House of Representatives
9 October 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session

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

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

page 1711

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 New South Wales.

Respectfully showeth:

Dismay at the reduction in the total expenditure on education proposed for 1 980 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 1980 and to immediately restore and 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 Anthony, Mr Baume, Mr Birney, Mr Lionel Bowen, Mr Cadman, Mr Gillard, Mr James, Mr Les Johnson, Mr Kerin, Mr MacKellar, Mr MacKenzie, Mr Morris, Mr Neil and Mr Uren.

Petitions received.

Overseas Students

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

The petition of the undersigned, citizens of Australia, and overseas students, respectfully showeth our deepest opposition to the introduction of discriminatory fees for overseas students.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that fee policy on overseas students be revoked in view of the following:

  1. Financial Implications and Impact on the Matriculation Overseas Students.

The Matriculation students came to Australia under the impression that they would receive free education. However, this sudden imposition of fees will cause immense hardship to the students and their families. Many students will have to return to their home countries as they are unable to meet the fees. These students, on returning home, will not be accepted by any local tertiary institutions as the Australian Higher School Certificate or the Matriculation Statements (HSC) equivalents are not recognised by their home governments. These students will be deprived of any chances of further education.

Those applicants to study in Australia in 1980 (e.g. students in Taylor’s College, Malaysia) are caught in the dilemma either to bear the extra financial burden or to give up further education totally.

  1. Aid to developing countries.

The majority of overseas students studying in Australia came from the developing countries. Most of them did not have the opportunity to seek any advanced education owing to the poor and extreme shortage of educational facilities in their home countries. These developing countries need trained and tertiary education persons to help in meeting the challenge of technological development and to contribute to the economy of the countries. Australia, as a developed country, has a moral responsibility to assist the developing countries.

  1. Discriminatory Effect of the Introduction of Fees.

By the introduction of fees, it would mean only a few students from rich families would be able to come to study in Australia. Students from socially disadvantaged backgrounds would be deprived of the opportunity to obtain higher education. Thus making education a privilege, not a right.

  1. Interchange of cultures.

Overseas students have made a tremendous contribution in promoting better understanding and friendship between the people of Australia and the developing countries. The overseas students have provided the Australian public with the opportunity to learn and study the customs, life-style and different cultures of these various developing countries. Further, overseas students have made valuable contributions towards research and development in their post-graduate studies.

  1. Positive Form of Aid.

Providing educational opportunities to overseas students is the most effective and positive form of aid to developing countries.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Armitage, Dr Blewett, Mr Dawkins, Mr Humphreys, Mr Jacobi, Mr Keith Johnson, Mr Les Johnson, Mr Leo McLeay and Mr Martin.

Petitions received.

Metric System

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

That the 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 Baume, Mr Carlton, Mr Ellicott, Mr Hunt, Mr MacKellar, Mr Eric Robinson and Mr Shipton.

Petitions 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 women have 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 Braithwaite, Mr Dean, Mr MacKenzie, Mr Martyr, Mr McLean and Mr Shipton.

Petitions 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 the situation which has arisen as a result of the mass exodus of refugees from Indo-China is critical.

Accordingly, we feel that immediate and direct action should be taken to (i) raise significantly the numbers of refugees accepted into Australia and to implement measures to facilitate their prompt settlement; and to (ii) dispatch immediately increased humanitarian aid to alleviate crises in various internment and processing camps throughout South-East Asia.

Although we are aware of social and economic difficulties which may face Australia as a consequence, Australia is in a unique position of responsibility and opportunity with regard to the refugee problem.

Finally, we ask that appropriate pressure be put on those nations creating the present situation to help alleviate it. Your essential concern must be the preservation of human life.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Birney, Mr Jarman and Mr Barry Jones.

Petitions 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 Burns.

Petition received.

Red Army Choir

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

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

That the Red Army Choir is a military propaganda unit glorifying the Soviet regime which is still hostile to the democratic way of life. The Red Army is the main instrument in keeping formerly free people under subjugation, and its presence enables blatant violations of Human Rights to be perpetrated. The support, therefore, of such instruments of a totalitarian regime can only harm the development of free and liberal thought under it.

Your petitioners humbly pray that the Australian Government assert its support for the aspirations of subjugated people by denying entry into this country to the Red Army Choir.

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

Petition received.

Red Army Choir

To the Honourable the Speakerand Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.

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

That although artistically the Red Army Choir may be a great choir, it is nonetheless a propaganda unit of the Red Army, the army which is the instrument of the Communist dictatorship, bent on world domination along with the destruction of the Christian faith.

Your petitioners humbly pray that entry into Australia shall be denied to the Red Army Choir.

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

Petition received.

Red Army Choir

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

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

That we have heard the expressed intentions of one entrepreneur to bring the Red Army Choir to Australia, and declare, that regardless of its artistic merits or demerits, the Red Army Choir is as much a unit of the Red Army as a division of tanks or artillery. It is but a propaganda unit to glorify the Soviet regime in song and music.

Your petitioners humbly pray that just as entry into Australian ports is denied to Soviet warships, so too will entry be denied to the Red Army Choir.

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

Petition received.

Liquefied Petroleum Gas

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 price of LPG in Victoria has risen by $80 per tonne since November 1978 as a result of Federal Government policy thereby causing hardship to country consumers using LPG for cooking, heating and hot water and to decentralized industries using LPG for industrial purposes.

Your petitioners therefore pray.

  1. . that the Federal Government should abolish its so called export parity’ pricing policy for LPG consumed in Australia.
  2. that the price of Bass Strait LPG sold on the Australian market should be related to the true cost of production plus a fair margin of profit for the producers;
  3. that all LPG ex. Bass Strait consumed on the Australian market should be free of excise levy;
  4. that there should be no restriction on availability of LPG ex. Bass Strait to meet the requirements of the Australian market;
  5. that the price of LPG ex. oil refineries should be established by the P.J.T. at parity with Bass Strait LPG consumed on the Australian market;

  6. that pending the establishment of a fair price in accordance with Clause 2 above and to provide some immediate relief to country consumers;

    1. the existing excise on Bass Strait LPG consumed in Australia be abolished forthwith, thus providing a reduction in price of $27.60 per tonne for propane,
    2. that the windfall profit that Esso/B.H.P. is enjoying as a result of the increase in price of LPG from $ 1 10 to $147 per tonne be directed to Australian consumers rather than the Federal Treasury through excise, thus providing an additional decrease in the present price of $37.00 per tonne.

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

Petitions 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 objection to the Metric system, and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron and Mr Jarman.

Petitions received.

Unemployment

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, as it is clear that unemployment is a long term problem in Australia, the Government should extend to the unemployed the same assistance as is given to any other disadvantaged member of the community. There is an urgent need to alleviate the financial hardship and emotional stress that the unemployed are suffering.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

  1. That the Government adopt positive policies to reduce unemployment,
  2. That the basic Unemployment Benefit be raised to at least the level of the poverty line as calculated by Professor Henderson,
  3. In line with other Social Service additional income awards, and in order to encourage work creation schemes and the fostering of initiative and self respect, that the $6 per week additional income limit be raised to at least $20 per week.
  4. That the financial penalties above the earning of $20 per week, assessed on a monthly basis, be calculated at the same rate as other Social Security benefits.
  5. That the Commonwealth grant subsidies to state governments so that the unemployed can be granted transport concessions in order that they are not penalised injob seeking.
  6. That pharmaceutical and medical concessions be granted to the unemployed equivalent to those received by other Social Service beneficiaries.

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

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 NSW respectfully showeth:

That the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act 1977 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. byMrBirney.

Petition received.

Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme

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

The humble petition of the undersigned students of the Ballarat College of Education showeth that:

  1. The petitioners believe that the current Tertiary Education Assistance Schemes maximum allocation per student is inadequate to properly meet the basic requirements of students.
  2. The petitioners believe that the minimum allocation of TEAS should be increased to a level equal to the poverty line, (as established by Commonwealth Government inquiries), or should at least be brought into line with levels of unemployment benefits, as they currently stand.
  3. The petitioners are totally opposed to the introduction of any form of student loans scheme to replace TEAS.

Your petitioners therefore pray that you will give immediate attention to considering the above.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byDr Blewett.

Petition received.

Marine Radio Licence Fees

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 oppose the increase in Radio Licence Fees on Marine Radios for the following reasons-

  1. 1 ) Radios are an essential part of safety equipment.
  2. Marine radio users save the government millions of dollars in search and rescue.
  3. Increased licences will deter the boating fraternity from purchasing and using radios for their own, and others safety.

We also oppose the Radio Regulation that allows and encourages the use of CB radios in boats for the following reasons-

  1. 1 ) The difficulties and delays involved in obtaining positive identification that a boat is transmitting the message.
  2. The break down in communication between marine radio bases and boats, and boats using CB radio that are in trouble.
  3. Costs for search and rescue will escalate due to these delays.
  4. Safety standards will be lowered, Sea Rescue Membership will decline, increasing work load on remaining members under less efficient radio communication.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray the government will reconsider the licence fee and also consider a reduction for pensioners.

We also humbly pray that the regulation allowing the use of CB radio in Marine situations be rescinded. by Mr Braithwaite.

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 child-abuse material in any form whatsoever such as magazines, novels, papers or films;
  4. to take immediate police action to confiscate and destroy all child pornography in Australia and urgent appropriate legal action against all those involved or profiting from this sordid exploitation of children.

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

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

Petition received.

Royal Commission on Human Relationships

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 because the Report of the Royal Commission on Human Relationships and especially its Recommendations:

  1. Have been widely condemned for its support of unAustralian, anti-family, anti-child behaviour and morals such as incest, promiscuity, abortion, pornography, homosexuality, prostitution and brothels, etc.
  2. Have been strongly criticised by the medical profession for the absence of any medical practitioner on the Commission or on its staff of 3 1 persons, and for the Commissioners action in rejecting or ignoring relevant medical evidence.
  3. Have been discredited as irresponsible in adopting a new definition of the family, i.e., ‘a varying range of people living together in relationships of commitment’, which has effectively confused the real meaning and intentions of the Report where it refers to the ‘ family ‘.

Therefore the Parliament has a responsibility to the families of Australia not to adopt this controversial Report and its Recommendations.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the Australian Parliament will:

  1. Simply receive the Report and not adopt its Recommendations,
  2. Set up a Select Parliamentary Committee along the lines of the New Zealand Select Committee to conduct a public inquiry into the ways and means of supporting and strengthening family life and providing adequate protection for children from physical and sexual abuse before as well as after birth in accordance with the UNO Declaration of the Rights of the Child as part of Australia ‘s support for the Year of the Child.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will take no measures concerning the Royal

Commission on Human Relationships Report that will further undermine and weaken marriage, child-care or the family which is the basic unit of our society.

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

Petition received.

