of proceedings pending before the High Court or the Federal Court of Australia arising from proceedings in the present Northern Territory Supreme Court, and of the appointments to the Federal Court of the present judges of the Supreme Court. Clause 7 will put beyond doubt that references in existing Commonwealth legislation to the Northern Territory Supreme Court are to be read as references to that Court to be established by the Northern Territory legislation, except where the context otherwise requires.

Discussions between officers of the respective governments concerning the necessary administrative and financial arrangements and for the transfer of staff and property, are now being conducted. This Bill and the replacement Northern Territory legislation will then be proclaimed to come into operation on the same day. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 461

JUDICIARY AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. (Quorum formed).

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill is consequential upon the Northern Territory Supreme Court (Repeal) Bill 1979 and will pick up the effect of certain provisions of the Northern Territory Supreme Court Act 1 96 1 that need to be continued. Its main purpose is to confer jurisdiction on the Northern Territory Supreme Court in respect of matters that may not be within the competence of Northern Territory legislation and are, in any event, more appropriately dealt with in Commonwealth legislation.

The Bill will amend the Judiciary Act 1903- that is, the principal Act- by inserting a new Part IXA. That Part will confer jurisdiction on the Northern Territory Supreme Court in respect of suits between the Commonwealth and the Territory, certain prerogative writs and injunctions sought against Commonwealth and Territory officers and matters arising under Commonwealth legislation in respect of which the Territory Supreme Court has traditionally had jurisdiction. It also puts beyond doubt that provision can be made in Territory laws for the prosecution of indictable offences against Territory laws.

New section 67E will extend to the property and moneys of the Territory the same protection from execution or attachment as applies to the

Commonwealth and the States. Clauses 4, 5 and 6 of the Bill contain other necessary or desirable consequential amendments.

Clause 4 will extend the provisions of section 71A of the principal Act, which concerns the prosecution by the Attorney-General of indictable offences against Commonwealth laws without preliminary examination, to all Territories. The need to extend those provisions to the Northern Territory arises from the repeal of the Northern Territory Supreme Court Act, section 51 of which provides similarly at present. The provision is to be extended to all Territories as it is not appropriate to extend it only to the Northern Territory. Clause 5 will cease to apply to section 55D of the principal Act, which makes provision regarding legal practice in the Territories, to the Northern Territory. Administration of the legal profession will be regulated solely by Northern Territory legislation. Clause 6 will extend the provisions of section 80A of the principal Act, which concerns the law that is to apply to Territory courts exercising jurisdiction in respect of claims against the Commonwealth and the like, to suits under the new Part IXA. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 462

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA AMENDMENT BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill is consequential upon the Northern Territory Supreme Court (Repeal) Bill 1979. The four resident judges of the Northern Territory Supreme Court now all hold appointments to the Federal Court of Australia. Also, a number of other Federal Court judges hold appointments as additional judges of the Northern Territory Supreme Court. The Government has decided that this situation should continue, particularly in view of the fact that appeals from the Northern Territory Supreme Court will continue to lie to the Federal Court for the time being. The Government also desires to be able to appoint to the Federal Court judges of the future Northern Territory Supreme Court.

This Bill will amend the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976- to which I refer as the principal Act- to achieve those purposes. Clause 3 will amend section 6 of the principal Act so that the qualification for appointment as a Federal Court judge under sub-section (2) includes appointment to the Northern Territory Supreme Court, which will no longer be a court created by the Parliament within the meaning of the Act. Sub-section 6 (5) is to be similarly amended in relation to the holding of dual appointments by Federal Court judges. Clause 4 will amend section 15 of the principal Act to refer to a Chief Justice of the Territory Supreme Court in addition to Chief Judge as the proposed Northern Territory legislation will create the position of Chief Justice of the Territory. I commend the Bill to the House. ( Quorum formed)

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 462

JUDGES’ PENSIONS AMENDMENT BILL 1979

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill is consequential upon the Northern Territory Supreme Court (Repeal) Bill 1979. After transfer of the Northern Territory Supreme Court to local control, the Commonwealth should continue to be responsible for the pensions of Northern Territory Supreme Court judges only if they also hold appointments to the Federal Court of Australia. This Bill will amend the Judges’ Pensions Act 1968 to achieve this. It will amend the definition of Judge in section 4 of that Act to substitute Australian Capital Territory for an internal Territory, thus excluding the Northern Territory. This means that the Act will not apply to Northern Territory Supreme Court judges as such. The Act will, of course, continue to apply to them if they hold Federal Court appointments.

The definition of prior judicial service will also be amended so that service on the Northern Territory Supreme Court may be counted as prior judicial service under the Act. Clause 4 of the Bill will preserve benefits already payable under the Act in respect of previous service as a judge of the Northern Territory Supreme Court. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 463

QUARANTINE AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6 June, on motion by Mr Hunt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-The Opposition supports this legislation. Basically, we agree with the arguments as put by the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) in his second reading speech on 6 June 1 979.I remind the House of the main contents of the legislation. There is a deletion of the provision that if people suffer any illness whatever within two weeks of returning to Australia they have to report that illness to the Department of Health. I do not think that particular provision has been enforced for some considerable time. I must admit that as a medical practitioner in practice until the time I became a member of this House, I was not aware of that piece of legislation. Therefore, I would never have advised a patient that he had to notify the Department. There are a number of notifiable diseases. It does seem much more rational to deal with problems of specific diseases. The other parts of the legislation amend the original Act so as to effect an improvement. I think they provide for better methods of giving power to quarantine officers both at the point of entry into Australia and when dealing with suspected breaches of the Act. Warrants must be obtained to carry out certain procedures. The Opposition supports that method of dealing with things. In passing, I would like to refer to a section of the original Act which is not to be amended by this piece of legislation. I draw the Minister’s attention to it. I came across it when I was looking at the original Act. Section 86D of the current Act reads:

In every prosecution for an offence against this Act or the regulations the averment of a prosecutor contained in the information shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be deemed to be proved.

That section was inserted into the Act back in 1920. 1 think we have different views now on the question of onus of proof. When the Act is reviewed again it may be worthwhile having a look at that particular section. The House debated similar issues in the case of legislation dealing with narcotics. I know that there are difficulties in proving that a particular substance has been imported from overseas once it is inside the country, but I think that it is also important that the onus of proof not be reversed whenever it is possible not to do so. On behalf of the Opposition I express our agreement to the legislation.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

-Government supporters who are in any way connected with agriculture would very much welcome these changes to the Quarantine Act. There are two significant sections. There is the question of compensation and the question of powers for quarantine officers. I am very pleased, and I believe that all those connected with agriculture in Australia would be pleased, that at last there is a settled procedure for obtaining compensation. There may have to be some significant decisions for the slaughter of whole herds of livestock and perhaps even districts will have to be sealed off if we are to control some diseases, but those in the farming community who may be involved must have confidence that any procedure that is enacted will provide fair compensation. I understand that the United Kingdom has a very good and comprehensive compensation scheme and that ours in many ways will reflect that scheme. It is important that there be a defined market value and assessment procedure and an arbitrator arrangement if this cannot be settled through what I will call the ordinary market procedure arrangement. I understand that that is also part of the Act.

There is the question of regularising provisions for warrant for quarantine officers. At present they do not have such powers. They are available to Customs officers but not to quarantine officers. I think there are safeguards in the sense that warrants have to be issued in the normal way and if any prosecution is likely the officers have to be accompanied by a police officer. So really in relation to that matter it is just a question of making the powers of the quarantine officer similar to the powers of the Customs officer. There are limits to what can be done in that regard. Those aspects of the legislation would also be welcomed. The Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) announced recently that a new leaflet will be provided, I think in 15 languages, giving reasons why we need animal and plant quarantine in this country. These pamphlets will be provided when a person wishing to visit Australia is issued with a visa or entry permit. This particular proposal has been under consideration by the Government for about four or five years now. It has been part of policies and has been mentioned in election statements. I am very pleased that the Minister has been able to bring this to fruition and that he has proposed these changes to the quarantine Act.

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 Hunt) read a third time.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m. ( Quorum formed)

page 464

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6 June, on motion by MrEllicott:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

– 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, the Ombudsman Amendment Bill 1979 and the Remuneration Tribunals 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 three Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

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

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-I am rather intimidated by the enthusiasm of honourable members opposite pouring into the House to hear what I have to say on these measures. They do not need the education which is going to pour from my lips at this moment. Actually, we are not dealing with matters of great weight or great length. The speeches made by the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott) on the three Bills before the House took about 400 words. Of course, these Bills deal principally with changing the name ‘Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly’ to ‘House of Assembly’ in various ordinances and one Act concerned with the Australian Capital Territory. I might suggest that the Minister raise with the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) the question of whether it is not possible for a piece of legislation to be brought down which makes it automatic for names to be changed in other legislation consequent upon changes such as this. However, if that had happened honourable members would have been deprived of the advantage of listening to me at this moment.

First of all, I query the desirability of changing the name of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly to the House of Assembly. As I understand it, the Minister said: ‘Well, the people of Canberra have rejected selfgovernment and it is no longer a legislative body’. I do not think that that is a valid argument. In the first instance the idea behind creating that body, the Legislative Assembly, was that it would be able to initiate ordinances and consider ordinances submitted to it by the Department of the Capital Territory or the Minister. To that extent it was legislative. I hope that it continues to be so because I believe that we have made a fundamental error in the way we have handled the question of self-government and the development of self-government in the Australian Capital Territory.

It was my view that we should have allowed self-government in this territory to evolve. There was great pressure from the members of the Legislative Assembly, as we christened it in, I think, 1974, to have their powers defined. They used to complain: ‘We have no powers’. My own view, expressed quite often, was that they had the power to make whatever legislation they felt was proper for them. They had to face the fact that the legislation then had to run the gauntlet of this Parliament. I did not see any great difficulty in that. We, the honourable members of a legislative body, the House of Representatives, having considered matters of great moment and small moment, still have to see legislation run the gauntlet of another institution, the Senate. Therefore I regret that we changed the name insofar as it deprives these members not so much of the ability to do things, but probably helps deprive them of the will to do things. The idea was that as time went on the Legislative Assembly would develop a system of its own and would gradually evolve a relationship with the Minister, the Department and this Parliament which would produce an effective form of self-government.

I think that most Australians would agree that a formal document setting out constitutional powers is very difficult to design in such a way that it does not become irrelevant with time. As one of those who was circumscribed in all sorts of ways between 1972 and 1975 by the constitutional processes that pertained between this House and the other place and between ourselves and the Governor-General, I think that it is folly to attempt to define the constitutional processes too narrowly in documented form. These processes have to evolve. I think that is more or less the way in which they have developed in Britain and other parts of the world. My own attitude- and I think it is totally different from that of the present Minister- was that unless there were very compelling reasons to not accept legislation coming forward from the Legislative Assembly it ought to pass. During my term of office as Minister I gave my concurrence to two pieces of legislation, one on poker machines, for which I had very little regard, and one for 24-hour drinking, about which I had grave reservations. But while I wished that the poker machine ordinance had been put to the people in the form of a referendum, that was not the view of my colleagues in Caucus. Therefore I gave my concurrence. In the case of the 24-hour drinking ordinance- I must point out that we did not make drinking for 24 hours compulsory or anything like that- this opened up a new area in Australia, I should think, as regards the supply and sale of alcohol. I again gave my concurrence. I think it is unfortunate that the Minister has not adopted the same attitude to the House of Assembly. That is the point I would like to make. I regret that we have changed the name. However, I do not know that it makes any significant difference to its functions.

There is another point. What is the role of the member of the House of Assembly on the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority? I think this is something that many members of the House of Assembly, the former Legislative Assembly and the former Advisory Council have not realised as being of very great importance. There are three members on the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority. There is the chairman and two others. One is the representative elected by the House of Assembly and the other is a member representing the Department of the Capital Territory. They, of course, are the executive of a very important statutory body in this area. It was my wish and my hope that during the period of development other chairmen would gradually be replaced by chairmen from the Assembly. I had differences of opinion with some of my colleagues about this matter. It was felt that a person who became a member of such an authority would become imprisoned by its processes and the authority would lose some of its functions to a member of the Assembly. I do not agree with that.

It is my privilege to represent this Parliament on the Council of the National Library of Australia. I regard it as a matter of continuing pleasure. It is a duty which I enjoy. I hope I serve a useful purpose. It is my belief that more and more members of this Parliament ought to be placed in authorities which we have created. It would be necessary, of course, for such people to be from both sides of the Parliament. I think that would be desirable. I believe that there is great talent in this Parliament and that it is being wasted by the underemployment of honourable members in executive and administrative responsibilites. We have placed upon some 27 members of the Parliament the responsibility of administering matters in departments of state, The fact that the present models are not all that bright at it does not deprive the Parliament of its responsibility in these matters.

Why do we not appoint one of our members as a member of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, on the board of Qantas Airways Ltd, and to the bank boards, commissions of various sorts and so on. There are statutory authorities which exercise great influence upon the way in which the country progresses. I believe that there is an opportunity for elected members of parliament to take an important part in the governing of this city. I hope that the Minister for the Capital Territory will give thought to the proposition that it may well be useful to consider appointing as chairmen of these authorities members of the House of Assembly. I would like to see the matter debated and the Parliament give thought to that as a general principle. I recognise that there are points for and against. When in government we appointed several members of parliament as chairmen of authorities and there had been appointments preceding those appointments.

One other point of interest about the Bill is the retiring age for members of the Electricity Authority. I admit that I was a bit remiss about this matter in the two years- the golden age- when I was administering the Authority. I notice that the retiring age for members of the Authority is 65 years. I notice that that also includes the elected member of the House of Assembly. I think that this is rather unusual. For instance, it does not apply to the Parliament’s representative on the Council of the National Library, on the Council of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies and, certainly, at the Australian National University. It does not apply to members of this Parliament although various parties have rules about it in one form or another.

It is my view that if someone has been elected to represent the people of the community it is not appropriate for anybody to apply any restrictions to his capacity to carry out his duties. If people choose to elect someone to the House of Assembly he should be equal with every other member of it even if he had chosen in a rather unwise fashion, as I did, to be born in 1914 and was therefore in a certain category. I make the point to the Parliament that in the present situation of representative government I do not think that it is appropriate for there to be any restrictions upon the age or anything else of people who are elected as representatives. We would certainly revolt against any suggestion that a person should not be elected because of that person’s sex, race or religion. We live in a society in which governments are chosen to represent people and I think that the l.S million or 2 million people who were born before, say, 1914 or 1915 ought to be able to continue to be representatives on various bodies. The Victoria branch of my party -

Mr Hodgman:

– Why are you standing aside for Bob Hawke?

Mr BRYANT:

-If anybody who is better than I am turns up, I will stand aside. Nobody has yet produced anyone from the four thousand million people on our planet. This happens to be the rule in the party to which I belong and it is a matter of moment to the people who become involved in it, but I have noticed in recent times that it has caused very senior and important people to go compulsorily out of the Public Service and places such as that. I recognise all the difficulties with it. It has been part of a long tradition. But the time has arrived for us to be able to apply sanctions to individuals in accordance with their capacity to carry out their jobs. I again ask the Minister for the Capital Territory to give serious thought to raising the status of the House of Assembly in all the operations in Canberra so that the people involved may be enticed into taking a more effective role in the governing of this city. A little more faith should be placed in their judgment in certain administrative matters. I regret that over the last 1 2 months or so there seems to have been a diminution of their significance and importance in administrative and executive matters.

Mr HASLEM:
Canberra

– It is always a great privilege to follow the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) in a debate. Tonight he said that certain people should not be required to retire at a particular age. I would agree with him. In many countries of the world people would not become members of parliament before reaching the age of maturity and having the experience of the honourable member for Wills. In fact, I am rather surprised that the Opposition keeps him on the back benches. With the wealth of experience he has in the Australian Capital Territory and the contribution he could make to debates about it, I am sure he would make a very good shadow Minister for the Capital Territory.

The matters we are discussing tonight are procedural. They concern the change in status of the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly, which was formerly the Legislative Assembly. Democracy dictates that people have a choice about how they shall be governed and how they shall order their affairs. The referendum in the Australian Capital Territory last year determined that we would not have self-government in the way in which most members of parliament would expect and for which most members of parliament would expect people to call. Therefore, the Australian Capital Territory has a House of Assembly, which I believe has probably put back the democratic process locally by a number of years. Be that as it may, the people of Canberra voted massively against any change in the administrative arrangements for this city.

I think that the most significant thing that has happened to Canberra following the election of a new House of Assembly has been the announcement that the financial affairs of the Capital Territory are to be examined by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. The Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott) announced outside this chamber last night that the legislation will be changed to allow the finances of the Capital Territory to be examined by the Grants Commission. This is something which has been sought over many years by a number of people in the Capital Territory. I think that those of us who are interested in Canberra, such as the honourable member for Wills, will keenly seek the result of that announcement. There are many people round Australia who continually claim that the Capital Territory is looked after too well, that the 215,000 Australians who live in this place are some sort of parasite on the body of the nation. It may well be that the Grants Commission will find that the Capital Territory is a dependent area, perhaps like Tasmania. I only wish that we were as dependent as Tasmania as we probably would have had an announcement in the Budget last night about the building of a third bridge across Lake Burley Griffin if we were. Unfortunately, we are seen as the pampered area of Australia. That makes our task, at a time when governments are being very circumspect in spending taxpayers’ money, all the more difficult.

As we are considering a Bill in relation to the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority, it might be relevant to pose a few questions in relation to the functions of that Authority and perhaps to suggest, by means of this debate, to the House of Assembly’s representative on that Authority that we should be doing more in the Territory in the area of energy conservation. Canberra is the largest inland city in Australia. It is situated at an elevation of between 2,000 and 2,500 feet. For the information of those honourable members who come from warmer areas of Australia I point out that it is a very cold city at this time of” the year. Those of us who follow world events realise that the energy crisis which is facing the world and which has necessitated increasing the cost of petroleum products in Australia is putting a considerable burden on the people of Canberra who rely on petroleum products for heat at this time of the year. The Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority would do well to see what it can do to promote the use of electricity, solar power and alternative methods of heating in this capital city. I suggest that much more work should be done by the Electricity Authority in promoting alternative sources of energy and in pointing people towards the use of its product, which is electricty.

We also have before us the Remuneration Tribunals Amendment Bill (No. 2). The amendments contained in that Bill relate to a change in the method of running the Capital Territory; in other words, the creation of the House of Assembly. I wish to mention a matter on behalf of the four Federal members of parliament representing the Capital Territory. We have two senators representing the Australian Capital Territory and two members of the House of Representatives representing the electorates of Fraser and Canberra. I represent the latter electorate. The electorates of most members of this House are represented by three tiers of government. There is a local council, a State government and the Federal government. Federal members of parliament represent between 100,000 and 140,000 people, or 60,000 to 70,000 voters. In carrying out their task of representing those people they have the assistance of three or four State members of parliament. They also have the assistance of two or three local councils.

The four members who represent the Capital Territory have very little assistance at all. We do not have a State parliament, and our House of Assembly is just finding its way. Members of parliament who represent the Capital Territory are expected to represent their constituents in local government affairs, State government affairs and Federal government affairs. This means that we need to be experts on everything from leaking taps to nuclear energy.

The Remuneration Tribunal has the responsibility of looking after the terms and conditions of employment not only of members of the House of Assembly but also of members of this Parliament. It seems strange to me that when a submission was put to that Remuneration Tribunal this year suggesting that representatives of the Capital Territory- they have three times the work load of other members of this Parliament and have to look after local council and State government affairs, as well as matters concerned with health, education, buses, removing of manure from streets and the like- should be provided with an extra member of staff, we got very little hearing.