Australian Heritage Commission

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

There is a growing interest and concern in all sections of Australian society for the conservation of the environment, natural and man-made.

That there are also rapidly growing pressures by powerful forces tending towards the destruction of the Australian heritage.

That it is therefore urgent to appoint the Australian Heritage Commission, which was approved by both sides of this Parliament, and to give the Commission sufficient independent staff, resources and funds.

That Technical Assistance Grants and Administrative Support Grants to community organisations are needed to partially redress the gross imbalance in technical expertise and resources suffered by community groups in pressing the community’s case against the exploiter.

That a proper balance between the Government’s program of public austerity and the need for action in conservation would be a modest increase in the budget allocations in these areas over that of 1 975-76.

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

Petition received.

Nursing Home Fees

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

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That, because increased fees at nursing homes throughout Australia are forcing patients to either draw heavily from their savings to meet fees above their aged pension, or leave their homes for alternative accommodation, we urge that the Government:

  1. review immediately the Commonwealth’s contribution to the standard nursing home fee,
  2. undertake to review the Commonwealth’s contribution to the standard fee on a quarterly, or at least half yearly basis.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will request the Government to review the Commonwealth’s contribution to the standard nursing home fee and that further reviews be undertaken on a quarterly basis.

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

Petition received.

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Bill

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

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectively 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 1 979 be withdrawn, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. byMrHurford.

Petition received.

Health of Aboriginal People

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

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that there are Australian Aboriginal children living under conditions of inadequate nutrition in a background of poor housing, hygiene, and overcrowding that amounts to a Third World enclave in the midst of affluence’ (see also the Report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs ‘Aboriginal Health’ 1979); that such a state of affairs is intolerable in our country; that only an effort on an unprecedented scale could create conditions that would give these children the rights set out in the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child.

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

Petition received.

Education

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 further cutbacks in Commonwealth funding to State Schools and transferral of funds to wealthy independent schools as required under the guidelines to the Schools Commission announced by the Minister for Education in early June are of vital concern in that they mitigate against the interests of the great majority of Australian Children in State Schools.

That Queensland State Schools have not reached the Resource Usage Targets set by the Schools Commission, and even at those financial levels will fall well short of actual provision standards envisaged by the Commission.

That Queensland’s effort in respect of Capital works is particularly of concern being less than half the per capita effort of other States.

Your petitioners therefore call on their legislators to ensure:

  1. That Federal funding to State Schools is restored to at least 1974-75 levels;
  2. b) the independence of the Schools Commission to recommend the allocation of funds to schools on the basis of need, unhindered by Government directive; and
  3. that sufficient funds are provided to Queensland, appropriately tied, to ensure achievement of National standards in this State.

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

Petition received.

Television

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

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Gippsland of the State of Victoria, respectfully showeth, that many Gippsland television viewers enjoy excellent reception of Melbourne based television stations, such reception of programs in the area has been of mutual benefit to both Melbourne and country commercial interests and country citizens generally. This good reception has been of particular benefit to many viewers in the central and western end of Gippsland who have experienced difficulty in having receivers pick up a clear signal from GLV 10. Most Gippsland TV viewers who receive Melbourne station signals have gone to considerable expense to provide special antennas and booster equipment.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that, no action be taken which would prejudice the signal of Channels 7 and 9 being received in the Gippsland Region. by Mr Barry Jones.

Petition 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 Martin.

Petition received.

Marine Radio Licence Fees

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

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

That we strongly oppose the increase in Marine Radio Licence fees for the following reasons:

  1. 1 ) Radios are an essential part of safety equipment.
  2. Marine Radio users save the government millions of dollars in Search and Rescue.
  3. Increased licence fees will deter the boating fraternity from purchasing and using radios for their own safety and assistance to other craft will be therefore reduced. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the government will not only reconsider the increased licence fee, but consider a reduction of same in the interest of safety.

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

Petition received.

Sale of Publicly Owned Enterprises

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

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

There is a definite limit to the quantity of Australia’s mineral resources.

Accordingly our resources should be managed and developed under Australian ownership and control.

Publicly owned trading enterprises and corporations have been established and operated for the benefit of Australians since Federation.

The Commonwealth Banking Corporation, Trans Australia Airlines, Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, Australian Wheat Board, were all designed to operate to the benefit of our Nation as a whole under public ownership.

The Fraser government’s irresponsible proposals to sell off our Nation’s interest in the Ranger Uranium Mine, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, and to dispose of other successful statutory corporations such as Trans Australia Airlines, would be contrary to the Nation’s interests.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will reject outright proposals of the Fraser government to sell the Ranger Uranium Mine, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, Trans Australia Airlines, and other publicly owned enterprises.

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

Petition received.

Pensions

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 restoration of provisions of the Social Security Act that applied prior to the 1978-79 Budget is of vital concern to offset the rising cost of goods and services.

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

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

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

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

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

Petition received.

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

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

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

Petition received.

Department of Productivity: Working Environment Division

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 proposed transfer of the staff of the Working Environment Division of the Department of Productivity will seriously impede the effective functioning of this element of that Department in its daily contact with industry, commerce and unions, and

That this will lessen the success of Commonwealth initiatives in the fields of employee participation, personnel practice, research, health, safety and national productivity promotion, and

That this will incur unjustifiable extra cost to Commonwealth administration, and

That the proposal is outside the Guidelines set down for public service relocation.

Your petitioners therefore, pray;

That Parliament Decide that the best usage of the Working Environment Division requires it to be permanently sited in a major industrial city (for example, Melbourne or Sydney) and so it shall remain.

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

Petition received.

Invalid Pensioners

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

We present this petition to seek a fairer and better deal for handicapped persons.

We urge you to implement this request through your Minister for Social Security.

The signatories to this petition are pleased to acknowledge the action your Government has taken to reverse the Budget announcement and therefore exclude the Invalid Pension from taxable income.

We now urge you to act in another area of discrimination to handicapped persons by:

Increasing the $20.00 per week income allowed in a sheltered workshop to $40.00 per week, before that income begins to reduce pension benefits; and then tie the $40.00 per week level with C.P.I. /pension adjustments in the future.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you act in this area of discrimination to handicapped persons by increasing the $20.00 per week income allowed in a sheltered workshop to $40.00 per week, before that income begins to reduce pension benefits; and then tie the $40.00 per week level with C.P.I./pension adjustments in the future.

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

Petition received.

page 1717

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– I inform the House that the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) left Australia on 4 October for trade talks in Thailand, Japan and Korea. The Minister for Special Trade Representations (Mr Garland) will act as Minister for Trade and Resources until Mr Anthony’s return on 17 October. The Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee) left Australia on5 October to attend the South Pacific Conference in Tahiti and will return on 14 October. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) will act as Minister for Productivity during Mr Macphee ‘s absence.

page 1717

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1717

QUESTION

TRADING STOCK VALUATION ADJUSTMENT

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

-Did the Acting Treasurer note in the Australian Financial Review of 8 October a survey of 75 companies? If so, did he note that the survey disclosed that, because of the abolition of the trading stock valuation adjustment, those companies would have to increase pre-tax profits by an average of 12 per cent to maintain steady net earnings and that some companies would have to increase pre-tax profits by as much as 40 per cent? Does he recognise that because of the abolition of the trading stock valuation adjustment allowance the tax paid by those companies will increase on average by 26 per cent whilst for some companies the increase will be a massive 90 per cent? In view of the Government ‘s decision to abolish the trading stock valuation adjustment allowance, is it the expectation of the Government that companies, to maintain dividend payments, will increase prices and thereby fuel already rising inflation? Alternatively, does the Government expect the corporate sector to cut back on expansion plans as a response to lower cash flows, thereby reducing investment and economic growth and worsening unemployment?

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I did not read the article referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. It is true that the Government has decided to discontinue the trading stock valuation adjustment. That decision was reached after the Government looked at all the implications. It is fair to observe that the benefit of the trading stock valuation adjustment was not used by the corporate sector in the manner in which either its architect or the Government believed it ought to be used. I know from my own experience that a number of people in the corporate area now recognise that it was not used in the manner in which it ought to have been used.

The Leader of the Opposition continues with his attitude that discontinuance of the trading stock valuation adjustment will create some gloom; that there will be increased prices. That will not be the case; nor will it create conditions under which expansion of the private sector will not occur. In fact, good investment and export signs are evident in the Australian economy which I am certain the Leader of the Opposition could well observe in his quieter moments.

page 1718

QUESTION

FISHING AGREEMENT WITH JAPAN

Mr JULL:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

– Can the Minister for Primary Industry say what stage the reconsideration of the proposed Japanese fishing agreement for the martin waters in north Queensland has reached? Is the Government prepared not to proceed with the signing of that agreement?

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Primary Industry · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · NCP/NP

-In relation to the second part of the honourable member’s question, at this point it would be improper of me to confirm or deny that I am prepared to proceed. The Government is looking at the facts of the matter. We have been in touch with the Queensland Government to try to establish the facts before coming to an ultimate decision as to the procedure and the signing of the document on Wednesday week.

page 1718

QUESTION

SOUTH KOREA

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs received any advice that the Leader of the Opposition in South Korea, Mr Kim Yung Sam, has been expelled from the National Assembly by a vote of the Government? If so, what action has the Australian Government taken in respect of that expulsion? Does the Minister acknowledge that Mr Kim’s expulsion could readily endanger the stability in that region?

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

-I will answer the question briefly. As the honourable gentleman would be aware, I have just arrived back from the United Nations General Assembly. I had discussions with the Secretary of State and the Assistant Secretary of State. They were the only discussions that I had on this issue while I was there. I have yet to discuss the matter with officers of my Department, but I will be doing so. I regret that I have to leave the answer as brief as that at this juncture.

page 1718

QUESTION

NATIONAL YOUTH CONFERENCE

Mr CHAPMAN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I direct a question to the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs. How successful does he consider last week’s inaugural National Youth Conference, which was sponsored by the Federal Government, to have been? Following his commitment to take the major recommendations of the conference to Cabinet, will the Minister seek to ensure that Cabinet gives early consideration and an early response to these recommendations?

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

– I thank the honourable member for his question. He was present throughout the conference and saw the positive contribution which was made by the conference to the primary objectives for which it was called. They were: Firstly, to present a national forum for the youth of Australia; secondly, to give youth representatives an opportunity to express their views; and thirdly, to see that the channels of communication between youth and government were opened. Having observed that the honourable member was present at the conference, I noticed the absence of the honourable member for Port Adelaide. The public presentation of the conference was that there was a lot of noise, some agitation, and attempts to disrupt the conference. I can confidently tell this House that the majority of those attending the conference were there to make a positive contribution in their own interests. In fact, out of the 130 or 140 persons who were present, seven chose not to have lunch with us at the National Press Club. At the end of the conference I gave a clear commitment that the Government would take seriously the matters discussed and the resolutions passed and that they would be quickly processed by all departments having an interest in them. I told the conference that I would be notifying all Ministers of the resolutions and would be asking Ministers to give me a response. I gave an undertaking that I would meet with 12 delegates from the conference, chosen by the conference at random, together with the 12 members of the National Youth Advisory Group, to consider the outcome of the conference.