When Mr Jim Fraser was the member for the Australian Capital Territory, as it then was, he was given an extra member of staff because it was recognised that the work load of a representative in the Capital Territory was particularly high. That particular perk, if that is the way to put it, was not added to by the former Government when Mr Daly approved the appointment of a member of staff for all members of parliament. The local member suggested that he should get an extra member of staff. He was told: Do not worry. Canberra is going to have local government shortly, so you do not need an extra member of staff. ‘

We do not have local government in the Australian Capital Territory. The four local members put in a very thoughtful submission to the Remuneration Tribunal on how we would like to better serve our constituents. We got nowhere. I am sure that the honourable member for Wills will agree that in this situation we need to have more help so that we may more properly represent our constituents. We do not have the easy ride enjoyed by members representing metropolitan seats in Melbourne.

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

– in reply- This has been a very quiet debate. Had the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes) been here to fulfil his role as shadow Minister for the Capital Territory the debate might have become vigorous. However, it was right that the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) should think about retiring ages. Perhaps the honourable member should think again. He is not 70 years of age; he is 65. He admitted that tonight. He rightly said that men of 65 and beyond are quite capable of giving good service to the public. The honourable member for Wills is among those people. It is always a pleasure to take part in a debate when the honourable member is sitting in his rightful spot at the table. However, the retiring age is not a matter for us to judge; it is a matter for some other tribunal in some other place. I am sure that every honourable member wishes the honourable member for Wills well.

The honourable member mentioned the desirability of extending the age of retirement in relation to the representative of the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly who is a member of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority. I think that this is a distinction which could not be drawn. Although the person may well be capable of fulfilling his duties, I think that it is fair to say that the same rules should apply to all members. The honourable member for Wills raised the question of whether the House of Assembly should provide from amongst its members a chairman for the ACT Electricity Authority. The position of chairman is a full time job. Therefore it may be very difficult for the House of Assembly to provide such a person. However, it is an important matter in that it suggests the involvement of the House of Assembly. Last year when the electorate decided that it preferred some form of ministerial rule to selfgovernment that was not necessarily a vote of confidence in the present Minister or incumbent of the office. It may have been a decision that indicates that the electorate preferred the system of government which has tended to rule the Capital Territory since it was first conceived. However, at the same time advisory bodies of various types have existed, I think, since 1 933. The ACT Legislative Assembly came into existence, I think, in 1974. It did so at a time when the honourable member for Wills was perhaps encouraging people to think that one day they would get selfgovernment. Perhaps that was an aspiration which he was entitled to give them because, after all, a joint committee of this Parliament had encouraged the same idea. The words ‘Legislative Assembly’ were chosen specifically having in mind the possibility of that body becoming a truly legislative body. When it ceased to be such there was only one thing to do so far as I was concerned, and that was to call a spade a spade. It was no longer to be a legislative assembly so we decided to call it something else. We decided to call it the ACT Assembly, but being a person who is willing to take representations into account, when members of the now House of Assembly asked me to change the name to the House of Assembly so that they could use the initials MHA, I decided so to change it.

With the coming into existence of the House of Assembly a new era in the rule of Canberra has come about. Many people think that the body is inert and not very useful. For my own part I want to try to make it work. I am endeavouring to do that in various ways. One way of course is to retain the idea that members of the House of Assembly should represent the communitybecause they are elected by popular vote- on various organisations, committees and statutory bodies. I have continued that practice and of course the ACT Electricity Authority is one of the bodies which will have such representation. As representatives of the community members of the House of Assembly should be represented on those bodies. I have also introduced the practice- I hope it will work- of seeing the President of the House of Assembly after each meeting so that he can raise with me issues that the members raised and so that I might, in what I would hope would be a non-partisan manner, do my best to fulfil the wishes of the House of Assembly.

Mr Uren:

-i can see you are headed for the judiciary.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– No doubt there will be times when we disagree but we are approaching the matter in the right spirit, just as we approached a matter concerning trees that the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) raised in May last. We looked at the matter and came to an agreement about it. The trees are not going to be removed, as the honourable member knows. That is the right spirit in which this capital city, which really belongs to all Australians, ought to be run; not in a party way but in a non-partisan way. I will be endeavouring, even though the House of Assembly tends to have a larger number of Labor members than Liberal members, to avoid party political attitudes. No doubt they will emerge from time to time but the responsible Minister, whatever his politics, should do his best to listen to that elected body whatever its dominant politics may be.

Another important matter is something which I announced today, namely, that an amount of $ 1 .3m is to be granted for a number of purposes. An amount of $550,000 is to be allocated for welfare purposes, $200,000 for general community purposes and $350,000 for the arts. A very significant amount in comparison to prior grants, $200,000, is to be allocated for sports. Again, in relation to these areas, it is important that we involve the House of Assembly. I will be asking the committee of the House of Assembly to give me advice as to the disposition of the $750,000 that relates to welfare and the general community. It is a very substantial amount, much in excess of that which has previously been granted to the community for these purposes. I realise that honourable members already will be aware of a Press statement on the matter and all these facts. I mention them only to instance the desire of the Government and my desire to involve the House of Assembly in the government of the Australian Capital Territory.

This Bill is truly in the spirit of what the Government is trying to achieve in relation to this Territory. The matters that the honourable member for Wills has raised I think have been dealt with. Matters that the honourable member for Canberra (Mr Haslem) has raised are equally significant. He spoke of the energy problem of the Capital Territory. Needless to say the Territory will have to consider whether at some stage it should not, through the ACT Electricity Authority or some other authority, seek to link up to the natural gas line that is not far removed from this city. In other words we need to have regard to the larger energy questions that are affecting this nation. Bodies such as the ACT Electricity Authority can of course be used to expand.

We are entering a new era in the life of Canberra and in doing that we need to believe, as I have said before, that this capital belongs to all Australians. It does not belong to the Liberal Party or the Labor Party; it belong to all Australians. It ought to be developed in that spirit. In that new era I believe we have to make this city much the same as the rest of Australia. By that I mean that it should, if possible, cease to be simply a government town where 68 per cent of the work force are public servants. It ought to reflect the rest of Australia where approximately 68 per cent of workers- the figures may not be quite accurate; they are broadly correct- are employed in the private sector. In other words when Canberra is a sort of microcosm of the rest of Australia it will be a more living and real city and a city which will be truly the national capital. To say that is not a derogation of public servants. I am simply saying that our national capital ought to reflect the rest of Australia.

Last week we set up a board- I can assure honourable members on both sides of the House that it is not window dressing- called the Canberra Development Board. It consists of men from the private sector as well as the Secretary of the Department of the Capital Territory and the Commissioner of the National Capital Development Commission. It will have an executive director and staff attached to it. It is set up within the administration of the National Capital Development Commission. Some of its funds actually will be provided by the private sector. That is very significant- a government body set up by a Minister which in fact to some extent will be subsidised by the private sector. To some extent it will be aided by government funds. The purpose of this body is to try to take our national capital into this next phase in its development in which the private sector will be built up in this city, and in the adjacent city of Queanbeyan, so that this whole area may start to reflect what I describe as a microcosm of the rest of our country.

We are building a part of Australia which is distinctively Australian. Canberra is one of Australia’s greatest works of art. I say that because I believe that what man has done with the paddocks of Yarralumla since 1913 is probably Australia’s greatest work of art. It represents what Australians have done in one place, albeit according to a plan, to create what they believe to be a beautiful city and one which is truly representative of the rest of Australia. It is that last aim that I hope we are now about to realise. It will not happen this year or next year but I believe the people of Canberra and the people of Australia elsewhere have to join together in this quest.

When the National Capital Development Commission was established in 1958 I think Sir Robert Menzies realised that no longer could the task of building the national capital in effect be set aside; we had to get on with the job. His vision is the one that we see here today. The lake is his vision. True, it was Burley Griffin’s vision but Sir Robert was the person who motivated construction of the lake. In his book there is a very interesting story about how the lake was built. Before he went overseas he had instructed that the cost of the lake be put in the Budget but when he came back he discovered that those scoundrels in the Treasury had taken it out. He went into the first Cabinet meeting after his return and he said: ‘I notice, colleagues, that that amount has been taken out of the Budget figures.’ He looked around and said: ‘Now, do I take it that it has been struck in?’ With those words, of course, the amount was struck in. The lake was included in the Budget. The lake was built and the whole concept of this city was realised in its present form.

Perhaps Sir Robert saw Canberra as a government city and as a university city. Whether his vision went beyond that, I do not know. But I firmly believe that we have to have an added vision, and that is a vision of a national capital which has a large private sector, which is not predominantly government, which may be planned as we go about the development of it but which in the long run represents something with which all Australians can identify. I hope that that is the aspiration of everybody in this House tonight.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion ( by Mr Ellicott) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr UREN:
Reid

– I wish to make a few comments and I hope the House will be tolerant. Firstly, the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott) said that I appealed to him to save a group of trees that looked like being destroyed by the Canberra bureaucracy. Following that protest I was very pleased to learn that the Minister and the commissioners of the National Capital Development Commission had re-examined the situation. The three California redwoods concerned, sequoia sempervirens, were planted under the instructions of Walter Burley Griffin in about 1921. They are now approximately 50 feet to 60 feet in height. It is true that probably they should not have been planted in the first place as their habitat is the Californian region. They need a deep rich soil and they need to breathe in atmosphere such as that produced by the fogs which come in from the Pacific Ocean. Many redwoods grow in the High Sierras. Sequoia sempervirens, that is, the Californian redwoods, have survived under difficult conditions in Canberra. They are a part of our history; they are a part of our heritage. I am very pleased that they will now be saved for posterity. For better or for worse, they are now a part of Canberra. Therefore I commend both the Minister and the commissioners of the NCDC for yielding to the representations made from this side of the House.

I agree with the Minister that Canberra, particularly the parliamentary triangle, is a part of Australia that should be considered on a nonpolitical basis. Its planning should be thrashed out without ideological thrust. I was the Minister responsible for the parliamentary triangle from 1972 to 1975. 1 was the Minister responsible for the National Capital Development Commission. Just as the Commission has infiltrated the mind of the present Minister for the Capital Territory, it certainly made an impression on me. However, there can be differences of opinion. I agree with the Minister on one other issue that he has been espousing of late and that is that there should be a wider diversification of the base of Canberra. Industries should be encouraged to come here and we should not have a sectarian attitude and rely too much on the public sector, the Public Service. Canberra needs an interrelationship with other disciplines to try to make its future healthier. In fact, I tried to achieve diversification in the growth of Canberra when I was the Minister. It was more difficult then than it is now. Of course, we know that Canberra’s economy now needs a stimulus and this is the time when I think the base of Canberra can be diversified.

The Minister set out some of the history of Canberra. Robert Menzies earned great credit for initiating the planning of Canberra from 1957. Until Menzies had made up his mind, it was a stop and start project. When the Labor Party is returned to office after the next election, whether it be at the end of 1979 or 1980, we will do the same thing for other growth centres like Albury-Wodonga and Bathurst-Orange. They started under our Administration but have stopped under the present Administration. I had always said prior to 1 972 that what mystified me about the conservative governments was that they did a magnificent job from 1957 onwards with the administration and development of Canberra. They had faith in the planning and development of Canberra. In many cases the development costs were much cheaper than the ad hoc development in Sydney and Melbourne that has been carried out by the private sector. If this can be done in Canberra why is it not done in other places? It was the Labor Administration from 1972 to 1975 that went into the development of areas like Albury-Wodonga and Bathurst-Orange, using the same principles that were used for Canberra.

It must be recognised that errors of judgment were made about the spread of Canberra. Canberra has an energy problem; it was developed on the basis of use of the motor car. But we must look at urban public transport. We will probably have to use this city for an experiment in upgrading public transport instead of relying on the private motor car. What worries me about this city is that the motor car seems to have taken over. The people who work in the parliamentary triangle have to rely on the private motor car to travel to and from their work. The creation of car parks around the parliamentary triangle is a disgrace. We should preserve the beauty and tranquility of the trees and parks around what are called the Trade Group buildings. Those buildings are architecturally unique and outstanding. They were designed by that very fine Australian architect, Harry Seidler. They are a credit to Canberra. Their construction was one of the early architectural developments after 1958.

In that year I think it was Lord Holford who said that one of the troubles with Canberra was that there were not sufficient buildings of international architectural standard. The National Library was probably the first breakthrough; the Trade building was another. The High Court and the Art Gallery each will be a further breakthrough. I join with the Minister when he said that something of architectural grandeur would give something special to the city of Canberra. Like the Minister I am proud of the achievements of Liberal governments, back to the time of the Menzies Government in 1957, for what they accomplished for the city of Canberra.

The tragedy of the present Administration is that it has withdrawn completely from urban and regional development. It is responsible for the tragedy that has occurred in urban development in the capital cities of Sydney and Melbourne. An interrelationship is needed in their development The great thing about the planning of Canberra is that there has been an acceptance of the principles of proper planning and development. Particularly I mention the principles of the American biologist, Barry Commoner. The first of these is that everything is connected to everything else, that things shall be done in a scientific and interrelated way. To ensure that we have progressive and enlightened development of our capital city we have to look at other things. We are moving into an energy age where we have to take account of transport problems. If there is one grave error in Canberra it is the urban public transportation problem which has to be overcome. The example of Canberra achieved something internationally for us in that our expertise has been sought by other nations, particularly by some of the underdeveloped nations. Tanzania is building its capital following the leadership given by the National Capital Development Commission. This is a credit to us.

In conclusion, I am particularly pleased with the flexibility and intelligence of the present Minister. He does listen to certain criticisms. I am pleased that he was able to convince the people in regard to the proposed destruction of those three beautiful sequoia sempervirens, which together with the sequoia giganteas probably grow into the tallest trees in the world, although they would never grow to their full height of between 360 and 370 feet in this country. I ask honourable members to look at them. They are beautiful specimens. Things that have been created in such a way and of such beauty should not be destroyed as a result of some bureaucratic action. I am pleased also that at least those beautiful cedrus atlantica trees have been saved, trees which were going to be destroyed merely to create an area for a car park. I share with the Minister a joy and warmth for our capital city. Let us start thinking about other places in Australia and achieving some interrelationship in urban planning in cities like Melbourne and Sydney. One never knows; we might even get into Bjelke-Petersen country and do something about Brisbane.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 471

OMBUDSMAN AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 6 June, on motion by Mr Ellicott:

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 471

REMUNERATION TRIBUNALS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1979

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 6 June, on motion by Mr Ellicott:

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. (Quorum formed).

page 471

COMMONWEALTH INSCRIBED STOCK AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6 June, on motion by Mr Ellicott:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

-The Bill before the House seeks to amend the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Act in such a way as to allow the adoption by the Government- with the approval of the Loan

Council- of a new system of marketing government securities. Having carefully evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of the proposals contained in the Bill the Opposition has decided not to oppose the Bill but to keep a careful watch as to its operation in order to ensure that the proposals are not manipulated to the disadvantage of the public. I will explain the reasons for this shortly.

Until now government borrowings from the Australian public have been by way of a cash and conversion system, that is, the government periodically has invited subscription to government loans at specified rates of interest and dates of maturity. Sometimes loans were on a conversion basis only, that is, the new loan was open only to holders of government bonds which would mature as the new loan commenced. On other occasions cash conversions were invited. This was particularly necessary if the government wished not only to keep the currently subscribed funds bedded down but also to attract additional funds to cover further requirements. In addition, notes which were short term securities- usually for a maximum term of six months- were available to financial institutions seeking to park funds for a short period with absolute security and reasonable facility of ready conversion to cash.

What is now proposed is a change in this system to what is termed a tap and tender system. The tap system is one where government bonds are on the market on a continuous basis, similar to Australian savings bonds, and may be purchased on a day to day basis. The difference between these and the Australian savings bonds is that they cannot be redeemed on demand after a month’s notice. If the funds are required before the date of redemption they have to be sold on the market. Originally the Loan Council, at its meeting last April, gave approval in principle to the tap system, subject to the Loan Council continuing to determine interest rates and maturity dates, but only by setting interest rates within a band- for example, a band of plus or minus 0.25 per cent for securities with a maturity of more than five years. However, the Commonwealth would have had the power to set the interest rates within that band, based on standard periods of maturity. But, surprisingly, at the Loan Council meeting on Friday, 29 June of this year, the Premiers overturned the decision of the April meeting of the Loan Council, that is, that the Commonwealth could change yields under the tap system only within an agreed band of rates, thereby giving the Federal Government greater flexibility on overall monetary policy.

In this regard I quote from an article in the Australian Financial Review of 2 July which states in part:

The Federal Government last week won approval from the States to alter yields on new Commonwealth bonds without having to seek Loan Council approval.

At Friday’s meeting of the Loan Council, the States reaffirmed their ‘in principle’ decision given in April of the present system of regular Commonwealth bond issues with a tap ‘system.

But unexpectedly, they agreed on Friday to overturn their decision in April that the Federal Government could only change yields under the tap system within an agreed band of rates.

Under the April Loan Council accord, the Federal Government was required to obtain Loan Council approval before the band could be altered.

The article goes on:

At Friday’s meeting, the State Premiers and the Treasurer, Mr Howard, had before them a Commonwealth-States officials’ report on the size of the band, which recommended that:

A band plus or minus 0.S per cent be adopted for bonds with a maturity of S years or less;

A band of plus or minus 0.25 per cent be adopted for securities with a maturity of more than 5 years.

The article went on to state that the Treasurer unexpectedly called on the Premiers to overturn their decision, and that was done by the Premiers. I think those remarks deal adequately with the tap system. We can now say that there has been a major alteration in that the band is no longer to exist. That alteration has been made since the introduction of the Bill.

The tender system relates to short term Treasury notes. They are to be sold by periodic tender, with the result that the market will determine the interest rate; that is, the Government will need to decide on the volume of notes issued from time to time to maintain some control over interest rates. I shall deal now with the advantages and disadvantages of the two systems. The advantage of the tap system is that the Government will have the flexibility to adjust to market conditions insofar as interest rates are concerned. General speculation is avoided and there will be a smoother movement should there be a need to adjust interest rates.

Mr Cotter:

– Who wrote this for you?

Mr ARMITAGE:

– I am capable of writing. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie can look at my notes; they are in my handwriting. He would not have a clue about it. He has not learnt to look after his pocket money since he started kindergarten. Furthermore, for those wishing to invest in bonds there will be more ready and immediate access to them without having to wait for new issues. The advantages of the tender system are that the amount to be placed on the market is more easily controlled by the Government and the Government may more easily manipulate interest rates, thereby preventing undesired fluctuations in interest rates. The disadvantage of the tap and tender systems is that they allow the Government to vary interest rates without the same extent of public scrutiny as exists at present. That is to say, the money market operators will be aware of the Government’s activities in this regard, but the public largely will not be, at least until some time later when they find that interest rates on housing et cetera are rising or falling.

Having stated the advantages and disadvantages of the tap and tender systems and having carefully reviewed this whole project in our committees and in our party meetings, the Opposition has decided not to oppose the legislation. But we do emphasise that we will keep a watchful eye on how the scheme operates, as I am sure the Premiers will be required to do because they have given the Government quite considerable power. In the event of its backfiring it will b ackfire on the Loan Council and accordingly on the Premiers themselves, as well as on this Government.