I think that one aspect of the conference that the House would be very interested in and gratified to hear about is the role played by the under 20s and the role played by those 40 delegates who were chosen from the phone-in. They were concerned at one stage of the conference that the more articulate, older members present- those who had experience through their activities within various youth groups- were really out-talking the younger people who lacked experience in this kind of forum. The younger people got together on the Thursday night and, as a result, the following day they published their own statement of matters that were of interest to them. I think those of us who attended the conference could see the increasing confidence that these younger delegates showed and the increasing contribution that they made. For my part, I thought that was the most heartening aspect of it because, if those under 20-year-old participants are any reflection of the attitudes of the young people of Australia, I think we can have great confidence in their participation in the overall future of Australia.

page 1719

QUESTION

TAX AVOIDANCE

Mr JACOBI:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Acting Treasurer whether he is aware of a Queensland based tax avoidance scheme known as the ‘Flowerland scheme’, which advertises that, for a minimum investment of $2,500, $7,500 can be claimed as a full taxation deduction. Is he aware that the additional $5,000 is contributed by the promoters of the scheme by way of a loan, yet the investor claims a full deduction? Will he provide details of the scheme to the House? What action does he intend to take to prevent this massive tax avoidance scheme?

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I am not aware in detail of that scheme but I will ascertain all the information that I can get and advise the honourable member about it. It is fair to observe that the present Treasurer during his period in the Treasury has done more than anybody else in the history of this country to clamp down on tax avoidance schemes. He ought to be commended on the manner in which he has conducted that responsibility. Indeed, I am not aware of any initiative which the present Leader of the Opposition or two other Treasurers took during Labor’s term of office.

page 1719

QUESTION

COMMUNITY YOUTH SUPPORT SCHEME

Mr MILLAR:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– In view of expressed concern at alleged cuts in Community Youth Support Scheme programs involving materials and project officers, I ask the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs to inform the House whether there is any substance to the allegations and, if so, to what extent they affect the continuing prospects for the CYSS and thereby the employment opportunities for young people in Wide Bay.

Mr VINER:
LP

– I thank the honourable gentleman for the question because there has been some misapprehension on the part of the Opposition, amongst others, as to the actual position concerning funding of Community Youth Support Scheme projects in this financial year. I think the confusion has arisen because the appropriation in last year’s Budget was $9m and then, in December of last year, the Government approved the expenditure of an additional $3. 26m, that being the amount anticipated to be required to meet commitments for the balance of the last financial year. In fact, only $ 1.7m of the $3.26m was spent, so that the actual expenditure last financial year was $ 10.7m. This year, the Government has made provision for an expenditure of $ 10m, that being the anticipated funding requirements for on-going projects and new projects.

I should explain to the honourable member that in each State there is a State CYSS committee and it is that committee which receives applications for the continuation of projects or for new projects. Those State committees also make recommendations as to the level of funds for continuing projects or new projects. It was on the basis of information that the Government had as to the requirements of those State committees that the appropriation of $ 10m was made. The Government also thought that because of the rapid growth in CYSS projects over the last two years, from nil to something like 330 projects, it should use this year as one of consolidation. I think honourable members from both sides of the House can be both praiseworthy and critical of CYSS projects within their electorates. I know that I can speak for the Opposition in this respect because a number of Opposition members have spoken to me about it. I would think that all honourable members would be satisfied with the overall objective of using this year as one of consolidation in order that the good projects may be maintained and those that are not working so well can be either disbanded or brought down to an appropriate level, so that by the end of the year we can say that public funds are being effectively used. The other aspect worth mentioning is the experience of the honourable member for Henty -

Mr Uren:

-i raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. So that we can start off this period of sittings without having to listen to Ministers being lengthy in their replies and ignoring your rulings, will you instruct them to make their replies brief?

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order. I ask the Minister to remain relevant to the question.

Mr VINER:

– I was about to point out not only that there are situations where the evaluation will show that projects need to be continued at a different level but also that the experience of the honourable member for Henty was that a local CYSS committee disbanded itself because it found that it was very successful in finding work for those who were in need in the community. I applaud that conduct and ask all honourable members to try to achieve that result.

page 1720

QUESTION

WHEAT STABILISATION LEGISLATION

Mr NIXON:
NCP/NP

– I am pleased to say that at least one member of the Opposition is prepared to ask a question on primary industry matters. I can understand why the former Minister, who is sitting in the House, used to be bored to tears with the Opposition from day to day. As far as wheat stabilisation is concerned, one outstanding matter has been delaying introduction of the Bill; that is, that the States and the Commonwealth have not yet reached agreement on the question there being a ceiling on the price for industrial and stockfeed wheat. I understand that the Minister for Agriculture in New South Wales is at the heart of this delay. Perhaps the honourable member for Riverina can enlighten us on that. In point of fact, complementary legislation is required in all the States, and therefore it is necessary to get all the States to agree on the form that the legislation will take. As soon as that is done the Bill will be introduced into the House. Regarding the comment that there is no full time Minister for Primary Industry, let me assure the honourable member that as Minister for Primary Industry I will be as active as the portfolio demands and the best test of that will be for the honourable member to keep on asking me questions.

page 1720

QUESTION

MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL CONSUMPTION

Mr SHIPTON:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for National Development. It concerns the Government’s energy policy announced by the Prime Minister in June this year, particularly the conservation measures in that policy. I ask the Minister: What progress has been made in reaching the fuel economy targets for new passenger cars, which should result in savings of 5 per cent in 1983 and 12 per cent in 1987? Does the Minister believe that the addition of turbochargers to car engines can help to achieve these fuel economy goals? If so, will the Government consider exempting turbo-charger kits from sales tax?

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

– It is true that the Government has laid down for the motor vehicle manufacturers a voluntary code for improving the weighted average of fuel consumption. It is true to say that that code will result in 5 per cent savings of motor spirit in 1983 and 12 per cent savings in 1987 by reducing the average of 1 1 litres per 100 kilometres, as I think it stands now, to nine litres in 1983 and eight litres in 1987.1am pleased to be able to tell the honourable member that on results presently being given to my Department and to my colleague, the Minister for Transport, the motor vehicle manufacturers are moving to that position which we have laid down in the voluntary code. The question of turbochargers presents a much more difficult problem. It is by no means clear that the investment required to place turbo-chargers on vehicles as an ordinary option would in fact be on. I can only tell the honourable member that we are looking very closely at this subject. When the examination is complete we will be making appropriate announcements.

The only other thing I would say to the honourable member is that all the conservation measures that the Government has adopted in the last year or so will be brought together in the national energy conservation conference that we are having on Monday next here in Canberra when a number of very important speakers will be gathered together to talk about the issue of conservation. Of course, a week after that, we will be launching the national energy conservation program around Australia in consultation and co-operation with the States.

page 1721

QUESTION

HOSPITALS IN COAL MINING AREAS

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Does the Minister for Health agree that the most dangerous profession and the most accident prone industry in Australia is coal mining? Is he aware of the great consternation of the people of Kurri Kurri in the electorate of Hunter at the contemplated change in status of their hospital from an acute to a geriatric hospital? This hospital was built with subsidies from miners’ wages in 1904 or thereabouts. Will he consider recommending to his Government that special grants be allocated to maintain hospitals in coal mining areas at their present levels?

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

– I am aware that the coal mining industry is a dangerous industry, although in New South Wales, according to the latest Joint Coal Board report, in the last five years there has been a significant drop in the number of fatalities. I think the figures dropped by about half of the number of fatalities in the preceding five years. So, quite clearly, the safety measures that are being employed in the industry are making the industry much safer for the miners. However, I am aware of the great consternation of the people of Kurri Kurri about the suggested change in the status of their hospital. The honourable gentleman brought the matter to my attention some time ago. I have had a number of telegrams and representations, all of which I have sent on to my colleague the Minister for Health in New South Wales. The New South Wales Minister for Health is aware that the Commonwealth Government was successful in allocating to New South Wales no less than $438m, which is 14 per cent more -

Mr MacKenzie:

– How much?

Mr HUNT:

– Fourteen per cent more than it received last year as the Commonwealth’s contribution towards the net operating costs of the hospitals in that State. The Commonwealth Government allocated to the New South Wales Government sufficient resources to allow the hospital operation to continue at existing levels of activity- they were the levels of 1978-79 - whilst the national inquiry into hospitals is under way. But the New South Wales Government has chosen to open Westmead and a number of other new units around the State and has chosen to change the status of some of the other hospitals in Sydney, in some of our country areas and certainly at Kurri Kurri.

I will join with the honourable gentleman in representations to Mr Stewart, the New South Wales Minister for Health. I have taken the liberty of talking to the regional director for the Hunter region and he has given me an assurance that he will talk to the hospital board at Kurri Kurri and see whether some variation can be made to satisfy the concern of the people living in that town and district. I do take seriously the concern of the honourable member for Hunter. I think it would be reprehensible on the part of the New South Wales Health Commission and the Government of New South Wales to reduce the status of the Kurri Kurri Hospital to that of a nursing home.

page 1721

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr MacKENZIE:

-Is the Prime Minister aware that unemployment in New South Wales has dropped to the lowest level for more than two years? Is this decline in the number of unemployed in New South Wales a result of this Federal Government’s economic policies?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I did see reported in this morning’s newspapers a statement by Mr Wran in which he tried to claim credit for the improved employment position in New South Wales. Of course, when Mr Wran has not been close to an election he has quite often supported the broad thrust of the economic policies of this Government, and he has in fact roundly criticised the hotch-potch of policies emanating from the Australian Labor Party and the Adelaide conference. To the extent that he is prepared to support the thrust of this Government’s policies- restraint in government expenditure and endeavours to keep taxes as low as possible- I think we work, to a degree, in parallel.

Quite plainly it is this Government’s policies which have revived business interest and confidence throughout Australia. Had the policies of our predecessors been in place the aluminium smelters and the other resource developments that are now taking place in New South Wales- as they are in other States- would not have eventuated. They would not have been possible under the inflation rates of previous times; they would not have been possible under the foreign investment policies of previous times; and they would not have been possible under the general disarray of Labor in office in Canberra.

If there is to be any improvement in the economy of a State the policies of the Commonwealth Government are of paramount and critical concern. I am glad to see that Mr Wran has paid recognition to the fact that the New South Wales economy is improving and that he has indicated satisfaction with the rate of progress. I think these things ought to be remembered. No doubt in future months we will be able to remind Mr Wran that he has said those particular things. Of course, it is also true that the policies of a State government can complement the Federal Government’s broad economic policies or, as in the case of the previous South Australian Government, frustrate development totally. To the extent that a State has complementary policies supporting and assisting what we are doing, it is obviously a help.

I think I would have to give Mr Wran this credit: He does recognise the importance of development; he does recognise the importance of investment; he does recognise the importance of overseas confidence; he has recognised the need to attract overseas investment, projects and support in a way that the Federal Labor Party has never done and in a way that the South Australian Labor Party has never done. I was interested to see the remarks in this morning’s Press. The improvement in New South Wales has come about largely as a result of this Government ‘s policies; but if Mr Wran wants to take some satisfaction from it I certainly would not want to take that opportunity away from him.

page 1722

QUESTION

WATER RESOURCES PROGRAM

Mr WALLIS:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Has the attention of the Minister for National Development been drawn to statements by the relevant South Australian Minister that the South Australian Government is to alter priorities in the allocation of water resources funding and drop plans for the filtration of the Murray River water for northern South Australian towns? Will any Federal funding be involved in this change of priorities and, if so, will the Minister use his influence to alter the South Australian Government’s plans so that effect can be given to the former Government’s proposals for such filtration?

Mr NEWMAN:
LP

– I am not aware of the comments that have been mentioned, so I cannot comment directly on what the honourable member says has been said. I make it clear to the honourable member that this Government does not stand in the way of State governments allocating and deciding their own priorities for national water resources. The system is clear. We accept from each government its priorities based on reasonable argument as to how it would bid on the water resources money available from this Government. I am sure that if what the honourable member says is true, and the South Australian Government is changing its priorities, the change is based on factual evidence and it is a proper thing for the State to be doing.

page 1722

QUESTION

IMPORTED HEALTH PRODUCTS

Mr BURNS:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for Health seen reports in last month’s Medical Journal of Australia indicating that imported herbal teas and ginseng are poisonous and detrimental to health? What action is being taken to control their importation?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

– My attention has been drawn to the article that appeared in the 8 September edition of the Medical Journal of Australia. For the information of the honourable member, I point out that the current policy in relation to herbal remedies is to allow importation of those products included in what is called a ‘safe list’, provided no therapeutic claims are made for the products and evidence of quality and /or identity is available. The ‘safe list’ contains the herbal tea to which the honourable gentleman has referred. In view of the article and the recent Californian study which was reported upon in that article, and in view of the honourable gentleman’s concern, I have asked my Department to undertake a thorough study of the particular brand of herbal tea mentioned and other herbal teas that are being imported into Australia. I have asked the Department to furnish a report to the Government on what action, if any, should be taken to protect the health of the Australian people.

page 1722

QUESTION

FEES CHARGED BY PRIVATE ORTHOPAEDIC SPECIALISTS

Mr FRY:

– Is the Minister for Health aware of the view of the Capital Territory Health Commission that a private orthopaedic specialist is entitled to charge $ 104 for setting a broken limb when in fact the limb was set by a resident medical officer whose salary is paid by the Government? Does he agree that the service is being paid for twice- the salaried officer is paid for setting the limb and the specialist is paid for not setting it? Does he approve of the facilities of public hospitals being made available free of charge so that private specialists can conduct clinics and charge patients for services which they do not carry out? Finally, will the Minister consider a proposal that part of the fee which the private specialist receives for work which he has not done should be paid to the hospital for the work which its staff performs?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

– I am most concerned about the case to which the honourable member has referred. I have directed that where hospital staff performs a procedure and a specialist undertakes aftercare only- I think this is what happened in the case to which the honourable gentleman referred- the benefit payable for the specialist service shall be limited to SO per cent of the benefit payable under the item for the procedure- in this case the treatment of a fracture. In the specific case referred to, the specialist, after being approached by the Capital Territory Health Commission, has agreed to submit an account not exceeding the benefit payable in accordance with this general direction. I regard this whole area as one of great concern. I think that it will be the subject of considerable inquiry in the course of the national inquiry into hospitals. Clearly there is a need to redefine the policies in respect of such referrals within the hospital system. I thank the honourable gentleman for bringing this matter to the attention of the Commission and me as the Minister. We have taken action to try to ensure that justice is done to the patient concerned.

page 1723

QUESTION

DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE: HOTELS AND MOTELS

Mr JULL:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Following the announcement in the Budget of the introduction of the depreciation allowance for hotels and motels of 10 units or more, can the Minister say when the legislation to cover this aspect of the Budget will be introduced? Can he give an indication of any increased interest in the building of new hotels in Australia since the Budget?

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

-The Budget recently brought down by the Treasurer provided for a very significant number of initiatives to support the tourist industry which, as I have made clear in the House previously, is one of the exciting growth industries for the 1980s. One of the specific measures brought down was that to which the honourable gentleman adverted- building depreciation- which is in the process of final discussion at official and ministerial level. Although I do not guarantee the matter to the honourable gentleman- it remains within the province of the Leader of the House- it certainly is the Government’s very firm intention that such legislation be brought down during this session. As a consequence of the lowering of international air fares by my colleague the Minister for Transport there has been a major increase in the number of short term visitors to Australia. What is desperately required in this country at the present time is the development of an adequate tourist infrastructure and this, of course, means the construction of a number of new hotel-motel buildings of the type which the honourable gentleman would have in mind.

I might say in response to the final part of his question that I am aware of a number of negotiations which are taking place in the industry at the present time. However, I think that companies in the free enterprise area are waiting to see the fine print of the legislation. I hope that the legislation will be before the House before the end of the session. I know very well the honourable gentleman’s interest in this question and again I reflect on the contribution which the honourable gentleman has made to the tourist industry as a consequence of his chairmanship of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Tourism.

page 1723

QUESTION

FISHING AGREEMENT WITH JAPAN

Mr COHEN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the new Minister for Primary Industry: On what scientific information concerning the population of black martin in the waters off the Great Barrier Reef did the Government decide to allow Japanese long-line fishermen access to fish for tuna and black marlin in the proposed 200-mile Australian fishing zone?

Mr NIXON:
NCP/NP

– Clearly the honourable member does not know all the facts in relation to this matter.

Mr Cohen:

– I asked a simple question. Give me a simple answer.

Mr NIXON:

– You will get a simple answer.

Mr Cohen:

– That is right. That is all you can give.

Mr NIXON:

– That is all you need; a simple answer for Simple Simon. Clearly the honourable member does not know all the facts in relation to this matter. The fact is that the Japanese have been fishing these waters -

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order. There was no need for that barrage of interjection. I ask the Minister to treat the question as a request for information.

Mr NIXON:

-I repeat: Clearly the honourable member does not know all the facts in relation to this matter; otherwise he would not have asked the question. Let me repeat that if the honourable member knew anything at all about this matter he would not have asked the question. The fact is that the Japanese have been fishing these waters for 20 years. Understand that and cop that. Quite clearly the honourable member has made no effort even to begin to understand the issues; otherwise he would have been aware of that.

In all the discussions that have taken place in respect of martin fishing in these waters, whatever scientific evidence has been available has been used. One of the problems is that there is a complete lack of scientific evidence. The only evidence of any use at all is the experience the Japanese have gained from fishing these waters over the past 20 years. On that basis and on the knowledge of the history of fishing in these waters an agreement has been reached with the Japanese. I assure the House that in reaching the agreement proper consultations have taken place among the Queensland Government, the Queensland fisheries organisation and the responsible Commonwealth authorities. The only new aspects which have occurred have occurred in recent days, and they are that the light game sporting organisation became concerned about the possibility of increased fishing in light game areas and the protection of the black martin breeding areas. I have to confess that I have a special interest in this in that I am a keen light game fisherman. Having declared that prejudice, I will endeavour to look at this matter through impartial eyes and hold impartial discussions with all the people concerned on the issue before the Government comes to an impartial judgment.

page 1724

QUESTION

NATIONAL YOUTH CONFERENCE

Mr CONNOLLY:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Has the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs seen claims that in his address to last week’s National Youth Conference he indicated that the Government was considering removing unemployment benefits from some young people and requiring parents to support and maintain their children? Are these claims correct?

Mr VINER:
LP

– If any honourable member were to read the text of the speech that I made, he would see that I did not say what has been reported in the media or what has been rather hysterically condemned by the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Port Adelaide. In order to put the record straight, Mr Speaker, might I seek leave to table the full text of a speech from which my address to the conference was taken?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Minister does not require leave to table the document.

Mr Young:

– You want to incorporate it.

Mr VINER:

– Well, I would be very happy to incorporate it.

Mr Young:

– Put in the decisions of the conference.

Mr VINER:

– I would be very happy to incorporate the-

Mr Young:

– No, put in the decisions of the conference. Put the decisions in too, and stop your snivelling.

Mr VINER:

-Mr Speaker, I table the document.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. The honourable member for Port Adelaide will withdraw that statement.

Mr Young:

– I withdraw.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Minister has sought leave to incorporate his speech in Hansard. Is leave granted?

Mr Young:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Leave is not granted.

Mr VINER:

-Mr Speaker, I table the full text of my statement.

Mr Young:

– Put in the whole thing.

Mr Bourchier:

– Don’t worry about it; you will never get anything in.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. I ask the honourable member for Port Adelaide and the honourable member for Bendigo to cease interjecting across the chamber.

Mr VINER:

– The preamble to my statements which have drawn some attention is this: After quoting a number of statistics about youth unemployment, I said:

In these circumstances, I believe the present situation, where young school leavers can be faced with long periods of unemployment and inaction, is unsatisfactory. Especially as they are not allowed to receive training or education if they also receive the unemployment benefit. Unemployment benefit was not designed for this purpose, but for support during comparatively short periods between jobs.

The Government has therefore been considering a new transition policy to help people move from school to work.

What I said is not exactly new. I do not claim it to be entirely new. If honourable members had been following the public discussion of this vital issue of the transition of school leavers from school to work they would be aware of the fact that the Williams report went into this subject in great detail. Professor Karmel has recently made a speech calling for a youth policy. If anybody had read that speech by Professor Karmel he might well accuse me of some plagiarism. It is not plagiarism, but certainly Professor Karmel and I agree that this area requires serious consideration.

The Schools Commission report for 1980 also calls for similar measures to combat the problems facing Australian youth today. At the Australian College of Education Conference in Perth about a month ago, a Professor Jochimsen of West Germany spoke to the conference and pointed out the range of vocational training schemes in operation in West Germany. He said that the experience of that country -

Mr Uren:

- Mr Speaker, I take a point of order on two matters. First of all, this is Question Time for questions without notice and this is a question with notice. Secondly, this is the third time this afternoon that the Minister has replied to a question in a very lengthy way. The Opposition will give the Minister an opportunity to make a statement after Question Time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. There is no point of order. I ask the Minister to draw his answer to a conclusion.