Mr Sainsbury:

– What about the people?

Mr ARMITAGE:

– I am coming to that. Therefore, we will carefully vet the system to ensure that it is not manipulated to the disadvantage of the people, to the disadvantage of Mr Average. We will be doing so because we do not trust the Government. It has such a wonderful record for broken promises and for refusing to consider the best interests of the people as is evidenced by the Budget brought down in this House last night. That is a very good reason why the integrity of this Government must at all times be doubted and why every action it takes must be vetted very carefully in the interest of the Australian people.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr MacKELLAR:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer · Warringah · LP

– by leave- I move:

Both amendments are of a machinery nature. The first amendment relates to clause 3 of the Bill, which would amend section 4 of the Act. The effect of the amendment now proposed to clause 3 of the Bill will be simply to ensure that sub-section 4 of the Act enables stock to be issued in respect of any loan raised by a State in accordance with the provisions of the Financial Agreement. The relevant provisions of the Financial Agreement are sub-clauses 5(1) and 5(2). Sub-clause 5(1) provides that a State may:

  1. . . . borrow moneys within the State from authorities, bodies, funds or institutions (including Savings Banks) constituted or established under Commonwealth or State law or practice and from the public by counter sales of securities, and
  2. use any public moneys of the State which are available under the laws of the State.

Sub-clause 5 (2) provides:

Any securities that are issued for moneys so borrowed or used shall be Commonwealth securities, to be provided by the Commonwealth upon terms approved by the Loan Council.

The present amendment is designed to ensure that securities can be issued under the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act to enable the Commonwealth to honour these obligations under the Financial Agreement.

The second amendment proposes repeal of the present outdated audit section of the Act- that is, section 53- and its replacement with a new section 53 which sets out audit provisions which are now more or less standard in Commonwealth legislation. As I have said, the amendments are machinery ones. I commend them to honourable members.

Amendments agreed to. (Quorum formed).

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report- by leave- adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Mr MacKellar)- by leave- read a third time.

page 474

NAVIGATION AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 22 May 1979, on motion by Mr Nixon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation. Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill, the Lighthouses Amendment Bill, the Pollution of the Sea by Oil (Shipping Levy Collection) Amendment Bill, the Sea-Carriage of Goods Amendment Bill and the Seamen’s Compensation Amendment Bill as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of all these Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

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

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-The Navigation Amendment Bill 1 979 is a major piece of legislation to come before the Parliament. It will be greeted with some pleasure by, I believe, all honourable members who follow the fortunes of Australia’s maritime industry and by the industry itself. The introduction of the Bill by the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) on 22 May this year constitutes the third attempt to bring Australian shipping legislation into the twentieth century. The progress of the Navigation Amendment Bill 1975 introduced by the then Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones), was abruptly terminated by the events of Remembrance Day 1975. Similar legislation presented by the present Minister for Transport lapsed when the Parliament was prorogued at the beginning of 1977 in order to enable Her Majesty the Queen to open a new session of Parliament.

There is great similarity between each successive Bill, hence the Opposition does not intend to oppose this long overdue legislation. I will draw attention, however, to certain aspects of the Bill which afford us some concern but I remind the House that this legislation is an interim measure only. The Summers report into Australian maritime legislation which was commissioned by the honourable member for Newcastle when he was Minister for Transport and which was presented to the present Minister for Transport took the attitude that nothing short of a complete review of the Navigation Act was necessary. The present Navigation Act dating back to 1 912 is largely an adaptation of a series of British Acts which culminated in the British Merchant Shipping Act of 1894. The Summers report commented that in many respects the Navigation Act still reflects British attitudes at the end of the nineteenth century.

It is quite extraordinary that almost two centuries after settlement Australia still does not have its own registry of ships. Ships are registered in Australia by Australian customs officers who, in effect, act as agents of the Government of Great Britain. All ships registered in Australia are included in the British Registry. There are no provisions in the present Australian Navigation Act for the registration of ships in Australia’s name. Maritime laws enacted by State parliaments are subject to similar archaic provisions resulting in some extraordinary legal difficulties in their operation. As a result of an appeal from the Western Australian Supreme Court, the Privy Council ruled that an Australian owned and manned crayfishing boat was, in fact, a British ship and subject to a British Act enacted in 1536 for the punishment of pirates and robbers of the sea. Whilst this case is extreme it illustrates the legal reliance of Australian maritime law on ancient British Acts of Parliament.

The Summers Commission of Inquiry into the Maritime Industry stressed that the Navigation Act is a corner post in the whole structure of maritime operations, concluding that the natural course of the industry’s development would be impeded if the existing legislation were not revised. Neither the Australian Labor Party when in government nor the present Government has denied the truth of Mr Summers’ observation but has taken the attitude that the process of transition in this difficult and complex area would be eased if the present Act were modified for the time being. The Navigation Amendment Bill before us differs in some of its details from the Bill introduced in 1975. Provisions relating to visiting British ships which were to have been deleted from the Act will remain in operation pending discussion with the Queensland Government. In the interim an Order-in-Council exempts visiting British ships from Part II of the Act. Whilst this state of affairs lacks the permanence of an amendment to the principal Act, it temporarily accomplishes the same end. Similarly, reference in the amending Bill to off-shore industry vessels, fixed structures and mobile units has been deleted following concern voiced by the States. Hopefully, discussions with the States in the Marine and Ports Council of Australia will lead to the resolution of this problem allowing action in a later Bill.

Of greatest concern to the Opposition is the dropping of an amendment to section 100 of the principal Act. Section 100 lists 1 1 offences including desertion, wilful disobedience and insubordination and provides penalties for each transgression. Obviously strict discipline must be maintained while at sea where the action of one seaman may endanger the life and property of others. Certain of the provisions are sufficiently loose in wording, if literally interpreted, to prohibit a stop-work meeting on shore while the vessel is in port. Such legislation clearly contravenes International Labour Organisation conventions on the freedom of labour to organise and therefore should be revised. It is worth noting that another clause of the Bill omits the provision of the Navigation Act which the committee of experts of the ILO criticised as being contrary to ILO Convention 105 on forced labour to which Australia is a party. Given this action by the Government, the House may hope that an amendment of section 100 will follow in further legislation.

The Bill before the House deals with several matters not included in the 1975 amendment, indicating the continued state of flux surrounding revision of Australian maritime legislation. The Bill enables Australia to become a party to three international conventions in addition to those dealt with by the 1975 legislation. I will discuss these in more detail later. This Bill contains more comprehensive provisions relating to manning of vessels. The Navigation Act at present specifies fixed levels of manning which, again if interpreted literally, could be quite absurd. A large bulk carrier could be compelled to employ up to 100 able seamen or ordinary seamen. In practice such a vessel sails with no more than a dozen persons of this classification.

In place of the fixed manning scales specified in the 1912 Navigation Act, the Minister will henceforth be empowered to determine appropriate levels. As in all cases where ministerial discretion replaces fixed statutes, vigilance by the Parliament, the industry and the trade unions will be necessary to safeguard against the potential existing for abuse of ministerial power. In this case I am sure such scrutiny will take place. All orders made by the Minister will, of course, be gazetted, allowing public access to their provisions. I note also from the Minister’s second reading speech that this change in provisions relating to manning scales is to occur in two stages and that there has been consultation with the industry and with the trade union movement in respect of the transition.

This Bill also provides that a uniform shipping laws code, concerning such aspects as construction standards, fittings, materials, stability, load lines, and equipping of vessels under 500 tonnes will be established. This measure aims at uniformity of standards throughout Australia. I think something again should be said on a bipartisan basis because it indicates at least in this area, in a complex and difficult field, a consensus has been reached between the Federal Government and the States. Unfortunately, a similar consensus in respect of a similarly complex problem, that of regulations governing the operation of heavy road vehicles, has not been reached and seems to be many, many years away. That is to the detriment of our nation as an added unnecessary cost on road transport. I hope that we can pursue this problem with the same kind of goodwill which has obviously resulted in reaching a consensus in respect of the items I have just mentioned.

Reference to crimes at sea is omitted from this Bill and will be covered by separate legislation. The Bill also extends the Minister’s power to make orders, granting greater flexibility in the specification of technical rules. The making of such orders may compare with the issuing of Air Navigation Orders under the Air Navigation Act and is in line with modern requirements. The Opposition, except where I have otherwise noted, finds no fault with these departures from the initial legislation of the Australian Labor Government. The aim of both the present and previous governments must be to provide the best possible legislative framework within which Australia’s vital maritime industry may function.

I now turn to the five international conventions to which Australia will become a party following the enactment of this legislation. The International Convention relating to the Limitation of the Liability of Owners of Seagoing Ships 1957 serves to increase the amounts to which a shipowner may limit his liability in the case of claims brought against the owner. Shipowners will not, however, be entitled to limit their liability in cases of damage to harbour works or wreck removal. In my own home city of Newcastle, the wreck of the vessel Cygna lies as a hazard to fishing vessels, and has languished on the beach near the suburb of Stockton for five years pending the conclusion again of complex litigation as to who bears the responsibility. If the Minister replies in this debate I am sure the people of Newcastle would like to learn from him what the latest position is in relation to the Cygna.

Section 59b of the Bill prevents shipowners from limiting their liability in the event of claims by crew members serving under Commonwealth articles of agreement. I am pleased to note that the Minister considered the views of the maritime trade unions in this respect. Australian compliance with the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea and the more understandable definition of the rules of the road at sea, and the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, is another step towards greater safety in the maritime industry. Worthy of special note are the provisions of SOLAS, or safety of life at sea. The provisions of this convention were aimed at greater oil tanker safety.

In answer to a question on notice, the Minister for Transport stated that from 1 August 1977 to 31 December 1978, a total of 480 defects were found in 122 tankers entering Australian ports. These ranged from faulty fire appliances, gas indicators and navigation equipment to defective life saving appliances, flame screens, and cargo valves. Unfortunately, in a statement on 15 January 1979, following the conclusion of the inspection procedures I have referred to and the Betelguese disaster at Bantry Bay, Ireland, in which 50 lives were lost, the Minister attempted I believe to play down the seriousness of the threat posed by certain tankers in Australian waters. He merely stated in his Press release that a number of deficiencies had been found during inspections. It was only when I innocently asked him for more information on how many defects there were that the House learned that 480 defects were involved, some of them obviously of a very serious nature.

Definitive action has yet to be announced on a report into oil pollution by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation which last September recommended the compilation of an official registry of ships failing to meet adequate equipment and safety standards. The Committee also called for the introduction by the Australian Maritime College of comprehensive training courses on tanker safety as a matter of priority. I understand that there has been some short term action taken in respect of both of those items. However, the Opposition is looking for some more definitive and permanent kind of action in response to those kinds of recommendations. The destruction of the Betelguese is far from being an isolated incident.

About 20 tankers have been lost in the past four years after explosion, collision or other accidents. On 29 June 1976 the Cellana caught fire in Sydney Harbour, resulting in the death of three crew members. In all, six cases of fire aboard tankers in Australian waters have been recorded in the last decade by the Department of Transport. The tankers subject to the greatest risk would appear to be those registered under the so-called flags of convenience. At least 25 per cent of tankers calling at Australian ports in the period between 1 August 1977 and 31 December 1978 were vessels registered under flags of convenience. A representative of the Queensland Coast and Torres Strait Pilot Service told the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation that around 40 per cent of the ships he piloted had substandard equipment. He said also that a very large percentage of ships afloat under flags of convenience have absolutely appalling standards both in trained navigating personnel and equipment.

Whilst there may have been some response to the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, the Opposition is looking to a permanent set of procedures which will be ongoing. I understand that the Department of Transport and the United States Government are currently preparing a list of substandard tankers which could then be barred from Australian ports until such time as the standard of equipment on those vessels was brought up to the standards set out in the international conventions to which I have referred. Whilst the use of flag of convenience vessels may enable the shipper to secure lower rates than otherwise would be the case, the gain is one of cold comfort if the lives of seamen and those living in close proximity to ports are endangered. At least 10 major Australian tanker berths are located in the vicinity of residential or industrial areas. In reply to a question on notice to the Minister for Transport on 4 April this year, the Minister stated:

Australian experience has shown that these berths present no greater danger to persons or property than the terminals which they service.

I take this opportunity to rebut that very simplistic definition of the situation. I have already referred to the evidence of the Torres Strait pilot about the appalling standards obtaining on international tankers and on vessels traversing Torres Strait flying under flags of convenience. Whilst oil installations and tanker berths as they exist in a passive state without vessels visiting those berths represent one standard of risk, once a vessel that does not meet the required international standards in respect of safe operations comes into those berths a totally new hazard is created. One could just imagine what would be likely to happen in Botany Bay, for instance, if, due to some malfunction of equipment or the poor qualifications of the crew on board a flag of convenience tanker, a fire were to develop. I leave it to the imagination of honourable members to determine the result.

What needs to be brought home when we are referring to the standard and competency of crews on board flag of convenience vessels is that in a number of cases these vessels can be manned by only one qualified officer. The remainder of the crew can be made up with what are in effect sea-going labourers. The implication from reports so far seems to be that the standard of crew participation and the quality of radar equipment could have been major contributing factors to the massive tanker collision a few weeks ago in central American waters. The tankers of today are getting larger and larger, not smaller. The risks they pose to residential development and to people’s lives are becoming greater and greater, not fewer and fewer. In those kinds of circumstances, whilst we as a nation are prepared to take advantage of cheap labour costs and cheaper freight rates from flag of convenience vessels, we should also be very much aware that we are obliged to accept the high increase in danger that goes with the operation of those kinds of vessels.

As I mentioned earlier, the legislation also provides for the establishment of manning scales. Equally importantly, it provides for the establishment of a formal qualification structure and competency standards for officers and crew aboard vessels operating on the Australian coast under Australian registry. The development of those competency standards and the training of the crews involved will become a major responsibility of the Australian Maritime College. Again, the Australian Labor Party takes credit for the initiative in deciding that after all these years since settlement Australia is now old enough and competent enough to have its own maritime college. This can only produce better results in the maritime industry, safer ship operation and greater efficiency in the industry. It can lead to a life at sea being much more of a career for our younger people seeking work than has been the case in the past. I should like to mention a little instance of my own experience. Last Friday night I had the pleasure to meet accidentally four young men who had just completed a marine course at Newcastle Technical College. They were going back to their respective cities to register for pick-up. Each of them was hopeful; each of them was excited. I was very impressed with the style of these young men. Each of them was looking forward to a career at sea. But it is extremely difficult for young people to get a place either as an Australian National Line training cadet or with the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd- or even as a deck boy to start off in the industry. The shipping industry is one area today where we could be creating new jobs, not swopping jobs or cutting back on jobs. Better efficiency, better competency and better trained personnel can flow from the standards that are being written into this legislation and which will be met at the Australian Maritime College at Launceston.

I turn to another area, the operation of AUSREP, the Australian ship reporting system. Again, this is covered in the legislation. I point out that the Australian Labor Party is also entitled to take full credit for the establishment of this system during its period in Government from 1972 to 1975. The initiative lay with the Minister for Transport of that period, the honourable member for Newcastle. As has been stated on previous occasions, the system was established on a voluntary basis and there has been a very good level of industry co-operation in respect of it. The Bill before us will make that voluntary operation permanent. As I understand it, the system was pioneered in this country. It was accepted on a voluntary basis both by international vessels and Australian vessels and is being adopted by other nations. It is good to see legislation coming before the Parliament to give the system permanent status.

What prospects are there for the Australian shipping industry? The Australian Labor Party believes that there is a strong and growing future for the Australian maritime industry. That is evident from one thing alone and that is the rapid escalation of freight rates for coal from Australia to Japan since June of last year. The coal freight rate at that time was somewhere around $9 a tonne. It jumped to around $12 a tonne in the early part of this year and I believe that at the moment it is over $15 a tonne. The Government’s argument last year was that the freight rates of Australian vessels were too high, the vessels were over-manned, their crews were pampered and that the wage rates were too high. We rejected those propositions when they were put in the past and we reject them again. But if $9 a tonne was too low a rate for Australian ships to meet in early 1978, the situation is different today when the rate is $ 1 5 a tonne. In support of that observation I remind the House that Howard Smith Ltd is having its own vessel built in Japan at the moment. It is to be a 38,000 tonne coal carrier to operate a long term contract between Australia and Japan. A second vessel is to be built and there is a likelihood of two further vessels being built, possibly up to 100,000 tonne capacity. It is projected that all those vessels will be manned by Australian seamen. They will provide extra new jobs for Australians looking for work. There is further evidence about the entry into the tanker trade of the Ampol Sarel. Again, this is an instance of an Australian company employing Australian crews on an Australian freight task for the benefit of Australia.

We believe that the Government’s opposition to the expansion of the Australian international shipping industry is based on a political motivation rather than on proper commercial analysis and consideration of the overall national interest.

I refer to an article by Mr D. W. Hunt in the Australian Sea Trader magazine of December 1978. It states:

It is widely believed that high labour costs are to blame for the situation.

He was referring to why not many Australian vessels are used or why they cannot compete. He continued:

Captain John Evans, Chief General Manager of Howard Smith Limited, put this situation into perspective during a recent address to the Transport Outlook Conference, held at the Lakeside International Motel in Canberra. ‘It has been said that Australian crews are not as cheap as foreign crews. It is not unreasonable to hope that Australian crews will continue to be paid at higher rates than many foreign crews who, from the Australian viewpoint, accept very low remuneration. Australians are not used to living under primitive conditions and it should not be expected that seafarers should have less attractive conditions of employment than their shore counterparts. ‘

I think that is being recognised by the industry. It has certainly been recognised by Ampol Petroleum Ltd and by Howard Smith. They have put their money where their mouths are by putting vessels with Australian crews into the trade and the maritime unions have joined them in respect of manning scales. If the issue is approached in a sense of good will and of developing our Australian maritime industry I believe that considerable progress can be made. Our national policy towards Australian shipping and overseas trade should not be based on the objective of knocking maritime unions because they do not like conservative governments. The fact is that this nation was born out of the maritime industry, the British maritime industry. Our nation rides in international trade on the shoulders of the maritime industry. The maritime industry of Australia has a proud record of service in wartime and in peacetime. Almost all of our imports and exports and our international competitiveness depend on the efficiency of sea transport.

Within the industry and in commerce generally it is accepted that freight costs form 10 per cent of the average free-on-board price of imports. Australia is the seventeenth largest trading nation of the world and the Minister for Transport says: ‘It is all very well for Australian ships to participate in the international shipping trades if they can meet the commercial competition that is operating at the moment’. He certainly does not have that view in respect of the operations of domestic airlines. He does not have that view in respect of wheat exports, he does not have that view in respect of beef exports and he does not have that view in respect of wool exports. We can compete if Australian shipping is given the opportunity to compete on comparable terms with the vessels of those nations with which we compete. I could run through a whole range of special depreciation provisions similar to those announced last night in respect of the tourist industry to show what is made available by countries round the world to their shipping fleets.

Australia has a record level of unemployment. It has a record balance of payments problem. It is therefore rather strange that the Government follows a deliberate course of suppressing the development of the international maritime industry using Australian crews or Australian-controlled vessels. In the United States the Carter Administration has sought to expand the participation of American-manned vessels in international trade for two reasons. The first is the reason I have mentioned, that is, that it provides additional employment for American citizens. The second is that the Carter Administration would feel happier in an international conflict if it knew that it was dependent for its supply of essential materials upon vessels controlled by American citizens and not be at the mercy of ships controlled by people of other nations.