Mr VINER:

– I was pointing out that Professor Jochimsen, a noted educationist in West Germany, who addressed the Australian College of Education Conference in Perth, made the point that vocational training schemes in that country have led to a drop in youth unemployment. Included in the Government’s comprehension of a transition policy is extended vocational training of a formal nature and within industry. If we can emulate the experience of West Germany by the use of this kind of policy, we too will achieve a drop in youth unemployment. I think the honourable member for Bradfield, who asked this question, will be well satisfied with the fact that the Government will not be taking away from those who are unemployed the right to an unemployment benefit. But we seriously consider that in Australia much greater attention has to be given to developing wider training programs through a comprehensive transition policy for young Australians.

page 1725

QUESTION

PECUNIARY INTERESTS

Mr HAYDEN:

– I ask the Prime Minister: Has the report on pecuniary interests made by Sir Nigel Bowen been in the hands of the Government for at least three months? Does the report include a proposed code of conduct on pecuniary interests for senior public office holders, including Cabinet Ministers and even National Country Party Ministers? Has the Prime Minister concealed the report because this code of conduct -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is using a term which he is not entitled to use.

Mr HAYDEN:

-Do you mean ‘concealed ‘?

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr HAYDEN:

-Has the Prime Minister failed to produce this report because this code of conduct and the recommendations of Sir Nigel Bowen would severely embarrass the Government in the circumstances of quite recent times? Will the Prime Minister now release the Bowen report and provide an early opportunity for its debate in the Parliament?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The honourable gentleman draws his usual conclusions and, as usual, they are wrong. The Bowen report has been in my hands for some time. A submission in relation to it is being prepared for the Government, which will look at it very shortly. At the same time as the report is tabled in the Parliament I want to be able to state the Government’s view in relation to the report’s many and sometimes complex recommendations. I believe that that will put the Government in a sounder position in relation to the report and the pursuit of the general objectives we had in mind when the Bowen inquiry was first established. I hope that the honourable gentleman will not be disappointed in that statement when it is made. I also hope that as a result of that statement he will be able to give bipartisan support to the proposals that will flow out of it.

page 1725

AUSTRALIAN MEAT RESEARCH COMMITTEE

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Primary Industry · Gippsland · NCP/NP

– Pursuant to section 17 of the Meat Research Act 1960 I present the annual report of the Australian Meat Research Committee 1979.

page 1725

PAPUA NEW GUINEA SUPERANNUATION SCHEME

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Pursuant to section 2 1 of the Papua New Guinea (Staffing Assistance) Termination Act 1976I present the report on the general administration and operation of the Papua New Guinea Superannuation Scheme and the Contract Officers Retirement Benefits Scheme 1979.

page 1726

COMMISSIONER FOR COMMUNITY RELATIONS

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

-Pursuant to section 46 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 I present the report of the Commissioner for Community Relations 1979.

page 1726

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY LEGAL AID COMMISSION

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

– Pursuant to section 97 of the Legal Aid Ordinance 1977 of the Australian Capital Territory I present the annual report of the Legal Aid Commission (ACT) 1979.

page 1726

SPECIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

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

– Pursuant to section 25 of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973 I present the Commonwealth Grants Commission’s first report on special assistance for the Northern Territory 1979.

page 1726

SPECIAL ASSISTANCE FOR STATES

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

– Pursuant to section 25 of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973 I present the Commonwealth Grants Commission report on special assistance for States 1979.

page 1726

ALBURY-WODONGA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for National Development · Bass · LP

– Pursuant to section 32 of the Albury-Wodonga Development Act 1973 I present the annual report of the AlburyWodonga Development Corporation 1979.

page 1726

CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT CENTRE

Mr STALEY:
Minister for Post and Telecommunications · Chisholm · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Curriculum Development Centre 1977-78. An interim 1977-78 report was tabled in the Parliament in March 1979 pending approval from the Minister for Finance of the Centre’s form of financial accounts. The final report now contains the Centre’s financial statements and the report of the Auditor-General on the statements.

page 1726

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman wish to make a personal explanation?

Mr YOUNG:

– Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

-He may proceed.

Mr YOUNG:

-During Question Time the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) in answer to a question from the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Chapman) took considerable pleasure in saying that I was not present at the National Youth Conference last week. I think it would be proper for me to outline why I was not there and how I came to receive the invitation to be present at the Conference. The Government has been preparing for the National Youth Conference for six months. On Thursday, 27 September, the last day of sitting before the week’s recess, I received a personal invitation from the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs to attend last week’s National Youth Conference. I thought that the invitation came a bit late; nevertheless I thought it important that I attend. I immediately contacted the Queensland Branch of the Australian Labor Party and cancelled three days’ engagementsWednesday, Thursday and Friday- in that State so that I could be present in Canberra.

Upon returning home on Saturday, 29 September, I was advised by my wife that my daughter had taken ill and it would be necessary for her to be admitted to hospital. She was admitted on the Sunday morning and underwent a series of tests. As Parliament was in recess I thought it might not hurt for me to be home. My daughter’s illness did not turn out to be a serious one, although she did have a minor operation. A number of tests were conducted but we do not have the complete results yet. She was discharged from hospital last Thursday afternoon. As members of Parliament spend so much time away from home attending Parliament and on other business, I did not think that the National Youth Conference would miss me all that much. I have been pleased with the response I have received from the youth all around this country to what I said about this Government and its idea announced last Friday of taking away unemployment benefits.

page 1726

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Ministerial Statement

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Wentworth · LP

– by leave- The Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory report on planning in the Australian Capital Territory was tabled in both Houses on 4 April 1 979.

The report has been under active consideration since that time by the National Capital Development Commission and within the Department of the Capital Territory. Due, however, to the wide scope of the report and the importance placed by the Government on long term implications for the development of the national capital, it has not been possible to finalise governmental consideration of the report. I hope to be in a position shortly to make known to the Parliament the Government’s response to the Committee’s recommendations.

Mr INNES:
Mel bourne

-by leave-The Opposition has no real argument about the statement made by the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott) because it does not contain very much at all. All he said was that the report has been available and he has been giving consideration to its recommendations for some considerable time. I hope that the Minister will give the Opposition sufficient notice of the announcement of the Government’s response to the recommendations to enable us to do justice to the debate which will take place in this chamber and in the community at large on this very important issue affecting the city of Canberra. I make that request to the Minister and hope that the Government’s response to the recommendations comes before the Parliament in such a way that the debate will proceed in a proper manner.

page 1727

COMMONWEALTH INSCRIBED STOCK AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Assent reported.

page 1727

UNEMPLOYMENT

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have received letters from both the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) and the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by Standing Order 107 I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important, that is, that proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, namely:

The failure of the Government to adequately assist the young unemployed.

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

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

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– It is appropriate that we should have as a matter of public importance before the Parliament today the Government’s failure to adequately assist the young unemployed. There are obvious reasons for raising this matter, not the least being the very serious extent of unemployment amongst our most valuable human asset, the youth of this country. It is appropriate also because the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) has freshly returned from the stage-managed fiasco of the National Youth Conference, a conference which made it abundantly clear that .the Government is out of step with the thinking and expectations of Australian youth. The behaviour of the delegates to what was hoped on the part of the Government to be a stage-managed national youth conference was a straw in the wind, just as the poll published in the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald this morning is another straw in the wind, indicating a substantial and hard change of attitude on the part of the Australian community. The community will no longer forbear with the myth that the Government has sought to perpetrate, that is, that inflation has to be fought first and that when that is conquered there will be jobs for all. “

The Australian public now recognises that the Government’s single-minded attack on inflation has not only failed but, as a failing fight, is being fought with the expectations and the justifiable aspirations of Australian workers and most especially Australian young people. That is why, without any ceremony at all, the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs was firmly rebuffed last weekend by the delegates to the National Youth Conference. For instance, they moved and carried the following motion:

That this conference affirm the individual rights of school leavers under 18 and therefore opposes any move to remove their eligibility for unemployment benefit even if they are living at home.

That is significant because, although the matter which we are now debating was scheduled well beforehand and the Minister knew well before the commencement of the sitting today that it was scheduled, he took the opportunity at Question Time to seed a number of Dorothy Dix questions about the House in an effort to diffuse, if not to distract, attention from what is essentially heralding the proposal announced last Friday. As I will demonstrate a little later, that proposal was simply to prevent or terminate payment of the unemployment benefit to large numbers of young people.

Another massive rebuff was directed to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). He went forward and in the unctuous, patronising manner that he adopts from time to time said this to the young people at the conference:

We would welcome your views about the nature of the various training programs.

The young people, taking him at his word, passed this resolution:

We deplore any Budget cuts in training programs such as CYSS, SYETP, NEAT, EPUY and we urge the Government to consider increased funding of these programs.

That, too, was a substantial rebuff of the Government. It is important to recall that the Government sought to stage manage and to control this conference. It even ensured that there was a heavy larding of departmental representation, appropriately’ instructed by the Minister to wear jeans to add to the informality of the occasion and to enter into the spirit of the event. In spite of those efforts the Government was rebuffed by Australian youth and will continue to be rebuffed on a mounting scale.

The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs had the temerity to talk during Question Time today about consolidating youth work support programs. What form does that ‘consolidating’ take? This year the Special Youth Employment Training Program has experienced a 60 per cent cut, a cut of more than $50m, on last year’s expenditure, at a time when youth unemployment is soaring. We have the highest level of youth unemployment that we have had for nearly half a century. There has been a cut of about $2. 3m in last year’s expenditure allocation for the Community Youth Support Scheme. Yet the Minister has the gall to suggest that this is a consolidation. That sort of gobblydegook is as jarring and convincing as Ned Kelly praising the Victorian Police Force. The Minister talks of consolidation. He ought to talk about disemboweling or amputation, disabling the disabled programs that the Government already has before the community.

The fact is that the youth in Australia in the social sense are the walking wounded, the socially disabled casualties of Fraser economics. They have been brutalised by the Prime Minister’s atavistic lurch into economic primitivism. Let us look at some of the hard facts how this burden of unemployment falls so heavily and so unfairly on the youth of Australia. Let us look at the young people who are available to work but who cannot. According to the Bureau of Statistics labour force publication for June, the overall unemployment level was 6 per cent. For the 1 5 to 19 year-old youths seeking jobs unemployment was just on 18 per cent, which was three times greater than the rate for the community in general. Let us look at the unemployment statistics for those who are a little older but who are still young people, who still have expectations and aspirations and who still want to contribute and to be producers in our society. The unemployment rate for those over 20 years of age was 4.4 per cent but for those in the 20 to 24 years of age group the rate was 8.7 per cent, twice the overall rate for those above 20 years of age.