There is a place in Australia for development of the maritime industry. I am quite confident that if the problem is approached by the Government in consultation with the industry and with the trade union movement progress can be made. The provisions of this Bill do much to improve the maritime legislation in operation in this country, particularly, as I have mentioned, the competency and qualification standards of the manning scales. They are all to the good of the industry. As I have said, we have a bipartisan approach to that. The legislation is of a major nature and we have no objections to it other than in respect of section 100 of the principal Act, as I have mentioned earlier in my remarks.

Mr CADMAN:
Mitchell

-I rise to speak on the Navigation Amendment Bill 1 979. 1 am delighted that at last, after about four years, this Bill is now before the House. In 1975 the attention of the House was first drawn to the intention to introduce a Bill of this nature. Subsequent delays have finally been put to one side and we have the Bill before us for debate tonight. A Bill of this nature came before the House in 1976. It was unfortunately put to one side when the House adjourned for the elections in that year. This is a large Bill and a complicated Bill. It covers over 350 pages of close print, fine detail and legalistic language. It is a specialist area of interest to those involved in the maritime industry. It is also of vital importance to Australia and

Australia’s capacity to compete on world markets and to export its goods.

Many of the provisions of the Bill now before us are an improvement on the Bill we first saw in 1976, due to the presentation of the Summers reports in June 1976. Mr M. M. Summers, the Commissioner of the Maritime Industry Commission of Inquiry, prepared four detailed reports. One was on maritime standards and controls, one was on the future of the Australian maritime industry, one was on the international maritime conventions that Australia is required to observe and one was on the Australian maritime legislation. In particular 1 would like to draw the attention of the House to some of the recommendations and findings in these reports. They do, in fact, put a great deal of emphasis on changes that may be needed in Australian legislation in relation to our maritime industry. In particular, Mr Summers has put his finger on the fact that Australia has no register of Australian ships. Australia is dependent on the Government of Great Britain to register Australian ships. No doubt at some time, perhaps within the next year or two, Australia will move to the situation in which it has a register of Australian ships. In my view this is a most important factor for the growth of the Australian shipping industry and a most important factor for this country if it is to be able to be true master of the vessels that sail within Australian waters and use Australian ports.

There are no provisions in the Australian Navigation Act for the registration of ships in Australia’s name. The Australian Navigation Act, as it now stands, is designed to control wider aspects of the operation of Australian shipping as well as the original 19th century purposes. Because of the outdated provisions within the original Act, which was first introduced into this place in 1912 and which contains many earlier provisions, there has been a need to upgrade the Act. For instance, the present Act imposes requirements related not only to the welfare of the crew and the structural safety of the ship but also to its manning, navigation, loading and unloading; to the carriage of dangerous cargoes, pollution of the sea and wreckage and salvage. The new Act, in fact, covers many of the same aspects. The Act provides a basis for the work and discipline of the men on board the ship, the amount that a ship can carry, the way she is handled, the way she is navigated and many other down to earth requirements of a ship at sea. It is therefore not surprising that the Bill is such a lengthy Bill, nor is it surprising that the regulations attached to the Bill are so extensive. Mr

Summers states in his report on Australian maritime legislation:

The present legislation if not revised can impede the natural course of the industry’s development.

I believe that to be the case because there are limitations and outmoded practices in the present Act. They have been picked up and changed by the new Bill. In particular, I would draw the attention of the House to a recommendation made by Mr Summers which states: . . that first the legislation should concentrate on principles and should not concern itself with detail as it does at present. Second that more use should be made of regulations and other forms of subsidiary procedure for which the amendment processes are simpler and quicker.

The Navigation Amendment Bill does that and does simplify the whole purpose of the administration of legal requirements at sea and in ports. The recommendations put forward by Mr Summers are of great interest. I think they are deserving of close scrutiny. But some of them, in my view, have been neglected or overlooked by the Government. I would consider that that has been done on purpose. Not all the recommendations seem to me to be practical, nor are they the types of recommendations that the present Government would like to see enshrined in legislation.

The Bill covers matters relating to the limitation of shipowners’ liability and their actual liability. It covers the prevention of collisions, the safety of containers, the safety of life at sea and the measurement of tonnage of vessels. It also deals with the requirements for manning, the qualifications of seafarers, uniform ship laws, ship movement reporting, historic shipwrecks and miscellaneous matters. In regard to the limitation of shipowners’ liability the Bill places a limitation on shipowners and supersedes the provisions of the United Kingdom Merchant Shipping Act as the law in Australia on this subject, except by virtue of- this applies to many clauses in the Bill- saving clauses which allow the States and the Northern Territory to validify the international conventions which are covered by shipowners’ liability, and therefore giving them the choice of accepting international conventions. Should a State not choose to legislate, it is my understanding that the provisions of the Commonwealth legislation would supersede its existing practice or requirements.

The prevention of collisions is a most important area and one that is becoming more topical and more important in busy sealanes. In recent years we have seen what can happen when large tankers unexpectedly meet in fogs or off dangerous coasts. The damage to life and property is substantial. The new rules of the road provided by this legislation in relation to the prevention of collision updates the observance of the existing rules of the road so that common practice will apply in Australian waters and on the high seas surrounding Australia, as it does in international waters. The provision in relation to the safety of containers seeks to protect the property of shippers, firstly, for the movement of their goods and, secondly, to provide that there is proper loading and that containers are stowed on vessels in such a way that the ship cannot unexpectedly be damaged by the loss of containers overboard or by the sudden damage of containers that in fact may be the means of providing transport for unusual or dangerous goods.

The safety of life at sea provisions and various protocols meet the requirements of the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea which were agreed to by maritime nations in 1974 and are now picked up in this Bill. The Bill contains provisions necessary to enable Australia to ratify the Convention and the amending Protocol and so keep its safety requirements for ships and equipment at least abreast of the latest international standards. The tonnage measurement provision is an important factor in this legislation because it is, in fact, the main way in which ships are measured to establish their tonnage and this facilitates the charging of dues and enables size comparisons to be made.

The manning provisions in this Bill are interesting. I intend to speak in greater detail on this aspect. Up to the present the manning provisions have been decided in the normal way by both the shipowner and the employees. Where there is a dispute a manning committee is established and a decision is taken as to what the level of manning should be. It is my understanding that this new legislation moves towards a change in that approach. This change seeks to establish a level of safety, first of all, and then to have additional manning decisions made by conciliation and arbitration. We may not in fact eventually move to that stage, but it seems to me that the very comfortable manning levels that Australian vessels are required to carry are one of the debilitating features of Australian shipping. Under these circumstances a change from the present process of establishing a manning committee seems to me to be eminently suitable and applicable to the Australian industry. The settlement of additional hands on any vessel could well be established by the processes of conciliation and arbitration. All that should be necessary under a navigation Act is to establish what is required for safety or protection within the maritime environment.

The qualifications of seafarers are also dealt with in this Bill. It establishes new provisions which are more modern and which do not meet the outmoded provisions of the previous Act. The reporting of shipping movements is a provision which seeks to add safety to the movements of ships at sea. It is a process whereby vessels notify their approach to the Australian shore and to Australian waters, their times of movement and their directions of travel. Ships are required to notify should there by any damage to their vessel and whether they are in trouble of any sort. That broadly covers the aspects of the legislation that is before the House this evening. There are some matters relating to the Bill that concern me greatly. The first of these is the fact that each State government within Australia and the Northern Territory administration, have insisted on imposing some of their requirements on the Federal Government. I think that this is most unfortunate and I think that it is a clumsy way in which to establish a national approach to navigation at sea. I think it is petty and unreasonable of the States to act in the way that they have. They have used the provisions that apply within the three-mile limit- their control of ports- to assert their particular stamp on the legislation which is before the House. In fact, what they have achieved is a clumsy process which does not facilitate the Bill in any way. They have not disagreed with the decisions of the Federal Government. They have not sought in any way to change or influence the provisions of the Federal Government. Instead they have sought to intervene and make things difficult and unwieldly

I believe that the saving clauses are completely unnecessary. They should not be in a Bill of this type. Again I say that it is unfortunate that State governments have seen fit to intervene in the way that they have. Without exception and regardless of political views they have done so. Another aspect that relates to State governments is the removal of the definition of fishing vessels. Today as Australia is developing a very extensive fishing industry, using larger vessels which are proceeding further and further off-shore into international waters and off the continental shelf, in my mind there is need to ensure that the movement of fishing vessels is safe and that all authorities know the exact whereabouts and the movement of those fishing vessels. It is unreasonable to think that they should not come within the scope of Australian law. In fact, the States have insisted that the definition of fishing vessels be removed from the legislation.

It is my view that the Commonwealth should not require that its regulations be observed in internal waters or in waters of ports or close to State property or land. However, there must be a consistency in approach which is universal throughout the shipping industry in Australia. The activities of State governments in Australia have sought to change this. I have been somewhat concerned about the reporting of collisions. I am well aware that the Australian public is conscious of the initial disaster that attracted world attention- the Amoco Cadiz disaster. It is my feeling that every provision of this Bill that seeks to prevent a similar disaster off the Australian coast should be written into the Act. I am concerned that in the case of the Amoco Cadiz the master did not in fact report defect or damage.

I was concerned that defects or damage to a vessel within Australian waters or international waters off the Australian coast should be required to be notified to the Australian authorities as soon as a slight malfunction or a slight difficulty occurred on that vessel. I believe that this legislation covers only ships registered in Australia, ships en route to Australia and ships actually inside Australia’s three-mile limit. Ships that are passing, ships not calling at Australia and ships which are not Australian vessels are not required by this legislation to advise the Australian authorities of their movements. I think that is unfortunate. In fact, I believe that because of the 200-mile zone around Australia the matter should be taken up with governments so that a better and more appropriate approach can be made in relation to ships which may get into trouble off the Australian coast.

The original legislation contained manning provisions with which I disagreed. I am pleased to see that some of those provisions have been removed. In fact, penalties have been increased from an unrealistically low level. The cost of labour on Australian vessels is one of the debilitating factors in the Australian shipping industry. It costs approximately $20,000 to $25,000 a day for an Austraiian vessel to stand idle. Many such vessels have stood idle off the Western Australian coast. A ship under a different flag can cost as little as $6,000 a day to stand idle. There is a great difference in the cost of running ships, and much of this difference can be put down to the cost of labour.

The honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris), who preceded me in the debate, made claims which I believe to be completely inaccurate about the quality of Australian shipping. Whilst I believe that we have the expertise, the capacity and the quality of vessel, I do not believe that those factors are being put to their best use. One has only to go aboard one of Australia ‘s newest vessels to see the conditions that are provided for seamen. The conditions are good, and no doubt the seamen deserve those conditions. What concerns me is not only the fact that they have those good conditions but also the fact that they intervene at what seems to be every opportunity in the free trade and the flow of goods in and out of Australia.

I think it is really a terrible shame to see in Australia seamen being prepared to go on strike on the issue of the movement of live sheep outside of Western Australia. They have shown themselves to be prepared to go on strike in sympathy with other unionists on shore in Australia and to prevent the movement of goods and sheep outside of Australia. Stoppages are currently taking place on the wharves right around Australia. I do not see why Australian seamen should take up the cudgels on behalf of other unionists. Their conditions are excellent. Basically they work six months on and six months off. Their levels of salaries and wages are extremely high. Therefore they should accept responsibility and support the nation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr BAILLIEU:
La Trobe

– I was surprised to hear the spokesman for the Opposition defending the industrial disruption on the waterfront in Australia. It has compromised the export of so many of our commodities, in many respects has brought the most difficult circumstances to the rural industries and has set up a situation in which the export of our primary products could be placed in jeopardy next year. I was surprised to find that the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris), who led for the Opposition in this debate, should identify himself with that form of disruption.

Mr Morris:

– I identify myself with the truth, which is more than you can do.

Mr BAILLIEU:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, that is a rather provocative statement. If the honourable member for Shortland would like me to elaborate on what he said I will be pleased to do so. His remarks were a labyrinth of incorrect statements. I might say that they were almost a litany of deception. If the honourable member would like me to go into them chapter and verse, I would be prepared to do so.

Mr Morris:

– Please do.

Mr BAILLIEU:

– To do so would be to make my speech as boring as was his speech. I welcome the introduction of the Navigation Amendment Bill 1 979. If the Opposition does not have speakers who are prepared to discuss and debate the legislation, I am more than pleased to follow my colleague, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman).

Mr Morris:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. That was an untrue remark made by the honourable member. I ask him to withdraw it. The fact is that the Government was not prepared to debate the legislation. The honourable member was not prepared either. The Government was not competent enough to bring the legislation before the Parliament in the proper form. The Opposition had to draw the attention of the House to the Standing Orders and ask for the moving of a motion which sought a cognate debate in order that associated Bills could be called on. Will the honourable member please correct the record?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Hon. Ian Robinson)- Order! What is the honourable member’s point of order?

Mr Morris:

– I ask him to withdraw his untrue statement.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

Mr BAILLIEU:

– I noticed that the honourable member for Shortland did not quote the Standing Order under which he took that point of order. It was of course a frivolous point of order, and it should be recognised as such. Well might he leave the table. The reason this legislation which is before us tonight is so important is that the standard of maritime shipping around this country has reached such a level of sophistication that the time has come to make amendments to the Act. If we take into account the volume of shipping that is moving around the Australian coastline, the size of vessels engaged in that activity, and the treacherous aspects of the Australian coastline, it is immediately apparent that the time has come to make these amendments in order to ensure the safety not only of the vessels concerned and their cargoes, but also and more importantly, the safety of the personnel involved.

Certain facts have been mentioned tonight in respect of this matter. They point up that certain unsatisfactory practices have taken place. I believe that it has been shown that some of the navigational aids and backup systems used in the past have not been adequate to deal with the volume of maritime traffic at the speeds at which vessels move in the restricted passages which they have to navigate. I compliment the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) and the Government in this respect. At last the day has arrived when the Government is prepared to take the necessary action. It has been evident that such action has been required for a number of years.

I serve on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. The Committee took into account certain aspects of maritime activity around the Australian coast, particularly inasmuch as they might influence the spillage of oil from collisions at sea. That is one of the gravest risks that presently exist with maritime activity. Today we have trading on the Australian coastline tankers which are engaged in domestic trade or which are in transit to other ports. These vessels are of enormous capacity; 400,000 tonnes is typical. It would be recognised that with traffic of this tonnage, given the speeds at which these vessels travel today and the fact that they are by no means manoeuvrable, the back-up systems, navigational aids and other facilities that are required must keep pace with trends.

In this context it always surprises me that members of the Opposition take such belligerent objection to the Omega facilities which, when installed and available to our maritime traffic- to say nothing of our air traffic- will provide tremendous support to vessels. It is all very well for Opposition members to sneer at the Omega system but I invite them to put themselves in the position of the personnel aboard tankers at sea, travelling at 25 knots, with a 400,000 tonne load and knowing that such vessels are extremely difficult to manoeuvre. They require a distance of some miles to pull up in the event of an emergency. Fog conditions may prevail and other maritime traffic may be in the area. I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it would be a very comforting feeling for the personnel to know that they can press computer buttons in the control rooms of those ships to establish their position at sea to within hundreds of yards. That is to say nothing of air traffic.

Recently I talked to some people who had flown in some remote areas of New Guinea during the parliamentary recess. They flew in military aircraft near mountains 12,000 feet high in the heavy cloud and fog conditions that can be experienced in the highlands of New Guinea. The aircraft carried the navigational aids that conventional aircraft carry. Civil aircraft need to rely entirely on those navigational aids. I am told that it is a very comforting feeling to be able to press buttons on the computer in an aircraft to identify to within 100 yards, as a final check, the exact location of that aircraft in the mountainous terrain of New Guinea.

Mr Howe:

– Ha!

Mr BAILLIEU:

– I wonder why members of the Opposition, particularly the one who laughs at that suggestion, object so violently and indeed protest at the installation of the Omega system. I am particularly pleased that the Government has taken action in respect of the recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, particularly as they refer to navigational aids in Torres Strait. During the course of the public hearings that Committee conducted it became apparent that certain navigational aids in the Torres Strait and Great Barrier Reef areas were not satisfactory. A number of representations were made to the Committee. This was reported to the Parliament and of course to the Government. The Minister has seen to it that those navigational aids have been upgraded and improved. In some cases further installations have been established.

I turn now to the use of pilots on these vessels. I know that there is a deal of dispute within the maritime industry as to the necessity to carry pilots. The claim is made that in many respects the master of a vessel’ knows the capabilities of his vessel better than a pilot who steps on board for a limited passage. If a disaster took place it would be extremely hard to justify a decision not to require pilots to be carried. As a nation, a parliament and, indeed, as a government there is only one position to adopt in these situations; that is that the possibility of a collision at sea must be eliminated.

Mr Bryant:

– That is right.

Mr BAILLIEU:

– The honourable member for Wills knows Murphy’s law. It states that if a situation is such that an accident may take place, sooner or later it will take place. I suggest that that is the only philosophy which can be adopted by any responsible authority when administering the journeys of these vast ships. It is for that reason that the navigational aids in Torres Strait and in adjacent areas of the Barrier Reef have been improved.

I refer now to the hydrographic services in such areas. Honourable members might be surprised to know of the extreme limitations in certain key shipping lanes around the coast of Australia. At certain times ore carriers, bulk ore ships and crude oil tankers using the Australian coastline have clearance between the sea bed and the underside of the ship of no more than a couple of metres. That is probably satisfactory so long as the terrain of the sea bed is known accurately. But it would not take any university graduate to work out that it would take an imperfection of only six feet or nine feet in the hydrographic study of the sea bed for a disaster to occur. The degree of sophistication of hyrographic surveys is tied up with maritime safety. I make a non-partisan plea, one which I believe will be supported by all members of the Opposition, the Parliament and the Australian community. I say to the Government that only the best navigational and safety equipment will do for maritime activity. The same safety requisites are required in respect of air safety. Of course, the legislation being dealt with tonight does not touch on air safety so I will not delve into that area.

I would like to mention one other point. I am glad that in this legislation the Government has required all ships using Australian waters to report details of their movements to the necessary authorities. Honourable members may recall the tragedy involved with the Blythe Star. That ship was on a relatively short journey from one of Tasmania’s ports to Melbourne. Clearly some disaster took place aboard that ship. The reason for it probably still remains obscure. The thing that worries me about that incident is that it took two days to find the survivors of that disaster. I know that at the time honourable members thought that it was almost beyond belief that vessels could be using the Australian coastline without a requirement to report their presence to the maritime control centre. It seems to me to be absolutely basic for such a requirement.

I think it should be a basic requirement of every vessel using the Australian coastline to be acquainted with what other vessels are in the area. I know that it is a requirement of ships to keep a watch at sea. I have never been on a ship, but I would like to go on one just to see how it operates. I would be very surprised if an effective watch were kept on all ships at all times. Maybe there are some ex-mariners in this Parliament who could put my mind at rest on that point. I know that radar systems are available which are second to none. Mind you, I do not believe that the equipment on all ships is second to none. Clearly the best equipment available should be installed. Notwithstanding that, the human error factor does come into all these considerations. It would seem to me to be absolutely basic that every ship’s master using Australian waters should be acquainted with information about the other vessels travelling in the area. I realise that until the introduction of this legislation a voluntary reporting system was used. As honourable members will understand, there is a difference between a voluntary reporting system and a compulsory system. Nobody wants to compel people to do things but when human life is involved there has to be an exception. Clearly, use of the compulsory system should prevail on the high seas because not only is human life involved but also there is a very real and grave danger of damage being caused to the coastlines and environs in the event of a disaster taking place.

If I may raise another point, I notice that the prohibited area in which a ship can approach offshore oil rigs is not more than 2.5 nautical miles. Given that the very large vessels in use today are nearly a quarter of a mile long, I find it absolutely absurd that a ship at sea is legally allowed to get within 2.5 nautical miles of an off-shore oil rig. There is tremendous risk to the personnel on those rigs. The damage caused by a vessel striking a rig at sea is appalling. Given the conditions that prevail not only in the Bass Strait but also on the North West Shelf, with fog and difficult meteorological conditions, I think it is the height of absurdity to permit large sea-going vessels to come so close to oil rigs.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Debate (on motion by Mr Les Johnson) adjourned.

page 484

ADJOURNMENT

Security in Parliament House- Mobile Dental Units- Seizure and Disposal of Foreign Fishing Vessels- H. V. Evatt Memorial- Industries Assistance Commission Report- Mail Concessions: Australian Forces Overseas- The Budget -Apex Clubs Anniversary- Unemployment Statistics

Motion (by Mr Nixon) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr HOWE:
Batman

– I want to raise several matters. The first concerns the matter of security as it affects Parliament House. Last night when the Budget Speech was being presented a member of my staff came into the Speaker’s Gallery to listen to the Speech. I understand that certain security precautions are taken with people entering the House. She went along with those precautions. The point that I want to make is that as part of the security precautions that were taken her handbag was thoroughly searched. I have some doubts about the propriety of searching people’s handbags, but one could justify that procedure. Within her handbag there was a pamphlet. The officer concerned removed it from the handbag and took it from her. It seems to me to be quite extraordinary that an officer of the House should remove and take a document which could have no bearing whatsoever on the security of this Parliament. She was subsequently able to recover the document. Nevertheless, in my view an invasion of privacy occurred when private material within her handbag was removed by an officer of this Parliament. I regard this as an extremely serious matter and I would like you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to draw it to the attention of Mr Speaker.

The other matter I wish to raise is but one of the many mundane electoral matters that I think ought to be raised in the Parliament from time to time because they affect constituents. I refer to the dental health facilities that have been provided under a program initiated by the Labor Government in 1973-74. Eight schools in the Batman electorate have been waiting for 12 months for the appearance of mobile dental units. That is not so surprising except that in June 1978 the State Government went to considerable trouble to lay concrete slabs and erect power poles at each of those eight schools. That work having been done, people expected a mobile dental unit to appear on the scene. That would seem to be fairly logical given that that capital expenditure had been incurred and that work had been completed. A number of my constituents approached me about what these concrete slabs and power poles were for and they were told that they were for the mobile dental units. They did not appear because of the failure of this Government to build on in an effective way the program which was established in the 1973-74 Budget.

Last year there was a substantial cut-back in funds for this program. Whilst some capital works have been carried out in my electorate there are not enough mobile units nor indeed is there sufficient staff to operate the service. I regard that as a very serious matter because, as we all know, the costs associated with dental treatment are a part of the national health bill about which this Government claims to be particularly concerned and clearly those costs could be substantially reduced if action were taken at the earliest stage. The mobile dental units provide the opportunity for children’s teeth to be examined at a stage when it is possible to do the kind of work which will prevent deterioration and subsequently much more costly dental expenditure.

In this Budget I notice that funds for the program have risen by an additional $5m although there has been a cut in capital works.

From my knowledge of the city of Melbourne there is an enormous demand for these services. I wanted to draw the attention of the House to the fact that capital expenditure had been incurred in my electorate. There is a considerable demand for the services of the mobile vans and for the expertise of the staff who work in these units. This service is not being provided because the Government has been tardy. It has cut back on the level of funding which was provided during the time the Whitlam Government was in power.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I wish to address the House on an answer to a question asked by the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) which was published in yesterday’s Hansard. It deals with the seizure and disposal of foreign fishing vessels. Some interesting questions arise from a study of this document. There are 82 vessels involved and the schedule which is incorporated gives the vessel’s name, where it was apprehended and the name of the owner. It states how long it was held before disposal, the way in which it was disposed of, the name of the purchaser and the price. I suggest that somebody, perhaps the Public Accounts Committee, should take a good look at the way the Government disposes of public property. The schedule shows some interesting figures. Trawlers of various sorts were disposed of for sums as low as $5,000 or $6,000.

I want to cite as an example one vessel about which I know something. In 1973 the Minister responsible asked me whether the Department of Aboriginal Affairs could use for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people one of the four trawlers which were anchored in various harbours and which had been seized and forfeited to the Crown. I said that this could be done. I arranged with a former member of this House, Captain Sam Benson, to examine them. We chose one which was anchored in Darwin. Strangely enough, we ran into a great deal of resistance. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs at that time said that the vessels were not appropriate and that the people could not use them, as if the people who lived by the sea could not be trained in this way. The Department of Transport intervened. I am talking about a ship called the Yung Yuan No. 21 which was apprehended in late 1 972. If my memory is correct this vessel was a little over 100 feet long. It had a cruising radius of some 1 1,000 miles. It had approximately 250 tonnes freezing capacity. It was a Taiwanese ship which had been made in

Japan. As far as Australian general conditions were concerned it was inadequate because the between decks area was built for people smaller than the average Australian.

I made arrangements for this ship to be transferred to the Torres Strait Islanders. It was to become a kind of mother ship, a fishing and training ship. It was eventually taken to Walker’s shipyard in Maryborough. The shipyard was very anxious to get to work on it. We took all the necessary administrative steps. At about that time, and for reasons which I will not debate here tonight, I became the Minister for the Capital Territory. Having happily got rid of me, the Department, or somebody within the Department, decided that that ship ought to be diposed of. I find here a figure, which I knew, by the way, but now that it has been published I feel free to talk about it. The vessel was sold to the Big River Shrimp Company, South Grafton, for $35,000. At the time Walker’s shipyard told me that the value of the vessel was at least $500,000. 1 know that that ship became a very solid money earner for its owners. It recently sank in the Gulf of Carpentaria. It was known as The Northern Pearl. I am suggesting that if what happened in that case happened to all the ships which have been disposed of to private citizens- and a number of them have been given to various people; the Torres Strait Islanders in Cairns received one as a gift- there is something wrong with the system. I must admit that I feel a great deal of indignation in that regard. The Torres Strait Islanders were the losers and the community lost an asset. If a vessel is to be disposed of in some way one might as well return it to its original owners.

There are several interesting points that arise out of the answer to this question. In one case, under the heading: ‘Owner’ it says ‘Unknown’. Under the heading ‘ Purchaser and Price ‘ it states Former Owners’. The vessel was returned to the former owners for an unknown amount. How can something be disposed of by the Commonwealth and be paid for, yet the price remain unknown? A good deal of detail has been put into this question but I still think it is inadequate. It is time that we had a good look at the disposal procedures for Commonwealth property. A number of people have been able to get very cheap vessels in these instances. That was certainly a very valuable ship which was taken from the Torres Strait Islanders, although they had great need of this vessel, and disposed of at a ridiculous price to someone in an advantageous position.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– The matter I wish to raise tonight concerns a very great Australian, the late Dr Herbert

Vere Evatt, a many whose greatness has never been fully and adequately recognised by this country. He was a great man, if for no other reason than the fact that he was the first President of the world, being the first President of the United Nations General Assembly. To my mind that in itself warrants great recognition. Yet this country and successive governments of this country have never afforded him this recognition. An H. V. Evatt memorial is to be established shortly. That brings to mind another Australian, the late Sir Robert Gordon Menzies to whom some people seem to pay homage, although I certainly do not. The present corrupt Government, without consulting the public or the Parliament, appropriated $2m to set up the R. G. Menzies Memorial Foundation. The State governments were invited by the Commonwealth Government to contribute to that foundation. The Commonwealth Government compounded the felony by saying that it would match, dollar for dollar, the amount contributed by the States. It compounded the felony even further by saying that if members of the community contributed to this foundation their contributions would be tax deductible.

I am not here to disparage the late gentleman who, for such a long time- a record period- was Prime Minister of this country. As an aside perhaps I could say that he led this country into some great disasters in the time of his stewardship. This present corrupt Government has seen fit to honour such a gentleman and ignore perhaps the greatest son that Australia has ever spawned, the late Dr Herbert Vere Evatt. Among other things he was a High Court judge and was a Leader of the Opposition in this very chamber. As I have already stated he was the first President of the world. To me the Government’s action smacks of political patronage. It seems that the only reason that the Sir Robert Gordon Menzies Foundation was set up was because he founded the Liberal Party. If he were alive today I am sure that he would have a heart attack if he saw the mismanagement of the once great party that he set up, driving a wedge into the once great coalition that existed in this country. It is a matter that the Government should take on board.

I am pleased to see that the Treasurer (Mr Howard) is sitting at the table. It is probably right in his court to make these sorts of allocations and to set up such things as tax deductions for people who contribute to such a foundation. It reminds one of the attitude in Queensland where people have seen fit to set up a fund to support the National Country Party in that State. People are contributing to it. If that contribution buys a building, the building is named after them and they have their portrait hung in the foyer. I cannot imagine why, but they are even invited to have lunch with the Premier of that State. I cannot imagine a greater penalty than having lunch with the Premier of Queensland. The Government, and particularly the State Government in Queensland, should be in a position where it does not attract allegations that people can gain favours from the Government. We all know that with 19 per cent of the vote in that State the National Country Party is able to govern, that people can gain favours by making contributions to such a fund.

There are two separate issues that I wish to raise. One is the question of the recognition of the late Dr Herbert Vere Evatt. This Government ought to give credit to one of its greatest sons, and if it sees fit to set up a foundation for the late Sir Robert Gordon Menzies it ought to see fit to take the same sort of action and to allow the same benefits to people who contribute to a fund to commemorate the late Dr Herbert Vere Evatt. I would go so far as to say that the memory of that man is still so strong in the minds of all Australians that such a foundation would be the richest and wealthiest foundation in Australia because people would subscribe freely. I understand that they are a bit reluctant to subscribe to the existing fund. Subscribing freely to such a foundation would provide benefit for other people and that would have been the dearest wish of Dr Evatt because he lived for other people not for self-aggrandisement. He tried to make sure that this world was a better world for those who followed him.

Mr NEIL:
St George

-A few weeks ago the Industries Assistance Commission produced a draft report on the textiles, clothing and footwear industries. Normally, I, like other members, would wait until the final report became available before making public comment, but I have been constrained already to make some comment on the matter because, in my opinion, this report is most unsatisfactory. However, let me deal with the background to the industry. The industries themselves have been subject to a great deal of change in the last few years. Various opinions can be given as to the effect of the 25 per cent tariff cut by the Labor Government a few years ago. There is no doubt that the cut was an extraordinarily destabilising factor and produced a large increase in unemployment in those industries. Since that time, the industries have been battling against a great many problems, many of which were Labor-induced. They have had some chance to see a stable horizon since this Government came to power. They welcomed the decision of the present Government to guarantee their positions for some three years. But now we have another IAC inquiry and a draft report which has caused great concern amongst not only the captains of those industries but also the workers themselves. I am not convinced that the inquiry should continue. Indeed, I believe that it should be postponed for a minimum of three years. The IAC could start looking at the industries once they had had the opportunity for stability and the opportunity to continue on the reasonable basis that I now believe they have adopted. I believe that the criticisms that could be laid against those industries in the past have been overcome in great measure by the industries themselves. Certainly there are allegations of abuses of quota but surely the Government could devise a system to overcome abuses of quota trading without having to throw the industry right up in the air and then having to put it together again. Certainly, there have been claims that in respect of certain tariffs, the industry is over-protected, but surely a system of fine tuning, by carefully analysing the tariff on particular items could be adopted. Indeed, I think that is a more preferable approach to the overall approach adopted by the IAC itself. I am not at all convinced that its approach to getting rid of quotas and opting for a tariff of up to 90 per cent for clothing would achieve any worthwhile objective. The likelihood is that some quota would be required for certain types of garments for some considerable time to come and the abolition of quotas entirely is an extreme position.

The report claims that 37,000 jobs would be lost. What we want to know is what evidence the report has as to where the people who lose their jobs are going to find new jobs. The many migrants referred to in the report would suffer. It is simply not easy for a person to go out and find another job while he is waiting to be readjusted into the work force by some mythical hand that will do the job of fulfilling in practice the IAC’s theoretical wishes.

There are two other areas of serious error in the report. One is that to assume that a 90 per cent tariff for all garments would be reasonable in the circumstances. The draft report fails to differentiate between the types of garments. There might even be some garments that would be over-protected by a 90 per cent tariff- an illogical result using the basis from which the IAC is commencing. The next point is that it would be almost impossible internationally to sell to the rest of the world an increase in tariff of 90 per cent, even if quotas were removed. The United States and other countries would look at Australia and say that we have increased tariffs. No matter how much we said that the quotas had been removed, we would not be able to get away from that stigma which would be attached to Australia. We would then have the worst of both worlds: Damage to our own industries and damage to our international reputation. I again will be putting to the Government my belief that this inquiry should be postponed for a minimum of three years.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Since the Army establishment at Holsworthy, New South Wales, was added to my electorate in 1977, I have naturally taken an interest in the welfare of serving members of the forces. I have been very surprised to see the extent of pennypinching that takes place, especially now, at a time when expenditure for defence generally is being increased so extensively. The pennypinching includes things like servicemen’s housing which is at an appalling level and the deterioration in the qualifying requirements for defence service homes.

The matter I wish to raise tonight seems small enough but it is very important to many families. It is the question of mail concessions to serving members of the forces located overseas. Several constituents have raised this matter with me. It is known that this Government eliminated that concession which previously had existed for many years. One constituent proposed that consideration be given to nominating a central pick-up point for such mail, at least in our capital cities. She was concerned in particular with people serving at Butterworth in Malaysia. She was aware of the fact that Hercules aircraft go regularly to that base. She suggested that if there were a central pick-up point at the General Post Office in Sydney or Melbourne, something would be able to be done in order to accommodate servicemen’s parcels. She stated:

Costs of postage are now forcing us to curtail simple supplements, i.e., a one kilogram packet of powdered milk-$ 10.60.

She further stated:

Much pleasure is gained and given in sending the odd parcel, particularly at birthdays or Christmas. Simple things. Clean rice, decent powdered milk, fresh nuts free of weevils, the occasional Bonds cotton or home knit and of course a home made fruit cake.

She went on to state:

My quote for a very small cake under two kilograms was $ 10 and one packet of Dutch Jug milk costing $1.35, was $ 10.60 to post.

She has raised a very fundamental and real matter. She also said that she could personally afford it but she knew of elderly people, pensioner families, who wished to communicate with their relatives serving overseas and were finding it difficult to do so. She hoped that something might be done for them. I wrote to the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) in this regard and in his usual respectful way he sent back a reply which I do not regard as satisfactory. He said:

The concessions were originally an aid in maintaining morale during war situations.

I cannot see the difference. They are lonely people, even in peace time. He continued:

Later they were extended to personnel serving in Special Overseas Service Areas. As there are now no areas so designated, the Government decided to abolish the concessions.

Unfortunately, I have to advise that the RAAF is not in a position to develop a service along the lines suggested . . Such a system is not consistent with the basic roles of the RAAF and would have significant administrative and manpower implications.

I do not accept that at all. I think the Minister has taken this matter too lightly. I should have liked the opportunity to raise this matter with him tonight. No doubt he will take up the matter. I just ask him to reconsider it. Our forces are currently stationed in a number of locations overseas. This is a very serious situation. Of course at Christmas time the business of sending Christmas presents is affected. I remind the Minister and the Government that a concession of this kind is maintained by the United Kingdom and the United States and probably by most other countries. I think it is a reflection on this Government that it is treating the serving members of the forces of Australia in such an indifferent and contemptible way in regard to a matter which concerns their morale and their well-being when they are serving this nation in far-off places.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-As a member in this House representing Australia’s smallest but most beautiful State I rise with some gratitude on behalf of Tasmanians to thank the Treasurer (Mr Howard), who is at the table, and the Government for the most magnificent deal handed out to our State in last night’s Budget. I assure the Treasurer and all other honourable members that it has been received with very great enthusiasm in our State. If anything, the Treasurer may have overplayed his hand. The Budget has been received so well that those in Tasmania who are really in the know are now publicly suggesting that the Premier of our State had advance knowledge as to how good the

Budget would be for Tasmania and that that was the reason he called his phoney snap election weeks before the Budget was brought down. He knew very well that the effect of the Budget would be such that his chances of electoral success would be diminished.

Whilst it is fair to say that the Budget is good for pensioners, ex-service men and women, Aboriginals, wage earners and business, above all it is especially good for Tasmania. I point with considerable pride to page 16 of the Treasurer’s speech.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! In the adjournment debate the honourable member for Denison may make passing reference to the Budget consistent with his introductory remarks but he cannot anticipate debate on a matter on the Notice Paper.

Mr HODGMAN:

– I will not do so. I am pointing with pride to page 1 6 of the Budget Speech.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! That is the very thing that I am not prepared to permit the honourable member to do.

Mr HODGMAN:

– Naturally I accept your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. I refer now to an editorial in today’s Hobart Mercury under the heading ‘It Offers Hope’. In that fine editorial the following comment is made:

The fact that Tasmania rates highly in Federal Government thinking is illustrated by the fact that assistance to Tasmania rates a special mention.

Referring to the Budget the concluding paragraph stated:

Overall, the Budget holds promise of being a reasonably workable and accurate blueprint for steady growth. Much will depend on the application of Ministers, collectively and individually.

Without discussing the Budget I suggest that the only person in Tasmania who has finished up with egg on his face is the Premier. I ask the House tonight what has happened to his predictions of gloom and injustice for Tasmania. Where are they? What would be the result if a State election were held next Saturday? Mr Lowe made these predictions. He said that Tasmania would get a bad deal. He obviously did not know, nor did he believe that the Government’s commitment to Tasmania would be honoured. This Government is on record as having done more for Tasmania than any other Federal Government in the history of this country.

Who would have thought, in the light of the comments of Mr Lowe, that reference would have been made not only in the Budget Speech but also in a public statement today, to the building of a bridge in respect of which a commitment was made by this Government and which is now to be honoured? That bridge, which was referred to today, I think somewhat euphemistically, at the National Press Club as the HodgmanGoodluck Bridge, will involve the expenditure of $32m. I am delighted to see the Minister for National Development (Mr Newman) in the chamber tonight. He and the entire Tasmanian team have worked hard for the result. Once again, even as I speak, members of the Labor Party are trying to interject because they hate Tasmania. They will take any opportunity to interrupt or endeavour to put off a member of the Parliament from Tasmania from speaking in this place. Only yesterday the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) had to point out that since he has been Minister for Transport not one single question on Tasmanian transport has been asked by a member of the Labor Party. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you say, I cannot anticipate the Budget debate but in conclusion I can say that the response to the Budget in Tasmania is extremely enthusiastic.

Something happened last night on television. In the light of predictions made several weeks ago Mr Batt, the Deputy Premier, was asked whether he would indicate what decisions were not locked up in the Budget weeks ago before the State election. He made a very interesting comment. Perhaps I should read it into the record. He said:

Well- ah- of course not, because, obviously I’m not in the Prime Minister’s office or I ‘m -

The short point is that he and the Premier have been exposed for having had a phoney, fraudulent election on false pretences which the people of Tasmania will not forget.