I make that point for the following very important reason: In our society the cultural conditioning of the imperativeness of productive work is a very important influence on our social and psychological well being. We are taught from the early stages in our lives that it is important to be independent and self-supporting in our society and the way in which this is measured is to be engaged full time in productive work and to earn a wage. So, money in that sense becomes a measure of our worth, our self-respect and the quantification that we extend to the sense of dignity that we are all entitled to experience as human beings because of the essential individuality that goes into every person’s make-up. Yet we see that the policies of the Government are determined to destroy that capacity, that opportunity for self-respect and independence. It is little wonder therefore that an increasing array of social assessments which are being properly carried out by skilled and professional people establishes beyond any doubt the enormous social and neurotic traumas that are seeping in to undermine the confidence and the capacity of young people to participate in our society in a worthwhile and contributing way. All this is arising because the young are disproportionately represented among the unemployed and the young unemployed are disproportionately represented among those young people who are appearing in police courts and who are resorting to drugs or, even more depressingly, to suicide. These things are on record and have been properly established.

Before I go on to some criticisms of the Government, I want to say some positive things about what we would do because we care. It is not good enough to be pulled along by the nose like a prize bull at a country show by the Treasury and by John Stone, who is a sort of ringmaster in the way he drags the Government along by the nose, with some sort of textbook approach to economics, applying an accountant’s bookkeeping and balancing principles to the way the figures come together. Moral imperatives, as well as economic principles, are involved in the administration of responsibilities of a government to its society. Those moral imperatives are being forgotten at present The fundamental one is a respect for the rights of people, a regard for their rights of access to experiences which will give them independence and allow them to preserve dignity and self-respect.

Accordingly, without any apologies at all, the Opposition proposes a number of programs which will generate jobs in this community. We propose a community service corps. We estimate that it could contribute directly up to 50,000 jobs in the course of a full year. The cost, on the basis of our estimates carried out at the beginning of this year, would be of the order of $ 100m. The Government has sought to rig the figures and to suggest that the cost would be $600m. That is fictional nonsense and is the product of people who cannot even keep books properly when they run private businesses. The proposal for a community service corps is based on the simple concept that young people want to work and to contribute and that accordingly they should be allowed to engage in productive work. They and the community must regard that work as real work which accordingly would attract the appropriate award rate of pay and would be covered by the appropriate award working conditions. The sort of work which could be carried out in non-urban areas, for instance, is wilderness development, national park development, tourist development, irrigation and water reticulation development.

A whole range of potential undertakings could be covered by this sort of project which is largely designed to generate jobs for youth. In urban areas it could be used to provide work, again paid for at the award rate and covered by award conditions. It could provide work in community services, essential services for non-profit making bodies such as community welfare agencies or local government bodies. What this proposal seeks to do is to capture, to harness, the essential idealism and enthusiasm of the youth of this community. It does not seek to compress, suffocate or destroy their ability to contribute in a really worthwhile way to the betterment of our society. That is what is being forgotten by the Government. To corrupt the approach of the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, his suggestion to the youth of Australia is that they ought to get up off their butts and look for jobs; they cannot expect the Government to provide them.

I make no apologies for the position of the Labor Party. As a government, one of its initiatives would be the provision of jobs. A capital works program would be another initiative. Local and State governments and of course semigovernment authorities as well as Federal

Government instrumentalities would be used to generate jobs within the community. All of these things have multiplying effects. So it is not just the first round effect of generating jobs at the site; there is a demand generated for input, whether it is for structural steel, capital equipment, glass or a whole range of commodities. So, the benefits of this would multiply throughout Australia. The Opposition also proposes to implement selectively and prudently- I stress the word ‘prudently’, because prudence is the way in which this program will be introduced- direct and indirect tax cuts to stimulate people’s spending power. Of course, all of this will be fitted within the prudent parameters of sensible economic management. Let me remind honourable members that when the Opposition puts forward these sorts of proposals to generate jobs for people so they can become productive and contribute, the Government blanches but it does not turn one hair grey when it outlays $ 1,000m, and probably more, this year for unemployment benefit, very largely going to the young people of Australia, so they can be unproductive and unwanted. That is the problem. The only other thing I wish to mention on this matter is that when the Government is costing in relation to what the Opposition’s programs would involve, it also should impute the additional revenue generated by people earning income and the savings of unemployment benefit.

The unemployment policies- I stress unemployment policies- of the Government, more especially of this Minister, are discriminatory. They discriminate against Aboriginals, who suffer the highest rate of unemployment in this community. It is over 50 per cent. They discriminate against women as against men. They discriminate severely against certain migrant groups, especially the Lebanese and Turkish youth of Australia. Specifically they discrimate against youth. The 15 to 19-year age group makes up 12 per cent of the civilian work force but 30 per cent of the total unemployed in the community. That is, they are 250 times overrepresented among the unemployed in relation to what they should be, if there is proper association with their representation in the civilian work force. To put that another way, one in every eight of the work force is a youth under 15 to 19 years of age, but one in every three unemployed is 15 to 19 years of age. That is the measure of the discrimination, the punitiveness and the indifference of the Government towards these young people. The Government has the gall to talk about those young people needing more training so they can get jobs. Where? There is never any discussion about generating more jobs. For every employment vacancy for a junior, there are 33 young people.

There are certain social aspects of this which are quite unacceptable. There is discrimination between areas within our community. I wish to quote- regrettably, quickly- from an article in the last issue of the Australian Quarterly by Mr Stilwell, a lecturer in economics at the University of Sydney. He says:

To quote some illustrative figures for Sydney, at a time when the overall rate of registered unemployment was S.4 per cent … the percentage figure for many North Shore suburbs . . . was below 2 per cent, while the percentage figure for most far-Western suburbs . . was over 7 per cent and for most inner city suburbs . . . was over 10 per cent.

What can be seen from this is that the social casualties arising from the Government’s unemployment policies are not among the elite of the Victorian western pastoral districts or among the privileged families of members of the Melbourne Club; it is the spear-carriers of our society who are having to bear these sorts of disadvantages. The Prime Minister flourishes his contempt before all of us, as shown by a report of what he said to the Catholic bishops. It stated:

The Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, had described unemployed people as ‘the duller, less motivated people in each age group ‘, a Catholic community leader claimed yesterday.

That is the measure of the Government’s regard for the young people of Australia.

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

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

– The Government has no hesitation in rejecting this motion because it can stand on its record since it came into government at a time when it had to overcome the shambles in the economy, the high levels of inflation and the high levels of unemployment which were brought about with the economic policies during the years 1972 to 1975.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. There is too much conversation and interjection on my left. The Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence; I ask honourable members on my left to remain silent and accord the same privilege to the Minister. I call the Minister.

Mr VINER:

– I do not make those statements lightly because I think the experience of all Australians during those years 1972-1975 shows that one cannot live through economic times which produce high and increasingly higher levels of inflation without seeing that that brings with it the breakdown not only of the economy but of society itself. We are talking today about youth unemployment. I point out to the House that in August 1974, the unemployment figure for 15 to 19-year olds was 33,700. In August 1975 it was 82, 100. In other words, there was an increase of 48,400 in one year. What year was that? That was the year of the administration of the Treasury by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden); he was the Treasurer of the day during that growth in youth unemployment. The growth was higher than the total growth in the four years since 1975; in other words, the Leader of the Opposition was able to do in one year as Treasurer what nobody else could do. The growth in the four years since 1975 is 47,700. It has taken the Government four years to achieve the target of the Leader of the Opposition.

I give some other figures in comparison, taken from a table produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics on 6 September 1979, concerning the preliminary estimates on unemployment. It shows a reduction of the total number of unemployed 15 to 19-year olds from 162,200 in January 1979, to 1 13,400 in August 1979-a reduction of 49,000. That is against a reduction of 28,000 unemployed in those aged 20 years and over. What the Opposition refuses to acknowledge publicly, because it demonstrates the success of the Government’s economic policies, is that since January of this year there has been a drop of 76,000 in the number of unemployed. As I have just pointed out, 49,000 of those are 15 to 19-year olds. In fact, there has also been a drop from 87,700 to 46,100 from January of this year in the number of 15 to 19-year olds looking for their first job. What has been seen consistently this year, month by month, is a fall in the number of 15 to 19-year olds looking for their first job and in the total of 15 to 19-year olds who are unemployed.

According to the Leader of the Opposition the Opposition has offered a community service scheme at a cost of $80m to $100m to employ 50,000 people. I have had that scheme costed and on the best advice available to me, it would cost $600m. Of course, that is not counting the effect on inflation or taxation which will reduce jobs in the private sector. All that the Opposition is doing now is seeking to repeat the dose of economic destruction that it gave to the Australian community between 1972 and 1975. If all the Opposition is going to provide for this sort of scheme is $ 100m for 50,000 persons, that would provide those people with seven weeks employment; $100m would be adequate to employ only 6,630 persons for one year as against the 50,000 that has been put forward.

I think that whenever members of the public hear this kind of proposition put to them, they ought to think of one thing first- the cost to the taxpayer. No government in this country has any money of its own. It all comes from the taxpayer. If, as the Leader of the Opposition says, the Opposition is proposing to spend another $600m on its community service scheme and to cut direct and indirect taxes, then where is the money going to come from? Perhaps we might go back to Dr Cairns ‘s printing press; and we know what a disaster that was.

Let me remind the House that since this Government has come into office it has assisted over 400,000 persons through its manpower training and work experience programs. That assistance has cost over $400m and it represents a very solid investment in the future of young people in particular. By the end of this financial year those figures will be $500m to assist over 500,000 persons. The Government, through its various schemes- National Employment and Training scheme, Education Program for Unemployment Youth, Special Youth Employment Training Program, Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training Scheme and Community Youth Support Scheme- will be helping about 210,000 persons at a cost of $132m. So the Government makes no apology for the magnitude of its programs and the direction in which it is placing the taxpayers’ money. We have increased very heavily the investment in training apprentices. Wherever I go in the country I am told two things: Firstly. that Australia has a shortage of skilled tradesmen today and, secondly, that if Australian industry is to achieve a situation where it can compete with imports and sell on the world markets then we must have a much more highly skilled and competent work force. That is why the Government has increased its allocation under the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training Scheme from $28.4m to $54.3m, an increase of $25.9m. That will increase the number of persons assisted under that program by about 28,500. In other words, the increase will be from 56,500 to 85,000 persons.

Today I answered questions on the Community Youth Support Scheme. Some comment has been made upon it by the Leader of the Opposition. The CYS Scheme is a program initiated by this Government. It was started in 1976-77 at a cost of $600,000. The next year we increased expenditure to $5.7m. In this current financial year we have appropriated $ 10.7m. So the

Government has been prepared to invest in its own schemes. The number of projects which have been assisted with that money has risen from 63 in 1976-77 to 267 in 1977-78 and 331 in the last financial year. The Government estimates that the $ 10m that it has appropriated for this financial year will support some 280 projects; hence my comment at Question Time that we see the current financial year as a period when we can consolidate these programs rather than continue what has been a mushroom growth. I think that the taxpayers of Australia would respect the Government’s sense of responsibility in putting the taxpayers’ money to effective use at the same time as we are mounting effective programs for young people who need assistance.