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

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I wish to raise one or two matters which are legitimate adjournment debate subjects. I think that the illegitimacy of the remarks of the previous speaker was evident to every member in the chamber. The two matters I raise are both important and both have some significant connection with my electorate. The first is the fiftieth anniversary of the Apex clubs. Apex clubs were founded in 1931 in Geelong in Victoria. The organisation has progressed to the stage where it is a major international young men’s club. It has asked the Australian Postal Commission to issue a commemorative stamp in order to honour its fiftieth anniversary. To date the application has been rejected.

Mr Baume:

– I have written again asking.

Mr SCHOLES:

– I have put a question on the Notice Paper about it. I question the propriety of that rejection. Firstly, it was the practice in the past, when the Post Office was run by the Postmaster-General’s Department, to honour such anniversaries. The Rotary clubs have had two fiftieth anniversary stamps issued in Australia. One was for Rotary International and the other was for the fiftieth anniversary of the organisation’s establishment in Australia. The Young Men’s Christian Association, the Lions clubs and the Christian Women’s Association have all had commemorative stamps issued for the same reasons. The application of the Y’s men’s club was rejected on the grounds that the organisation was a derivative of the YMCA. Apex is the only men’s club of international standing which was established in Australia. I believe that Australians ought to show some pride in that fact. The Postal Commission should reverse its attitude. It should also look at the criteria it uses for design. We produce more stamps with an abstract design in Australia than there are abstracts in any modern art gallery in the world and certainly in any other country in the world. They have designs which one cannot recognise the meaning of. I raise this matter because I believe it is about time that someone showed a little pride. It is all very well to undertake public relations gimmicks but the Apex organisation is something we have a right to be proud of.

The other matter I wish to raise concerns the cessation of the publication of Commonwealth Employment Service figures on a regional basis. Last month’s unemployment figures were not available to anyone on a regional basis. The only continuing records which have been publicised over any significant period on which one can judge the movements in unemployment are the records of regional CES offices. The figures may not be accurate. That is not terribly important. They reflect trends and show movements. They have significance. They are no longer available. It is said that they will eventually be published when the figures of the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs are available, some three months after the event.

This is a ridiculous situation. It has a lot to do with trying to hide the truth from people. It has important consequences for people who are responsible for planning and for trying to view trends. It also has some consequences for people looking for places where they might establish industries. The CES figures are one of the few sets of figures which give some guide to the availability of labour in regional areas I know that some of these figures can be given confidentially but the refusal to publish them is to act like an ostrich. It is an attempt to bury our heads in the sand and pretend that things do not happen. It is in line with what happened in this House a number of years ago. We remember a former Prime Minister saying that the only real figures were the seasonally adjusted figures. Two months later he said that the seasonally adjusted figures did not mean anything and that the actual figures were the important ones because they happened to support his case. Subsequently, the seasonally adjusted figures, which probably were the only accurate ones, disappeared because they adversely affected the Government.

Mr Baillieu:

– When did he say that?

Mr SCHOLES:

-I suggest that our boy Rip Van Winkle should look into the past to the time he went to sleep. That is when those statements were made.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! It being 1 1 p.m. the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10.30 a.m., tomorrow.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 491

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Trade and Resources: Overseas Accommodation Costs (Question No. 3173)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 21 February 1979:

What sums were paid for (a) hotel or other accommodation for him and his staff on official overseas trips and (b) the rent overseas of (i) official offices and (ii) domestic premises used by any member of his Department during the periods (A) II November 1975 to 30 June 1976, (B) 1976-77, (C) 1977-78 and (D) I July 1978 to date.

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

I refer the honourable member to the Prime Minister’s answer to his question No. 3172 (Weekly Hansard for the week 4-7 June on page 3 1 43 ).

Primary Industry: Overseas Accommodation Costs (Question No. 3174)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 21 February 1979:

What sums were paid for (a) hotel or other accommodation for him and his station official overseas trips and; (b) the rent overseas of; (i) official offices and; (ii) domestic premises used by any member of his Department during the periods, (A) 11 November 1975 to 30 June 1975; (B) 1976-77; (C) 1977-78 and; (D) I July 1978 to date.

Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by the Prime Minister to Question on Notice No. 3172 (See Hansard, 7 June 1979, page 3 143).

Bureau of Transport Economics (Question No. 3472)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 1 March 1979:

What are the details of the Government’s instructions to the Bureau of Transport Economics to contain the provision for non-salary administrative items referred to under subdivision 658.2, Item 05, of his Department’s estimates of expenditure for 1978-79 (Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1978-79, page 127).

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

The Instructions given to the Bureau of Transport Economics concerning Division 658.02, Item 05 were the same as given to all Departments and Authorities in relation to reparation of estimates for 1978-79. They were that estates should be prepared, having regard to the Govern.ments policy that restraint should be exercised.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Question No. 3483)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 2 1 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) When will a permanent chairman be appointed to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.
  2. 2 ) When did the vacancy occur.
  3. What efforts has the Minister made to find an appropriate candidate for the position, complying with the requirements of the Act.
  4. What are the qualifications of the acting chairman of the Authority.
  5. ) When will the Authority designate the first stage of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
  6. What areas will be included in the first stage.
  7. Has the Queensland Government raised any objection to these areas being included.
  8. Has any Department of the Commonwealth Government objected to any of these areas being included.
Mr Groom:
Minister for Housing and Construction · BRADDON, TASMANIA · LP

-The Minister for Science and the Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. and (3) Mr G. Kelleher, a government official with wide experience in environmental matters, was appointed to act as full-time Chairman on 23 July 1979 in compliance with the Act. Mr Kelleher will continue to act full-time as chairman until the position, is filled permanently.
  2. There was a vacancy between 20 March 1979 and 2 May 1979.
  3. In the recent past Mr Kelleher has acted as the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, First Assistant Secretary of the Environment Division in the Department of Science and the Environment and Supervising Scientist in the Alligator Rivers Region of the Northern Territory.

Before that, he was Deputy Chairman, representing the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, of a small, expert, multi-disciplinary task force which provided advice to the Government on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Safeguards issues. This work followed two years as one of the three Commissioners on the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry.

Before being appointed as a Commissioner, he was for two years Assistant Secretary, then Acting First Assistant Secretary in the Water and Soil Resources Division of the then Department of Environment and Conservation. This Division was concerned with the development and management of Commonwealth Government policies and programs on water and soil resources.

This period followed 8 months in 1972 as a Churchill Fellow in the United States and Canada studying environmental management and protection in the United States and Canada.

Mr Kelleher was trained as a Civil Engineer at Sydney University and was employed in both private enterprise and the Commonwealth Government in the design and construction of major civil engineering projects in Canada and

Australia. As Manager of the Googong Project he led the team which prepared the first comprehensive environmental impact statement produced for the Commonwealth Government.

  1. The Prime Minister and the Premier of Queensland announced the establishment of a Ministerial Council on 14 June 1979 comprising Commonwealth and State Ministers representing marine park, conservation, science and tourism interests. The first section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park- the Capricornia section- will be processed by the Ministerial Council as an immediate task to enable early proclamation to take place.
  2. The Capricornia Section- including the Capricorn and Bunker groups of reefs at the southern end of the Great Barrier Reef will be proclaimed as the first stage.
  3. 7 ) and ( 8 ) The Prime Minister and the Premier agreed on 14 June 1979 that the Capricornia Section should be processed by the Ministerial Council for proclamation as a Marine Park under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act.

Synthetic Chemicals (Question No. 3508)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 27 March 1 979:

  1. What (a) Commonwealth and (b) State procedures exist for granting formal approval for the use and sale of new synthetic chemicals.
  2. ) What provision is made in each of these procedures for assessing (a) environmental and (b) health effects of the use of those chemicals.
Mr Groom:
LP

-The Minister for Science and the Environment has provided the following answers to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) Agricultural chemicals, therapeutic goods, food additives and poisons have been assessed and regulated for a number of years by Commonwealth and State Health and Agricultural authorities in regard to their efficacy and potential adverse effects. These activities will be covered by the Minister for Health in answer to Question No. 3507.
  2. The honourable member will be aware from my answer to questions 3517 and 3518 that the Australian Environment Council has established a National Advisory Committee on Chemicals. This Committee is currently developing procedures for assessment of synthetic chemicals used in industry and commerce for potential environmental hazards. The Commonwealth is making an active and positive contribution to this effort.

Synthetic Chemicals (Question No. 3517)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 27 March 1979:

Can the Minister state which synthetic chemicals, the use or sale of which is currently ( a ) prohibited or ( b ) restricted in (i) the United States of America and (ii) Sweden, are currently in use in Australia.

Mr Groom:
LP

-The Minister for Science and the Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

No. I am unable to provide the information because national registers of such chemicals are not presently maintained in the three countries concerned. However, as part of the United Nations Environment Program, an International Register of Potentially Toxic Chemicals (IRPTC) is being established which is intended to include this information. Australia actively supports development of the IRPTC.

Australia has encouraged and assisted international efforts to achieve harmonisation of controls on environmentally hazardous chemicals, particularly through the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Synthetic Chemicals (Question No. 3518)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 27 March 1 979:

  1. 1 ) How many synthetic chemicals are presently in use in Australia in (a) industry, (b) agriculture and (c) other commercial uses such as in the processing of food.
  2. How many new synthetic chemicals have been introduced into commercial use in each of the last 10 years.
  3. What proportion of synthetic chemicals presently in commercial use in Australia are (a) wholly imported and (b) wholly manufactured in Australia from raw materials.
  4. What proportion of new synthetic chemicals introduced into commercial use in each of the last 10 years was screened for possible health or environmental effects by (a) the Australian Agricultural Council, (b) the National Health and Medical Research Council and (c) any other Federal Government instrumentality.
  5. ) What proportion was not screened.
  6. Which synthetic chemicals have been (a) recommended or required to be withdrawn (i) permanently and (ii) temporarily from sale or commercial use by the Federal or any State Government, (b) voluntarily withdrawn from sale or commercial use(i) permanently or (ii) temporarily by industry and (c) subject to (i) mandatory or (ii) recommended restrictions in sale or commercial use by the Federal or any State Government during the last 10 years.
  7. In each case what were the reasons given for applying or recommending restrictions on or withdrawal from use or sale of these chemicals.
Mr Groom:
LP

-The Minister for Science and the Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

In co-operation with State Governments, the Commonwealth is actively developing policies and programs for the management of hazardous chemicals. The Australian Environment Council has established the National Advisory Committee on Chemicals to develop a national approach to assessment and control of environmentally hazardous chemicals.

and (2) According to information published by the Australian Chemical Industry Council, approximately 700 chemicals are manufactured in Australia. No information is available on the total number of synthetic chemicals in use in Australia. It is reported that over 40,000 chemicals are in commercial use at present in the USA and up to 1,000 new chemicals are brought into commercial use each year.

I understand that about one quarter of the chemicals sold in Australia are imported.

and (5) Agricultural chemicals and veterinary drugs are screened by the Australian Agricultural Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council. Food additives and poisons are assessed by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Therapeutic goods subject to Commonwealth control are evaluated by the Australian

Drug Evaluation Committee and the Department of Health. These activities have been elaborated by the Minister for Health in replying to question No. 3507 asked by the honourable member.

Through its National Advisory Committee on Chemicals, the Australian Environment Council is developing procedures for assessment of new chemicals for potential environmental effects. The Commonwealth has responsibility for imports of new chemicals and a consultant has recently been engaged to assist with formulation of procedures.

and (7) This information is not collected on a national basis.

Assistance to Industry (Question No. 3595)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 28 March 1979:

What (a) direct financial Government assistance, (b) indirect Government assistance and (c) other assistance has been given to (i) primary, (ii) manufacturing, (iii) mining and (iv) other industries in Australia for each year from 1965-66 to date.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. Details of direct financial assistance by the Commonwealth to industry, by industry classification are available in the Budget Papers each year.
  2. Estimates of indirect Commonwealth assistance to industry through special taxation concessions are also available in the Budget Papers each year.
  3. Comprehensive details of ‘other assistance to industry’ are not available. Estimates of average nominal and effective rates of protection and net subsidy equivalents provided by tariffs and other forms of protection for groups of manufacturing industries are contained in Assistance to Manufacturing Industries in Australia, Industries Assistance Commission, 1 968-69 to 1973-74, AGPS, 1976 and in subsequent IAC Annual Reports. Estimates for other industries and for earlier years are not available.

Bulk Milk Carters (Question No. 3695)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 1 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that the actual bulk milk carters of Victoria, that is, those who collect the milk from the dairy farms, had no say in the decision made by the leadership of the Transport Workers Union to refuse to collect that milk from 30 March to 2 April 1979 and thus cost the dairy farmers several million dollars in lost income.
  2. Is it also a fact that these tanker drivers were again excluded from the decision to return to work made in Melbourne on Monday, 2 April 1979.
  3. If so, what action is the Government taking to protect the rights of individual unionists against these decisions.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. I ) It would not, I am informed, be true to say that the bulk milk carters of Victoria had no say in the decision to refuse to collect milk from dairy farms from 30 March to 2 April 1 979. 1 understand that the very costly strike to which the honourable member refers resulted from decisions taken at various meetings of milk carters.

    1. I am also informed that the decision to return to work was taken in accordance with resolutions passed at various meetings of the striking milk carters.
    2. In view of the answers to Questions (1) and (2) no answer to Question ( 3 ) is required.

Having replied specifically to each of the questions raised I must say how much I deplore the actions of these employees. Although I have said that the decisions referred to in the honourable member’s questions were taken at meetings of the employees concerned, the results of the votes taken at those meetings did not necessarily represent the wishes of the majority of the TWU membership concerned. The whole episode points up the responsibility of the individual to the community in which he lives and the particular responsibility of unionists in vital industries to make every effort to attend meetings of this nature. In this way the true will of the rank and file will be expressed.

The honourable member would be well aware that I have long held the view that the appropriate forum for the settlement of disputes is the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

Advance Purchase Excursion Fare Seats (Question No. 3700)

Mr Jull:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many seats are offered at the new Apex air fare rates on (a) Qantas and (b) British Airways on services operating from Brisbane and Sydney to London?
  2. What average percentage of these seats are offered for sale (a) in Brisbane and (b) in Sydney?
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The total number of seats available to Apex passengers on British Airways and Qantas services to the UK is on average 4,450 per week. These seats are available for travel from all Australian gateways served by these two airlines.

The seats are allocated having regard to anticipated demand from the various gateways. In order to maintain a flexible arrangement to cater for fluctuations in demand from these gateways, the allocations vary from time to time.

Lead Levels in Petrol (Question No. 3724)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 1 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Who is responsible for setting maximum permissible levels of lead in petrol sold in the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. Is there any monitoring program carried out on a regular basis by any Government department or instrumentality.
  3. Is the Australian Capital Territory regarded as a country area of New South Wales for these purposes.
  4. What is the limit which applies to petrol sold in the Australian Capital Territory.
  5. With respect to vehicle exhaust emissions other than lead, (a) what standards apply and (b) what monitoring programs arc being carried out in the Australian Capital Territory.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I am informed by my Department as follows:

1 ) Maximum permissible levels of lead in petrol have not been legislatively prescribed in the ACT.

No.

Petrol in the ACT is generally the same as that sold in country areas of NSW, with lead level of 0.84 g/litre.

See answer to ( I ).

Legislation is being prepared to make Australian Design Rules 26, 27 and 27A (stage 2) applicable at the time of first registration to passenger vehicles manufactured after the dates of effect of those design rules. Similarly ADR 36 will be made applicable to heavier vehicles. The legislation will prohibit vehicular modifications which are likely to affect compliance with those design rules.

New vehicles being registered now are required to comply with the safety related design rules. The Registrar of Motor Vehicles accepts the fitment of an approved Australian Design Rule compliance plate as evidence of compliance. Since an approved compliance plate is only issued to vehicles which comply with all of the Australian Design Rules in force new vehicles being registered in the ACT are already being required to comply with the emission rules.

Domestic Aviation System (Question No. 3732)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 May 1979:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Australian of 25 April 1979 to the effect that he has privately foreshadowed an end to parallel scheduling between TAA and Ansett; if so, is there any substance to the report and when does he propose to end parallel scheduling.
  2. Did he state that Australia would always have a high cost airline system; if so, what was the basis for this statement.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) I am aware of the newspaper report to which the honourable member refers. At the meeting to which the press report refers I drew attention to the report of the Domestic Air Transport Policy Review Committee which made a number of recommendations directed towards increasing the extent of competition with the domestic aviation industry. The Review Committee concluded that such recommendations, if implemented, may have the effect of reducing the amount of parallel scheduling currently evident. I expect to be in a position to make an announcement on the Government’s policy during the Budget Session of Parliament.
  2. I also indicated at that meeting that domestic air fares would be higher on a cent per kilometre basis than international air fares. The reasons are essentially related to the size and distribution of Australia’s population. Compared to domestic flights, international flights are generally much longer with only a few intermediate stops, catering for higher volumes of traffic on relatively few routes, thus permitting the use of wide bodied aircraft with resultant economies of scale. In addition charges such as fuel tax are only paid on domestic operations.

Cabin Staff on Domestic Aircraft (Question No. 3740)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) What are the costs of providing cabin staff on each of the major aircraft types operated by domestic airline regular public transport licence holders in Australia.
  2. What percentage of total aircraft operating costs does cabin staff costs comprise for each of the major aircraft types in service with domestic airline regular public transport licence holders in Australia.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The information requested is of a detailed commercial nature and it has been made clear on a number of previous occasions, as the airlines are operating in a commercial environment, it would not be appropriate to disclose such information.

Air Services: Subsidies (Question No. 3803)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 3 May 1 979:

  1. Which air services are to be subsidised in 1978-79 from his Department’s estimates of expenditure under subdivision 655.3, Item 07 (Appropriation Act (No. 1)1 978-79, page 127).
  2. By what sum is each service to be subsidised and what is to be the basis used for determining the amount of subsidy in each case.
  3. Which services were subsidised in 1977-78 and for what sums.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to ( 3 ) Details of the Department of Transport ‘s expenditure for 1977-78 and estimated expenditure for 1978-79 under sub-division 655.3, Item 07 (Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1978-79) and the basis of the determination of the amounts are shown at page 65 of the Department’s Estimates of Expenditure and Receipts 1978-79 Supplementary Explanatory Notes which are available from the Parliamentary Library.

Details of the subsidised services for both years are as follows:

Queensland

BPA Ltd- Cape York Peninsula Station Services; Gulf Country Station Services; Rockhampton- Longreach.

Other (Helicopter Operators Pty Ltd)- Mt Isa Southwest Station Services.

Western Australia

Civil Flying Services (WA) Pty Ltd- Murchison Services.

Trans- West Air Charter (WA) Pty Ltd-Pilbara Services.

MacRobertson Miller Airline Services- Kimberley Services.

Ord Air Charter Pty Ltd- East Kimberley Services.

Northern Territory

Connair- Connair Network.

Other (Chartair)- Alice Springs Station Services. (Tillair Pty Ltd )- Katherine Station Services. (Tennant Air Pty Ltd)- Tennant Creek Station Services.