Even during the recession that this country has suffered since 1974-75, the employment of young people has been better than in the years of the Labor Government. Between August 1 972 and August 1975 employment of 15 to 19-year olds grew by only 2,000. From August 1975 to August 1979 it grew by 17,000 to 618,000. I point out also that the total employment growth was about 200,000 from 1975 to 1979, and just over that figure from August 1972 to August 1975. In all the debates on unemployment so often forgotten is the employment side of the equation. In the last 12 months there has been an increase of some 70,000 civilian jobs. Those jobs have been predominantly in the area of private enterprise employment. One thing that this country has learnt is that real, lasting jobs will come out of private enterprise rather than public employment when we have a government which has an economic strategy which will overcome the fundamental difficulties in our economy. Mr Wran has pointed out that he looks at the 1980s in New South Wales as a period of boom. He refers to the development in the coal industry, to the establishment of aluminium smelters and to the number of jobs that will be established in New South Wales from that kind of development. Mr Wran also speaks of the importance of developing skills, of the need in Australia of a skilled work force. I agree with Mr Wran in that regard. That is why I have been prepared to speak out in justification of the need in Australia for the development of a comprehensive transition policy covering the movement of young people from school to work. That means that we must look beyond the compulsory schooling period up to the age of 1 5 and re-examine what we are providing to our young people beyond that schooling. Now there is eminent authority to say that this is a matter deserving of public attention.

In Question Time this morning I cited the Schools Commission, Professor Karmel of the Tertiary Education Commission and the Australian College of Education Conference. The Williams report commissioned by this Government has pinpointed this as one of the fundamental areas. The Williams report, like Professor Jochimsen of West Germany who spoke to the Australian College of Education Conference has pointed out that extended training beyond the period of compulsory schooling will assist the young unemployed. That is why I opened this subject up to the young people of Australia at the National Youth Conference last week. Whatever the members of the Opposition might say, the National Youth Conference did not object to the Government’s developing a comprehensive transition policy from school to work. I made the point that this kind of policy will deal with the situation where young school leavers are faced with long periods of unemployment and inaction and that that situation is unsatisfactory, especially as those young people are not allowed to receive training or education if they receive the unemployment benefit. The unemployment benefit was not designed for that purpose; it was designed to provide temporary income support for the young and the old when they are unemployed.

I pointed out that the basic philosophy behind the thinking of young people is that the 15 to 19 years age group should have a comprehensive range of education, training and employment options available to them which makes unemployment, in the sense of idleness at the community’s expense, an unacceptable alternative. Now what honourable member of this House would object to that statement? What honourable member of this House would object to that underlying philosophy? The transition policy would improve the interface between education and the labour market. It would prevent significant overlap and wasted public resources. The changed situation now facing us requires bold measures. I venture to suggest that a transition policy of the kind which extends the training opportunities, which builds up the educational confidence, which builds up the range of skills of our young people, can properly be regarded as a bold measure and one designed to prevent the waste of human resources at a critical stage in young people’s lives. It would give future young Australian men and women opportunities for education, training, work experience or support which would help them acquire the skills and experience needed to obtain a job.

That is the objective of the philosophy and that is the objective of our existing manpower and training programs. We believe that with a comprehensive transition policy we can further that objective in the way in which I have indicated. I have no hesitation and my colleague the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) has no hesitation in pursuing this policy, as we will, in conjunction and discussion with the States, industry and the unions.

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

Mr DAWKINS:
Fremantle

-The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) is a master of doublespeak. I understand that when he invited people to come to a luncheon last week they were urged to come on the basis that nothing could be finer than having lunch with Viner. I would say, and I am sure that most young people in Australia would agree, that nothing could be viler than listening to Viner in his hypocrisy as we have heard today -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! I ask the honourable member to withdraw the reflection on the Minister.

Mr DAWKINS:

-Who takes offence?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The Chair requires the honourable member to withdraw the reflection.

Mr DAWKINS:

– If you require me to withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw. But perhaps in amongst all this doublespeak of the Minister -

Mr Viner:

– I take a point of order. The honourable member knows that the remark is unparliamentary. I would ask him to withdraw without qualification.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member has withdrawn.

Mr DAWKINS:

-Perhaps the most feeble part of the Minister’s whole defence was to resurrect the tired old argument about the comparisons between the performance under the Whitlam Government and the performance under this Government. Let me just quote one figure because I do not want to confuse this debate with a whole array of disjointed statistics. There is one very important statistic which people ought to have firmly in their minds, and that is that during the three years of the Labor Government the labor force increased by 261,000 people. It increased by 261,000 in three years. In the 3V4 years of this Government, we have seen an increase of no more than 97,000, about one-third the rate of growth and in a longer time. So that is the important statistic which people have to keep in mind when they measure this Government’s performance in the field of employment.

But as chronic and catastrophic as the problem of unemployment and particularly youth unemployment is, it is not the worst problem that besets this country. Much worse is this Government’s, and particularly this Minister’s, inactivity in relation to finding solutions to this problem. This inactivity is elaborately disguised behind a network of cunning subterfuge. In the first instance there is a subterfuge in relation to the statistics which measure unemployment. We have seen the Government move from the Commonwealth Employment Service figures to the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures and then selectively use one or the other, whichever seems to portray the best picture for it, to the extent that now most people are totally confused about what is the true measure of unemployment. The next area of subterfuge is in relation to the causes of unemployment. This Government is simply content to blame either the unions or the young unemployed for this problem.

Then we have the subterfuge in relation to cures for the problem. We have had an elaborate array of great schemes which are supposed to be a cure to the unemployment problem. Again we have had them paraded before us here today. We have had mention of the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training scheme which has bored employers sick. We have had the Special Youth Employment Training Program, which even when administered within the Public Service itself can mean employment for young people for no more than 17 weeks and which on occasions will lead to the displacement of older workers. And so it goes on- this sham list of great schemes to cure unemployment. Fortunately the Voluntary Youth Community Service Scheme seems to have been stillborn, and after a brief flirtation with the idea of work co-operatives, the Government has now moved on to a policy of transition from school to work or, more accurately, from school to unemployment. But more of that later.

Another area of subterfuge is blaming the unemployed themselves and particularly the young unemployed. Perhaps the worst of this is the simplistic admonitions of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). That there is something highly obscene and indecent about a millionaire grazier with one of the most privileged upbringings imaginable in this country urging the desperate and despairing young unemployed to accept life’s hardships on the chin. The most recent episode on this whole array of subterfuge has been the charade of the National Youth Conference last week. That in no way reflects on the people who took part in that youth conference. No criticism is meant of them at all because I believe that they attended in good faith.

Let us have a look at what transpired at the Conference. Three main resolutions were passed. In the first place the Conference deplored the Government’s cuts in training programs. Secondly it demanded an increase in the unemployment benefit. Those two calls simply echoed an earlier call by the Catholic bishops. Yet, when the Catholic bishops met with the Prime Minister to discuss their proposals and to discuss their findings, the Prime Minister simply dismissed their proposals as unrealistic and unworkable. So already two of the main resolutions passed by the Conference have been rejected by the Prime Minister and by the Government.

In a third resolution the Conference asserted the right of the young unemployed to receive the unemployed benefit regardless of whether they lived at home or not. Now the eligibility for unemployment was, at the same time, being questioned by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs. It was part of what he called a new transition policy. It gave the clearest possible indication of the Government’s intention to withdraw unemployment benefits from young people, particularly those who live at home. The clearest indication of this came during an interview on 5 November on the Australian Broadcasting Commission program AM. The Minister was asked:

So if the Government moves in this area it will mean that young people, say if they leave at 15 years of age, will move into these programs and they won’t be paid benefits by the Government, their families will be forced to maintain them?

The Minister said:

Not necessarily because you presently have a range of special educational allowances,’ for example pre.apprenticeship, pre-vocational allowances in the case of special hardship at secondary schools, special allowances there. But as well I think there is the legitimate question which people have to ask themselves and that is, when does family responsibility end and State responsibility begin?

Here clearly is an indication that this Government is intending to withdraw unemployment benefits from unemployed people who live at home. There is this vague reference to other benefits which exist in the way of special education allowances. I made a few inquiries as to what these might be. The secondary education allowance is a maximum of $550 a year, and that is on a means tested basis. So for the people who receive the maximum amount it is a little more than $10 a week. Is this the substitute to the $36 which young unemployed people are now receiving? Or perhaps it is the pre-apprenticeship scheme, under which the allowance at the moment is $20 a week. Are these the income support substitutes for people who are now on the unemployment benefit? But it is much worse than that. Many families find it a burden to keep their children at school for as long as they do now. Yet, this Government is intending to increase that burden, to extend the burden by insisting that parents continue to support their children long after the time when the children would normally be expected to leave school, not through any fault of the children themselves but because of this Government’s failure to find work, jobs, for those people.

It is quite clear that the resolutions of this Conference will be ignored in exactly the same way as this Government has continued to ignore young people hitherto. Young unemployed people are the new dispossessed, the new outcasts of society. That indeed is true for all unemployed people, but it is much worse for the young unemployed. They are the ones who have so much to offer. They are the ones who are entitled to be expectant about their lives and their future. How does this Government get away with it? How does this Government continue to ignore the young unemployed? It is quite simple- the young unemployed in most cases do not vote and in many other cases are quite ill-informed about political matters. A recent Melbourne survey indicates that the level of understanding of political matters by young people and particularly young unemployed people is very low indeed. They see politics and politicians in this country as being largely irrelevant to their needs and problems. So, of course, that being the case, it is much easier for this Government to ignore the feelings of the unemployed or to ignore their protests, such as they are.

But this Government has to recognise, and recognise fairly soon, that the continuing frustration felt by young people will lead to even greater disillusion and greater disenchantment. This will make those people a very fertile ground for the operations of extremists from the Left and the Right. What the unemployed and particularly the young unemployed have to understand is that they will be listened to only if they make their voices loud enough to be heard above the mumbo-jumbo of the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs. This Government is unable to listen to reason. Therefore, the young unemployed have to find other ways to make their voices heard.

Mr CHAPMAN:
Kingston

-At the outset I want to express my disappointment at the litany of abuse that we have heard in this debate from Opposition speakers on the matter of public importance they have proposed, particularly the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden). Of course, we have heard their trite comments and their negative approach so often before. But for all that the Opposition still completely fails to come to grips with the real problems facing the Australian economy and the problems associated with increasing job opportunities in this country. The present Government does have a very real concern for the unemployed. Demonstrably it has much more concern than has the Austraiian Labor Party. The concern of the Government is not the spurious type of concern which is whipped up by the Opposition when it suits it politically to do so.