Oil Refineries (Question No. 3830)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 3 May 1 979:

  1. ) Did the Royal Commission on Petroleum in its Fifth Report find that in the coming decade, Australia must add an11th refinery to the 10 refineries now operating and conclude that, because or the high cost of such a new refinery and because of the nature of petroleum marketing in Australia, government policies indicating appropriate mechanisms to pay for new investments and government policies to encourage companies to pool their market requirements are required.
  2. If so, did he reject these findings and conclusions in the terms that the Government does not endorse the Commission’s view that without Government intervention the country faced a large shortfall in refining capacity by 1985.
  3. Will he outline the precise technical and financial grounds upon which this rejection was based.
Mr Newman:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1 ), ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) For the Government ‘s response to the recommendations of the Fifth Report see my statement on Petroleum Refining of 1 June 1978. Refinery expansion and upgrading which has taken place over recent years endorses the position taken by the Government.

Aviation: Collapsible Approach Light Masts (Question No. 3873)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 8 May 1979:

  1. ) At whatlocation(s) are the collapsible approach light masts referred to in contract C1/77/151 in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 24 April 1979 (G16) to be sited.
  2. What were the general specifications of the light masts and how many are being purchased.
  3. Are similar masts available in Australia; if not, why not.
  4. Who were the unsuccessful competitors for the contract.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. ) Port Moresby Airport.
  2. The departmental specification called for masts in varying lengths from 2.0 m to11 . 5 m to be used in differing levels of terrain. Essential requirements of the specification related to weight and construction. Each mast was to be constructed in such a manner to ensure crumpling or collapsing on impact in the event of contact with aircraft; and be capable of being raised and lowered manually to facilitate maintenance and lamp alignment. A total of 103 masts is to be purchased under this contract.
  3. No. However, two local manufacturers offered designs for masts, both in the development stage. The design included in one of these offers was technically unacceptable. In the case of the second offer, only the design for masts 7 metres in height and less would fully meet the technical and safety criteria specified.

Because of the need for compatibility for interchange and maintenance it was decided to accept the offer of thelowerpriced technically acceptable operationally proven imported masts.

While the question of availability of similar masts is one for the industry, no such collapsible approach light masts have ever been required in Australia by the Department of Transport.

  1. The two unsuccessful competitors for the contract were:

    1. a ) Harbour and Marine Engineering Pty Ltd, 203 Poath Road, Hughesdale, Victoria 3 166
    2. Triodetic Australia Pty Ltd, 10 Yamma Street, Sefton,NSW2162.

Coogee Beach Motel (Question No. 3886)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 8 May1979:

  1. ) Did his Department give consideration to the purchase of the Coogee Beach Motel, Sydney, in 1975.
  2. If so, what was the proposed purpose of the acquisition.
  3. Was Coogee Esplanade Surf Motel Pty Ltd the owner at the time.
  4. Was the proposed purchase price $700,000.
  5. On or about 25 May 1975 was the Secretary of his Department instructed to proceed as quickly as possible with the purchase.
  6. At about that time was the Treasurer advised that there was a degree of urgency about the matter.
  7. Was Mr Fred Waller a Director of the vendor company.
  8. On about 4 June1975 did the Secretary of his Department inform Mr Waller that he understood that because of Mr Waller’s circumstances Mr Waller wanted the matter to proceed quickly and that the Treasurer had authorised funds and that a letter of intent would be arranged for Mr Waller to present to his creditors.
  9. Did the Secretary of his Department tell Mr Waller that he was speaking to him at the request of the office of the Minister for Defence and that he understood Mr Waller’s difficult financial circumstances.
  10. Did the Secretary of his Department tell Mr Waller that if he accepted a proposition that no deposit be paid, the settlement of the contract would take place in the second week of July 1975.
  11. When it became apparent that all of the necessary preliminary work had been done to enable the purchase to proceed as quickly as possible, was the Secretary of his Department asked to proceed as quickly as possible with the purchase.
  12. Was a letter of intent dated 6 June1975 sent by the Chief Property Officer to the solicitors for the vendor.
  13. What was the public purpose of the purchase in terms of section 6 of the Lands Acquisition Act.
  14. Was any authorisation issued pursuant to section 7 of that Act.
  15. Was any statement laid before this House or the Senate pursuant to section 7.
  16. Did the purchase proceed; if not, what were the reasons.
  17. Which person made any decision not to proceed with the purchase or who were the parties to any such decision.
  18. Did his Department at any time negotiate with A. C. Grosvenor Pty Ltd or Mr D. K. Bernhardt of Bernhardt Constructions Pty Ltd, regarding the Motel; if so, in what capacity was the company or person acting and what was the relationship to the owner.
Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

Preamble

Successive Governments have accepted the convention that Ministers do not normally seek access to the files and documents of their predecessors. I see no reason to depart from that convention and am therefore unable to provide answers to the second section of part 1 6 and to part 1 7. However, answers to other parts of the question are either in the nature of administrative facts which do not breach the convention or are a matter of public record or are contained in the Court proceedings ‘Coogee Esplanade Surf Motel Pty Ltd v. Commonwealth of Australia’ which followed the summons filed in the Supreme Court of New South Wales on 28 July 1975. These proceedings were covered by the Unreported Decision of 3 December 1975 by Needham J. and by the Unreported Decision of 16 March 1976 by the Court of Appeal in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

At the relevant time during 1975 the Commonwealth’s property functions were carried out by the then Department of Services and Property and the answers below are provided in that context.

  1. 1 ) Yes. For some time during and before 1975 consideration had been given to acquiring a motel in the general area.
  2. Accommodation for civilian and service personnel of Department of Defence.
  3. Yes.
  4. Yes.
  5. On 14 May 1975 the Minister for Defence requested the Secretary of the Department of Defence to purchase the property for Defence purposes as soon as possible. These instructions were transmitted to the Secretary of the Department of Services and Property on approximately 25 May 1975 and were subsequently acted upon by him.
  6. Yes.
  7. Yes.
  8. Yes.
  9. There is no record that the Secretary of the Department of Services and Property advised Mr Waller that he was speaking to him at the request of the office of the Minister for Defence. The Secretary did advise Mr Waller that he was aware of his difficult financial circumstances.
  10. Yes.
  11. Yes.
  12. Yes.
  13. Defence.
  14. Yes.
  15. Yes.
  16. No.- Second Section- see Preamble above.
  17. 1 7) See Preamble above.
  18. There were discussions but no negotions with A. C. Grosvenor Pty Ltd in 1973 regarding the Motel. Negotiations were conducted with the directors of Coogee Esplanade Surf Motel Pty Ltd, including a Mr David Henry Bernhardt, in 1 975. It is understood that Mr D. H. Bernhardt was also a principal of Bernhardt Constructions Pty Ltd. There were no negotiations with a Mr D. K. Bernhardt.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Question No. 3930)

Mr Cohen:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 10 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) ls it a fact that the declaration of the Capricornia Section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park has been delayed to (a) redraw the Park’s boundaries so as to allow for renewal of oil drilling leases within the original boundaries of the Park and (b) allow for the preparation of 2 Bills which would hand over control of the Park to the Queensland Government.
  2. Has the Government agreed to establish and administer the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park jointly with the Queensland Government.
  3. Has approval been given for appointment of a fulltime Chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority; if so, is this to be a permanent position.
Mr Groom:
LP

-The Minister for Science and the Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. (a) No. (b) No
  2. The Prime Minister and the Premier of Queensland announced on 1 4 June 1 979 that as sections of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park are proclaimed under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act, the day-to-day management should be undertaken by officers of the appropriate Queensland Service, who in discharging these responsibilities will be subject to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.
  3. Yes. Mr G. Kelleher, a government official with wide experience in environmental matters, was appointed to act as full-time Chairman on 23 July 1979. Mr Kelleher will continue to act as chariman until the position is filled permanently.

International Air Services (Question No. 3948)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 22 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) What scheduled flights to what destinations are provided out of Australia each week by each international airline?
  2. What is the capacity provided for (a) first class and (b) other passengers by each international airline?
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Number of services operated out of Australia each week by each international airline as at I June 1 979 is shown in Table 1.
  2. Number of seats normally provided for (a) first class and (b) other passengers on various aircraft types operated out of Australia by each international airline is shown in Table 2.
  1. the replacement of first class seating and upstairs lounge with sleeper chairs, and
  2. the introduction of the new business class.

Typical seating configurations will be 28 first, 48 business and 322 economy for the B747 B type and 28 first, 48 business and 1 82 economy for the B747 Combi.

Universities: Research Funding (Question No. 3985)

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

-On 23 May 1979 the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education a question on notice (Notice Paper, page 5507) concerning research funding in Australian universities.

In providing information on the honourable member’s question it was stated in the table entitled ‘Identifiable Research Expenditure as a Proportion of operating Expenditure, Australian Universities, 1977’ that identifiable research expenditure as a proportion of recurrent expenditure for the University of Sydney was 8 per cent. The correct figure is 13 per cent.

Cloncurry Airport (Question No. 3999)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 24 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is Cloncurry Airport Qld presently an all-weather airport with the facility for jet and other types of aircraft to land?
  2. Has a decision been made to transfer the operation of the airport to the local council?
  3. If so, what is the size of the present landing strips and to what size will they be reduced?
  4. What is the size of aircraft presently able to land at Cloncurry?
  5. With a reduction in the size of the landing strips, what will be the size of aircraft that (a) will have restricted opportunities for landing and (b) will be unable to land?
  6. Is Cloncurry being abandoned as an alternative major western Queensland airport?
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. F27 type aircraft are able to regularly operate under all-weather conditions but executive type jet aircraft (e.g. HS 125, Mystere, Gulfstream 2) may only operate infrequently on a concessional basis.
  2. Transfer to local authorities of aerodromes which primarily serve a local need is in accord with the Commonwealth’s Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan. The local council agreed in principle on 19 February 1979 to accept ownership of the aerodrome subject to several conditions currently being negotiated.
  3. The main 12/30 runway is 1676 m x 45 m and will be reduced in width to 30m. This alteration has been agreed by the local council. The secondary 06/24 runway is 9 1 4 m x 18 m and no alteration to it is proposed.
  4. Refer to (I).
  5. Those aircraft currently using Cloncurry will be able to continue under the same conditions as at present.
  6. No.

Pre-term Foundation (Question No. 4003)

Mr Lusher:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 28 May 1979:

Further to the answer to question No. 3506 (Hansard, 1 May 1979, page 1707) is he able to provide the fullest financial details that may be available from the Australian Capital Territory Corporate Affairs Office, or wherever else they may be filed, for the Pre-term Foundation as at:

31 December 1974,

30 June 1975,

30 June 1976,

30 June 1977; and

30 June 1978.

Mr Fife:
LP

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

The Pre-term Foundation was incorporated in the Australian Capital Territory as a company limited by guarantee on 28 May 1 974. Under the ACT Companies Ordinance, the company was not required to file its first accounts with the ACT Corporate Affairs Office until December 1 975.

The company has filed with that Office accounts for the years ending 30 June 1 975, 30 June 1 976, 30 June 1 977 and 30 June 1 978. These accounts are available there for public inspection.

Copies of these accounts have been sent to you.

Fuel Consumption (Question No. 4014)

Mr Cohen:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 May 1979:

What is the level of fuel consumption of the (a) Holden Commodore (3.3. litre), (b) Ford Blackwood XD (4. 1 litre), (c) 1979 Chrysler Valiant (4.3 litre), (d) 1979 Toyota Corolla, (e) 1979 Datsun Skyline, (f) Mazda 323, (g) 1979 Honda Civic, (h) 1979 Mercedes Benz 450 SL, (j) 1979 Volkswagen Golf, (k) 1979 Toyota Crown and (I) 1979 Ford Cortina (2 litre) when (i) fitted and (ii) not fitted with (A) power steering, (B) automatic transmission, (C) air conditioning, (D) radial tyres, (E) power windows, (F) power seats, (G) limited slip differential and (H) AM-FM radio/ stereo cassette player.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

Information at this level of detail is not collected by my Department. It would appear that a very large collection task could be involved before any meaningful comparisons could be made. I would therefore suggest that the best course for the honourable member to follow would be to approach the manufacturers or importers direct to seek the information requested.

Adelaide Airport (Question No. 4037)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 29 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Further to his answer to question No. 3340 (Hansard, 1 May 1979, pages 1712-3) relating to the Government Advisory Committee on Adelaide airline requirements, is he now able to say whether in the considerable input made by his Department at working group level or at any other stage, it was suggested or submitted in any form that (a) Adelaide should become an international airport, if so, when should this take place, (b) a master plan Tor the airport should be drawn up, (c) reserves should be made or areas adjacent to the airport to protect the public from noise intrusion, (d) areas at Aldinga should be obtained for a general aviation airport and at Two Wells/Virginia to establish a major airport, (e) international air services of limited range to, for example, Singapore, Fiji and New Zealand could be developed from the existing or expanded Adelaide airport and ( f) urgent action should be taken to secure land at Aldinga and Two Wells/Virginia.
  2. Has he completed his consideration of the recommendations of the Committee; if so, what were the recommendations and what action does he propose to take in respect of them.
  3. Will he now make the report of the Committee available to the Parliament as a matter of urgency; if not, why not.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 understand that the specific points (a) to (f) mentioned in the honourable member’s question, as well as many other points, were amongst the matters considered by the Advisory Committee in accordance with its terms of reference.
  2. No.
  3. As soon as I have completed my consideration of the report it is my intention that it should be jointly released by me and the South Australian Minister for Transport.

Railway Finance (Question No. 4043)

Mr CHARLES JONES:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 29 May 1979:

What was the (a) value of assets, (b) outstanding debt, (c) loan repayments, (d ) interest payments and (e) profit or loss, for the year’s trading for each State rail system and the Australian National Railways, in each year since 1972 (Question No. 4973, Hansard, 2 1 March 1 972, page 96 1 ).

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

The railway systems of New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, Western Australia and the metropolitan system of South Australia are the responsibilities of the respective States. Inquiries concerning these State owned railway systems should be addressed to the responsible State Ministers.

The following information is provided in respect of the Commonwealth Railways for the financial years from 197 1-72 to 1974-75. The item ‘Loan Repayments’ is not applicable to the Commonwealth Railways over these years. It will be noted that figures are provided for ‘Funds Provided by Commonwealth, Less Accumulated Losses’ instead of under the heading ‘Outstanding Debt’. This is to achieve consistency with the financial statements and to avoid minsinterpretation.

Since the honourable member asked this question, the annual reports of the Australian National Railways Commission for 1975-76 and 1976-77 have been tabled in Parliament. The available information for these years relevant to this question will be found in those reports.

It will be noted that these reports do not include consolidated accounts for the three regions of the Australian National Railways, but include separate audited financial statements for the Northern Region (the former Commonwealth Railways system ), for the Tasmanian Region, and for the Rail Division of the State Transport Authority (the nonmetropolitan railways of that Division comprise the Central Region). In each report, each of the three sets of financial statements employ different accounting methods.

Audited financial statements for the Australian National Railways are not available at this time for 1977-78. It is proposed that these statements will be in a consolidated form encompassing all three Regions.

Oil Pricing (Question No. 4080)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 30 May 1 979:

What was the well-head value per barrel of crude oil produced from each Australian field, for the purposes of determining royalty payments, during the period 1976 to 1979.

Mr Newman:
LP

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

The Commonwealth has no information on the well-head value per barrel of crude oil produced from onshore fields. This aspect is the responsibility of the relevant States.

The information in regard to offshore fields is normally regarded as confidential in the context of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967. However, in any event, the well-head values in respect of Bass Strait fields are still a matter of disagreement between the companies concerned and the Designated Authority and no determination has yet been made. Royalty payments in the meantime are being made on an interim basis.

Production of Petroleum Products (Question No. 4081)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 30 May 1 979:

  1. 1 ) On which occasions was the production of petroleum products interrupted or temporarily stopped at Australian refineries since January 1978.
  2. In each case, (a) which refineries were involved, (b) for how long did the cessation of refining last, (c) what was the cause of the interruption to refining, (d) by what amount was the normal production of petroleum products reduced, (e) what measures were taken by the companies involved to offset any reduction in refinery production, (f) what notice was given to the Government that there would be an interruption or stoppage in refinery production and (g) what action did the Government take to ensure the availability of adequate quantities of petroleum products to the Australian market.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Such detailed information is not readily available; and limited staff resources do not permit the extensive collection/collation operation that would be necessary.

Great Barrier Reef: Surveillance Flights (Question No. 4103)

Mr Cohen:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 3 1 May 1 979:

  1. 1 ) How frequent are surveillance flights over the Great Barrier Reef.
  2. How many patrol craft operate in the Great Barrier Reef region.
  3. Is the whole Great Barrier Reef region regularly patrolled.
Mr Nixon:
LP

-The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. 1 ) Surveillance flights over the Great Barrier Reef area are carried out by both Defence Force and chartered civil aircraft. Routine surveillance flights by RAAF Long Range Maritime Patrol Aircraft vary in frequency according to anticipated requirements. In June 1979 there were five flights and in July 1979 four flights. Civilian aircraft are chartered as required to re-locate foreign fishing vessels and to meet other response requirements.
  2. Four RAN Attack Class patrol boats based at Cairns carry out regular patrols and are allocated to civil surveillance and enforcement. Civilian surface vessels are chartered as required for specific response activity, mainly related to foreign fishing vessels. Additionally the Department of Transport’s ‘Cape Pillar’ is programmed from time to time to patrol northern waters and carry out surveillance tasks.
  3. Yes. In addition to the above, a further initiative I announced late last year is the impending charter of a speciallyequipped Nomad aircraft to be based on the Central Queensland coast and dedicated to surveillance of the whole of the Reef area.

Stuart Highway (Question No. 4126)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 4 June 1979:

  1. 1 ) Did he visit Coober Pedy and the Stuart Highway on 24 May 1 979 in company with Mr S. E. Calder, D.F.C., M.P., and Senator D. S. Jessop as stated in his press release of 24 May 1 979; if not, why not.
  2. If he did not make the visit did he advise the several hundred residents who had assembled for several hours at Coober Pedy to meet him that he would not be arriving; if so by what means and when was the advice conveyed; if not, why not.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No, I did not visit Coober Pedy. As was explained in a supplementary press release of 24 May 1979, due to wet weather it was not possible for the light aircraft to land at Coober Pedy. Yes, I did see the Stuart Highway, together with Mr S. E. Calder, D.F.C., M.P., and Senator D. S. Jessop, by road, between Woomera and Lake Hart.
  2. Yes. By telephone on 24 May 1979, and also by follow up letter of the same date.

VIP Aircraft (Question No. 4129)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 4 June 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What was the task undertaken by a Mystere jet on 20 September 1978, as listed on page 38 of the schedules of special flights for RAAF, No. 34 Squadron.
  2. What was the cost of the direct flight from Canberra to Amberley, Qld.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 approved an aircraft-

    1. a ) to convey the then Chief of the Air Staff (Air Marshal Sir James Rowland) accompanied by Lady Rowland and officers from the Department of Defence to Amberley, Queensland, for the opening of No. 3 Aircraft Depot hangar marking the completion of a major work undertaking; and
    2. to convey me, after I had performed the opening ceremony, to Canberra in time for the evening sitting of Parliament.

The flight plan provided for the Chief of the Air Staff to be picked up at Richmond where he was meeting the Chief of Staff, Indonesian Air Force. However, because the Chief of the Air Staff was unavoidably detained at Richmond, the Mystere aircraft which was to pick him up was sent direct from Canberra to Amberley to pick me up. The members of the Chief of the Air Staff’s party who were to travel to Richmond on the positioning flight travelled in the aircraft from Canberra to Amberley.

  1. $866.40.

Exports to New Zealand (Question No. 4135)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 4 June 1979:

Did the tariff changes in respect of New Zealand imports in 1977 cause competitive disadvantages for some Australian companies; if so:

which companies were disadvantaged in respect of which products; and

b ) was this the cause of changes in tariffs in 1 978.

Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. and (b) Tariff changes can have the effect of altering the competitive position of imports and no doubt some adjustment of the competitive positions of Australian and New Zealand companies have taken place since 1977 as a result of such changes.

If Australian exporters feel they are disadvantaged by tariff changes in New Zealand the matter should be raised with my colleague the Minister for Trade and Resources. Australian industries who feel they are disadvantaged by tariff changes in Australia should raise the matter with the relevant industry Minister.

DC9 Aircraft (Question No. 4155)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 5 June 1979:

  1. 1 ) In view of the fact that the DC9 and DC 10 aircraft are both built by McDonnell Douglas and of the possibility that metal fatigue may have contributed to the air disaster at Chicago on 25 May 1979, is he able to say (a) what are the current maximum allowable hours or cycles a DC9 engine may accumulate before it is compulsorily removed for inspection and test cell calibration, (b) what were the limiting hours or cycles when the aircraft was first introduced into service in Australia and when that was, (c) what type of inspections and tests, and at what intervals, are carried out on the DC9 engines operated by (i) Ansett Airlines and (ii) TAA and on how many occasions have the engine attachments bolts on the DC9 aircraft failed in Australian operations.
  2. If attachment bolts have failed, what airline was involved and what were the circumstances of the failure.
  3. Is he also able to say what would be the likely consequences (aircraft performance, etc.) which could follow the partial detachment in flight of a DC9 engine from the aircraft ‘s airframe.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The Pratt & Whitney JT8D engines installed in Australian registered DC9 aircraft are removed from the aircraft and inspected using a Continuous Maintenance Planning Schedule which is set by the airline operator and approved by my Department. At the present time engines are removed from aircraft for maintenance at a maximum of 8,000 cycles in the case of Ansett Airlines and 7,000 cycles in the case of TAA. Under the programme engines undergo a test cell calibration after each scheduled removal. The DC9 aircraft was first introduced into service in Australia in April 1967 and at that time engines were removed from the aircraft for maintenance at a maximum of 4,000 hours in the case of Ansett Airlines and 3,500 hours for TAA. The type of inspections, tests and the time intervals at which they are carried out on the engines, are covered in airline operators Overhaul Special Inspection Periods (OSIP) and Component Time Limits (CTL) which are approved by my Department, and in the aircraft and the engine manufacturers Maintenance and Overhaul Manuals.

On no occasion have the engine attachment bolts failed on DC9 aircraft in Australian operations.

  1. ) This circumstance is conjectural and I would comment the 632 DC9 aircraft in service have flown some 19 million hours without an aircraft loss from this cause.

DC10 Aircraft (Question No. 4156)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 5 June 1979:

  1. How many defects in DC 10 aircraft have been brought to the attention of his Department to date.
  2. ) When, where and in what circumstances was each defect discovered.
  3. What was the nature of the defect in each case and what remedial action was taken.
  4. Have there been (a) delays in remedying defects of DC 10 aircraft and (b) disclosed defects in the aircraft which have yet to be remedied or which have contributed to aircraft accidents: if so, what were the circumstances.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The DC 10 aircraft is not on the Australian Register consequently my Department does not receive all defect information on the aircraft type from either McDonnell Douglas or the US Depanment of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration.
  2. and (3) My Department is informed by the US Federal Aviation Administration on pertinent details of significant defects with the DC 10 where the authority issues formal airworthiness directives.
  3. Under the international Convention on Civil Aviation, the authority of the country of registry is responsible for the surveillance of in-service defects found in aircraft. However my Department is not aware of defects in DC 10 aircraft as described in your question.

Airport Security (Question No. 4162)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 4 June 1979:

Further to his answer to Question No. 3893 (Hansard, 4 June 1979, page 2879), what was the (a) establishment and (b) number of officers available for duty at each of the relevant places and times referred to in the question.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

In my answer to part (I) of the honourable member’s question No. 3893 I gave him the details regarding (a) establishment. The answer to (b) number of officers available for duty is the same as that given to part ( I ) (b) of question No. 3893 regarding number of officers in service.

The specified duties of the officers referred to in the answer to part (2) of question No. 3893 include reference to aviation security, and these officers are available for full-time aviation security duties if particular circumstances warrant.

Department of Transport: Hire of Helicopter (Question No. 4163)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 5 June 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Further to question No. 3866 (Hansard, 4 June 1979, page 2879), what was the value of contract LP353 1 referred to on page 97 of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 24April I979(GI6).
  2. Who were the unsuccessful tenderers for the contract.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) As indicated at page 97 of the Gazette, the value of contract LP353 1 was $2, 100.
  2. The contract was awarded to Ansett Airlines of Australia in pursuance of the arrangements outlined in parts 5 and 6 of the answer to question No. 3866. As tenders were not invited there were no unsuccessful tenderers.

Department of Transport: Dataflash System (Question No. 4164)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 5 June 1 979:

Further to his answer to question No. 3852 (Hansard, 4 June 1979, page 2878), what are the:

purposes,

functions,

nature,

utilisation rate

capital cost,

f ) maintenance cost

operating costs per annum of the Dataflash message switching system.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. Dataflash is being developed to form part of my Department’s aeronautical message switching network. This network carries aeronautical messages, in digital form, between air traffic service centres throughout Australia. The Australian network forms part of the international Aeronautical Fixed Telecommunications Network. The first Australian Dataflash system will be installed in Western Australia.
  2. Dataflash is an automatic message switching system, using microprocessor control techniques to decode the digital address contained within the message and switch the message through the network by the optimum route.
  3. Dataflash is based on packet switching principles and provides a high level of message integrity with short message transit time.
  4. ) The maximum utilisation rate of the Dataflash system will be an average of 1,800,300 character messages per hour.
  5. The installed capital cost of the Western Australian Dataflash system is estimated to be $350,000.
  6. The direct maintenance cost of the Western Australian Dataflash system is estimated to be $60,000 per annum.
  7. The direct operating cost of the Western Australian Dataflash system is estimated to be $358,000 per annum.

Radar Speed Detection Devices (Question No. 4192)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 6 June 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to a judgment by Daid County Court Judge Nesbitt which cast doubt on the accuracy of police radar speed detection devices used in the United States of America.
  2. ) If so, are similar devices in use in Australia.
  3. Have any similar rulings been handed down by Australian Courts.
  4. Has the use of radar speed detection devices in Australia been affected by Judge Nesbitt ‘s ruling; if so, in what respects.
  5. Is he able to state what (a) action has been taken by those responsible for radar devices in Australia since Judge Nesbitt ‘s ruling and (b) is the nature of the training and instruction given to officers charged with the operation of radar speed detection equipment; if so, is this instruction adequate.
  6. Are radar devices affected by Judge Nesbitt ‘s ruling likely to be sufficiently improved in the near future to overcome his objections; if so, what improvements must be made.
  7. Which Australian States and Territories currently use radar devices for speed detection.
  8. What other speed detection devices or techniques are available.
  9. What advantages or disadvantages do the use of radar devices ha ve in comparison with other methods.
  10. Has the use of radar devices enabled an increased rate of detection and conviction where these devices are in use.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. to (10) These are all questions which relate to the activities and responsibilities of State and Territory authorities. They are not matters for which I am responsible or upon which my Department is informed.

Air Fares (Question No. 4194)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 6 June 1 979:

Further to Question No. 3494 (Hansard, 22 May 1979, page 2226) is he now able to say if he has made a decision to act on the recommendation of Part 1 of the report of the Domestic Air Transport Policy Review that a detailed evaluation should be undertaken which takes account of real resource opportunity costs with a view to determining appropriate fare differentials between the various categories of fare types; if not, why not; and when does he expect to make a decision given the fact that the report was presented to him during early 1978.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

Discussions are currently being held between officers of my Department and the two major airlines on the recommendations of the Domestic Air Transport Policy Review Committee. A working group has been established to investigate more fully all the recommendations relating to fares, including the particular one referred to by the honourable member. A decision will be made following completion of the detailed evaluation as was recommended by the Review Committee.

Air Fares (Question No. 4195)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 6 June 1 979:

Further to Question No. 3494 (Hansard, 22 May 1979, page 2226) is he now able to say why he was unable to provide an informative explanation in support of his answer to part (4) of that question.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

The information necessary to provide an answer to that part of the honourable member’s question is not available.

Qantas Airways Ltd and Trans-Australia Airlines (Question No. 4228)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 6 June 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Is the Government considering, or has it considered, a proposal to amalgamate the operations of Qantas Airways Ltd and Trans-Australia Airlines; if so, what decision has been reached and what was the basis for that decision.
  2. If Trans-Australia Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd, are amalgamated what changes will be made by the Government in respect of the operation of domestic airline services.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. ) The Domestic Air Transport Policy Review (DATPR) Committee examined the possibility of merging Qantas and TAA. It concluded there are no compelling reasons for a merger between TAA and Qantas. The Government endorses that conclusion and has no intention of merging these two airlines.
  2. TAA and Qantas will not be amalgamated by this Government.

Flight Crews (Question No. 4229)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 6 June1 979:

  1. What information is he able to provide on aircrew employed by Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines and designated (a) reserve block holders and (b) flying block holders.
  2. In what circumstances are these crew utilised and where are they usually based.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. ) Planned flying is divided into sequences of flights called flying blocks. There are also planned reserve blocks to provide back-up pilots in the event of unexpected changes. Pilots bid for flying blocks and reserve blocks in order of seniority. Flight engineer flying is divided up equally amongst all available flight engineers, in composite blocks which include both flying duty and reserve duty.
  2. (a) Reserve blockholders are utilised to provide back-up flight crew in the event of schedule changes, sickness, fatigue or other non-availability of aircrew. Reserve blockholders are rostered for duty in the same way as flying blockholders, and must be available to fly within two hours of callout.

    1. Flying blockholders are utilised to operate the companies aircraft in accordance with the published timetable.
    2. Flight crews are based as follows:

Ansett- Melbourne, Brisbane, Cairns, Sydney, Adelaide, Perth, Proserpine

TAA- Melbourne, Brisbane, Mackay, Darwin.

Flight Crews (Question No. 4230)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 6 June 1979.

  1. ) How many aircrew by designation does Ansett Airlines and Trans-Australia Airlines employ on a reserve basis.
  2. What percentage does aircrew employed by each airline on a reserve basis form of total aircrew employed by each airline.
  3. What is the range of salaries payable to aircrew members employed on a reserve basis.
  4. What are the duties and conditions of aircrew employed on a reserve basis.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) Aircrew employed by designation
  1. Percentage of reserve pilots: Ansett 28 per cent TAA 40 per cent.
  2. Pilot salaries are not known- salaries are negotiated between the operating companies and AFAP. Reserve blockholders are guaranteed a minimum level of pay.
  3. Reserve blockholders are rostered for duty in the same way as flying blockholders, to be ready to fly within two hours of callout. Conditions of service are the same for all pilots in a company, as negotiated in employment contract between AFAP and company.

Air Safety Standards (Question No. 4276)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 7 June1979:

Did an incident involving an Ansett Fokker Friendship aircraft and another aircraft occur over Bass Strait about 24 November1978 as referred to in an article entitled ‘Air Safety Standards Falling’ which appeared in the Melbourne Age of 5 June1979; if so what was the specific nature of the incident and what action has been taken by him in respect of it.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

An air safety incident involving an Ansett Airlines of Australia Fokker Friendship and an Argosy aircraft operated by IPEC occurred over Bass Strait on 24 November 1978. The incident was investigated by the Air Safety Investigation Branch of my Department. Investigation indicated that a breakdown of co-ordination occurred between Air Traffic Controllers in Launceston with the result that the separation between the two aircraft temporarily became less than that prescribed in the applicable standards. Appropriate action was taken with the controllers concerned.

Town Planning in National Parks (Question No. 4281)

Mr Kerin:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 7 June 1 979:

  1. ) Is the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Service at loggerheads with the Northern Territory Government regarding the question of town planning in national parks in the Northern Territory;
  2. Is it a fact that the Minister or his predecessor disregarded the views of the Northern Territory Government in the matter referred to in part (1 ) at the time of the framing and passing of the relevant Bills and Acts.
  3. Is the Jabiru Town Development Act in conflict with the Commonwealth legislation; if so, what requirements by the Commonwealth are not being met by the Northern Territory Government.
  4. Has the Northern Territory Government conveyed its views directly to the Commonwealth Government.
  5. Is it also a fact that the Northern Territory Government has employed the services of Macintosh, Parkes and

Associates, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory to make its views known.

  1. Has this organisation issued any statements putting forward the Northern Territory Government’s point of view; if so, is this a usual form of Government to Government communication.
Mr Groom:
LP

-The Minister for Science and the Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) There are two townships in the Northern Territory associated with national parks proclaimed under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. These are at the Uluru (Ayers Rock- Mt Olga) National Park and the Kakadu National Park. The Yulara Village at Uluru is outside the Park boundary and the plan was developed by a joint Commonwealth/Northern Territory planning team. The plan for the Jabiru township in the Kakadu National Park was developed by consultants for the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. The Jabiru Town Development Authority has been established by the Northern Territory Government to construct the town substantially to this town plan.
  2. The Government had regard for all views, including those of the Northern Territory, during the framing of the Bills and the passing of the Acts relating to mining development, the establishment of townships, the protection of the environment and the welfare of the Aboriginal people in the Alligator Rivers Region.
  3. No. The National Parks and Wildlife Conversation Act at sub-section 8C(2) enables a township to be established and developed by the Jabiru Township Development Authority.
  4. Yes.
  5. I am not aware of the relationship the Northern Territory Government has with Macintosh, Parkes and Associates, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory.
  6. Macintosh, Parkes and Associates has issued a statement purporting to represent the views of the Northern Territory Government. I do not accept such statements as a communication between Governments.

Pritchard Steam Car Project (Question No. 4341)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 7 June 1979:

  1. At what stage is the development of the Pritchard steam car project.
  2. In what year did funding of the project by the Commonwealth Government commence.
  3. What funds have been provided to the project by the Commonwealth Government in each year.
  4. Which Department has been responsible for this funding.
  5. Under what item in that Department’s estimates was funding provided and what further funding is expected to be made.

    1. When is the Pritchard car likely to (a) go into commercial production and (b) go on sale to the public.
  6. What is the likely production cost of the car.
  7. By what means is the car likely to be marketed to the public.
  8. What safeguards are in existence to prevent the Pritchard car project from failing to reach the market as a result of purchase of the patents to the vehicle or the Pritchard Steam Power Company by major motor manufacturers.
  9. Does the Pritchard steam car meet the various emission control standards, including, where relevant, the third stage of Australian Design Rule 27 A.
  10. Will the (a) Australian Government and (b) State Governments purchase production models of the car for official use for trial and evaluation.
Mr Macphee:
Minister for Productivity · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) Under a 1 975 agreement with Pritchard Steam Power Pty Ltd, the Commonwealth, at no cost to the Company, manufactured at Bendigo Ordnance Factory 3 steam power units; during the latter half of 1977 they were delivered to the Company. The engines were made in accordance with the Company’s design and drawings and incorporated features which had been developed by Mr E. Pritchard and his father over a number of years. Title to these engines rests in the Company; responsibility for testing and for funding the testing also lies with the Company.

I understand that in drawing up the agreement both sides felt the importance of obtaining verifiable results from a power unit which would be built to approved engineering standards. They also envisaged that further development of the unit would take place, and in particular that the Company would road test an especially designed car powered by such a unit.

The Company was unable to raise sufficient money for its proposed testing program, and in 1976 approached the Commonwealth and Victorian Governments for assistance. In July 1977 I announced a Commonwealth/State grant of $150,000 ($100,000 from the Commonwealth and $50,000 from the State of Victoria) as a contribution towards the cost of the Company’s proposed testing program; these grants are covered by a further agreement.

The Company has now spent this grant without having completed the agreed testing program on the power units. The whole program is well behind schedule and budget despite revision; the Company has not managed to raise the funds necessary to enable testing to continue, and work on a unit installed in the car has made little progress.

Although substantial progress has been made in the design and construction of the car itself, it has not yet been on the road. However Mr Pritchard has found it necessary, in attempting to carry out the testing program, to make substantial use of the hardware of all three engines.

Other than the manufacture of the engines at Bendigo, the entire management of the program to date has been in the hands of Mr Pritchard.

From information I have received it seems clear that he has been beset by quite a number of annoying and timeconsuming mechanical difficulties which, although perhaps not insurmountable, have hindered the progress of his steam car project.

  1. , (3), (4) and (5) Commonwealth expenditure has been as follows:

No further funding by the Commonwealth is currently proposed.

  1. This question should properly be addressed to the Company; the Government is not currently involved in these stages of the venture and has no present plans of becoming so involved in the future. It seems however that it will be some years before sale of the car from commercial production will be possible.
  2. and (8) I am not in a position to answer these questions; they should also be addressed to the Company.
  3. 9 ) Under the terms of the 1977 agreement with the Commonwealth and the State of Victoria neither the Company nor Mr Pritchard may dispose of either the patents existing at the date of signature nor any arising from the testing program without the prior written agreement of the two Governments. Although the agreement does not cover disposal of the Company as such it clearly covers the industrial property which is its principal asset.
  4. 10) No road testing has yet been performed on a steam car powered by the units built at Bendigo. However some preliminary emission testing of these units on the bench, has given results which are encouraging.
  5. 1 believe that any attempt to answer this question would be premature in view of my replies to questions (6), (7) and (8).

Finance: Overseas Accommodation Costs (Question No. 3178)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 2 February 1979:

What sums were paid for (a) hotel or other accommodation for him and his staff on official overseas trips and (b) the rent overseas of (i) official offices and (ii) domestic premises used by any member of his Department during the periods (A) 11 November 1975 to 30 June 1976, (B) 1976-77,(C) 1977-78 and (D) 1 July 1978 to date.

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the Prime Minister’s answer to his Question No. 3172. (Weekly Hansard for the week 4-7 June, page 3 1 43 ).

Decentralisation Development Program (Question No. 4153)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 4 June 1979:

  1. 1 ) Can he state in relation to Commonwealth assistance under the Commonwealth Decentralisation Development Program (a) how many projects were approved, (b) the total value of those project and (c) the value of the financial assistance from the Australian Government towards those projects for (i) 1977-78 and (ii) the period I July 1978 to3l May 1979.
  2. Which organisations have had assistance approved under the program.
  3. ) What was the total level of assistance approved.
  4. What was the value of each project.
  5. What payments have been made to date.
  6. For what purposes was the assistance provided.
  7. What is the location of recipient organisations’ activities.
  8. What is the estimated direct and indirect employment effects (a) for the construction phase and (b) when these projects become fully operational.
  9. In each case under what terms and conditions has assistance been made available (including grant component, loan component, repayment period, repayment holidays, rate of interest, contribution from sponsoring organisation).
Mr Newman:
LP

– The answer to the first part of the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. (a) 37 as at 31 May 1979; (b) $39.3m; (c) (i) $4,124,000; (ii)$10,850,000.

The answers to parts (2) to (9), with the exception of contributions by sponsoring organisations, are set out in the following schedule. Sponsoring organisations’ contributions totalled $13,861,934. The balance of the total value of projects ($39.3m- see (l)(b)) was represented by loans and other contributions from third parties. Contributions by individual sponsors have not been shown because of the need to preserve confidentiality of commercial information.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 22 August 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1979/19790822_reps_31_hor115/>.