All we have heard from the Opposition today is another tirade of emotive language devoid of real meaning. Of course, what we need to ask is: What is behind the approach of the Opposition? The answer is very simple. It is to hide its own disastrous record in government. The Labor Party’s period in government was disastrous for young Australians and particularly for job opportunities for young Australians. Indeed, the record shows that far from being an expert in management, the Labor Party is an expert in creating unemployment. Among the governments of the developed countries none could claim to have been as quick as the Whitlam Government of the early 1970s in turning a situation of full employment into one of distressing unemployment.

It is worth recalling that in April 1974 the unemployment rate stood at some 1.3 per cent, or 76,865 persons. By January 1975- a mere eight months later- the unemployment rate was 5.2 per cent, or 3 1 1,596 persons. What an incredibly pathetic performance by the Labor Party when it was in government. Of course we all know that the reasons for that pathetic performance were the economic policies and the management approach adopted by the Labor Government. It is worth recalling that the economic situation which developed in that time was directly attributable to the policies of the Labor Government.

As a result of the very sound policies of previous Liberal Governments, Australia at that time was very largely self-sufficient in oil supplies. Therefore, when we had the 1973 oil price hike by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Australia was very largely shielded from the detrimental international economic consequences of that oil price hike. Despite that, but because of the domestic policies adopted by the Labor Government, massive unemployment was created in Australia. Having created that unemployment, what did the Labor Party do to try to overcome it?

Mr Neil:

– It made it worse.

Mr CHAPMAN:

-Certainly, the Labor Party made the situation worse. One would have expected it to adopt a sounder and more responsible economic approach. It did not. Its approach to unemployment was the same as its approach to all other areas of the economy. All the Labor Government did was to increase government spending. It does not take long to look at its efforts to overcome unemployment because, in fact, it did precious little. As I have said, its approach was to spend more of the taxpayers’ money. The Labor Government was very good at spending other people ‘s money.

In the manpower field the Labor Party had three initiatives- the National Employment and Training Scheme, the Structural Adjustment Assistance Scheme, and the infamous Regional Employment Development Scheme. The NEAT Scheme was an embarrasment to the Whitlam Government from the moment it left the concept stage. It became nothing more than an overgenerous system of tertiary education allowances. It was only when the Fraser Government came to office and took the scheme into hand that the NEAT Scheme started to meet the objectives of a national vocational training program. The present Government redesigned the Scheme to provide the sort of training that enables people to find useful places in the labour market. It ought to be noted that the extent of expenditure on such programs does not denote their effectiveness.

The second scheme of the Labor Party was the Structural Adjustment Assistance Scheme with its maintenance provision. That Scheme could not be supported even in concept. Certainly, by the time the scheme was terminated after having been tried for a while it had been battered and abused and was shown to be completely hopeless.

Finally, of course, there was the infamous RED Scheme which was introduced specifically to deal with the rising level of unemployment. This program was typical of the incompetence of the Labor Government. It was designed to treat the symptoms of unemployment rather than the deep-seated causes. In fact, rather than overcoming the problem it aggravated the causes of unemployment. Despite the investment of large sums of money, the Scheme had no impact on unemployment and the expenditure worsened the Budget deficit, fuelled inflation and thereby added to the deterioration in employment opportunities in the private sector. So while offering some temporary palliative to a few of the unemployed, this program worsened the overall situation by reinforcing the major cause of deterioration in the labour market- inflation. Of course, we have heard again today from the Labor Party the same attitudes in regard to unemployment and youth unemployment in particular. We have seen no new or real remedies.

Mr Shack:

– Has the Labor Party got any?

Mr CHAPMAN:

– I do not believe it has got any. If we listen to what the Leader of the Opposition says, he confirms that fact. All we have heard about is a program for job creation among young people. The Leader of the Opposition’s costing of that program is completely astray, as has been demonstrated very effectively in this debate by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner). By putting up that program the Labor Party shows very clearly that it has not learnt from its disastrous record in government. It is still a party of high government spending, high deficits and high taxation and, therefore, high inflation, high interest ratesMr Neil- High unemployment.

Mr CHAPMAN:

– And, as the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) interjects, high unemployment. The job creation program proposed by the Leader of the Opposition would worsen that situation. Its cost to revenue and its effect on the deficit would ensure that, even though it may provide a palliative for what he claimed to be 50,000 young people, far more jobs than that would be lost in the private sector through the program’s overall detrimental effect on the Australian economy. So we see that the Labor Party is still devoid of any real ideas about effective economic management and real job creation for young Australian people. That is highlighted by the approach it took to the economy at its Adelaide conference. From the results of that conference the Labor Party’s complete hopelessness on economic management can be seen. The statement from the Adelaide conference was as follows:

With the understanding and co-operation of the trade union movement, development of economic policy which would encompass wages, incomes, non-wages incomes, the social wage, taxation reform and elimination of tax avoidance, and which will achieve a more equitable distribution of our national wealth and income with the commitment to the maintenance of real wages by quarterly adjustments and the passing on of the benefits of the increases in productivity.

This is the economic policy of the Labor Party. It has been described by the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Wran, as a ‘hotch potch’ and by Mr Hawke as ‘a gutless sellout to the left’.

In contrast, the present Government has a positive approach to the employment situation, the result of its policies for stable economic management and remedying the economic imbalances created by the Labor Party. If we look at the record of this Government in the area of employment it is a very favourable one. The unemployment figures for each month this year, compared with the same month last year, show a significant improvement in most months since February right through until August this year, the latest month available. In fact all but two months of this year show a significant improvement on the employment levels for the same months last year.

If we want to know what would happen if Labor were in office we need to look only to the situation that occurred in South Australia under a Labor Government. If we compare figures for this year with those of last year, in each month, between February and August, with the exception of only one month, the level of unemployment rose. The record shows very clearly the difference in approach between the Liberal Party and the Labour Party when in government. To supplement its success with employment, the Commonwealth Government has a significant range of manpower programs to upgrade the skills and maintain the job orientation of 212,000 young people this year. The most important of those is the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training. In this present Budget the expenditure on that program has been almost doubled and the number of people assisted will increase from 56,000 to 85,000. Similarly, the Community Youth Support Scheme will assist 40,000 young people this year and the various segments of the National Employment and Training Scheme will also be of significance in helping a large number of young people. Some 85,000 young people will be assisted under the various aspects of the NEAT scheme this year, the most important of those being the Education Program for Unemployed Youth.

Finally, I believe that the National Youth Conference made a worthwhile contribution to Government decision making in this most important area of youth employment. The Government is in the process of giving very serious attention to the recommendations that have come out of that conference and it is significant, notwithstanding the explanation given by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) earlier, that not one member of the Opposition saw fit to attend that youth conference and listen to its deliberations.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! The honourable member’s time has expired. The discussion is now concluded.

page 1736

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

-As Chairman of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 175th report of the Committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr CONNOLLY:

-by leave-The Committee’s 175th report is the second in a significant series on the use of automatic data processing in the public sector. The first report dealt with the acquisition of large scale systems in the Public Service, especially the high cost that can result and has frequently resulted from unduly prolonging the procurement process. This report concerns the origin, acquisition and development of one major Public Service system- the Mandata project- described by the Public Service Board in its 1 97 1 annual report as: . . A centralised service-wide computer based personnel and establishment system with direct links to the payroll and superannuation systems, that would provide a response to inquiries as effective as existing systems while providing a superior management information system.

Our detailed examination of this project confirmed the views we stated in our previous report on the importance of senior management’s close involvement in all stages of a major project. The fact that this did not occur for Mandata is a major factor contributing to the difficulties experienced with this project. We would not wish our report to be seen merely as being critical of the commissioners of the Public Service Board. Rather, our recommendations are based on sound management principles and if the commissioners view them in a positive and open way they will lead to a speedy and effective completion of the project.

Despite the manifest problems the Committee believes that Mandata should be completed as quickly as possible. The project as initially envisaged may bring significant benefits to departmental managers and the Public Service Board. The recommendations in this report will be of particular relevance to all future major projects. The mistakes which plagued Mandata should not be repeated. We believe that the Mandata project was in its initial stages poorly planned and directed. Some aspects of its management are still unsatisfactory. We conclude that the commissioners of the Public Service Board were not well informed on Mandata ‘s progress. They did not effectively review and control the project’s development. There was more than 100 per cent change in the personnel involved in the leadership of the Mandata development team, and this had a major impact on the quality of evidence given to our inquiry.

The re-organisation of the Board’s structure, begun in May 1978, had a significant effect upon the character of our inquiry. The operation of the Mandata office was removed from the control of the ADP division and placed in a direct management relationship, through the Secretary, to the Board itself. From that time, with renewed senior management control and newer project management, the level of co-operation and the quality of information that began to flow to the Committee improved remarkably. Despite the evident improvement, we still must be critical of some of the detailed planning and control yet to be implemented. The Committee believes that Mandata was an example of a situation which will become increasingly common in an era of high technology; for example, uncertainty about the responsibilities of non-technical policy makers, in this case commissioners of the Public Service board and the heads of user departments, in initiating and directing complex technical projects. The Committee concluded that the Public Service Board, which was responsible for developing and operating Mandata, had seriously underestimated the difficulty of implementing the project and overestimated its ability in a field where it had no prior experience.

Mandata equipment, development and operation have so far cost, in 1977 dollars, more than $I9m and by 1986-87 will have cost more than $45m. Over the same period the Public Service Board expects that the Public Service should have achieved savings of nearly $100m in reduced clerical costs and improved manpower resource management. The Committee considered that significant costs have been incurred on Mandata which would have been avoided had the system development been planned and managed in accordance with the best current practice. We believe that at least several million dollars already lost in the form of unproductive cost benefits was due to project delays and errors of planning and development. The Committee appreciates that not all the delays were within the control of the Board. However, the Committee has identified a minimum of $ 1.2m of unnecessary costs which resulted from the premature acquisition of minicomputers and data concentrator units and unproductive site planning.

The Committee is concerned about the accuracy of current estimates of costs and benefits and is of the opinion that the Public Service Board should review them immediately. We believe that anticipated economic benefits would be achieved only if the project were to be completed as quickly as possible and better managed than it has been in the past as only slight cost saving advantages were demonstrated to us. The form that savings from Mandata would actually take is still obscure- whether a reduction in the size of the Public Service, or merely a redeployment of displaced staff to other positions in the Service. The Committee is aware that there are social as well as economic advantages and disadvantages.

The Public Service Board has not fully faced the implications of changes to the workforce that may result from the effects of technological change. It should enunciate its decisions from social as well as economic objectives. We expect that the inquiry into technological change in Australia will be addressing itself to those matters and will assist the Government in formulating guidance for the Public Service Board on acceptable objectives. We believe the Parliament should be informed of these. The Committee is concerned that Public Service departments are not yet fully capable of making effective use of the information that Mandata could provide and training in manpower management is therefore an essential prerequisite to the achievement of the expected benefits.

This inquiry brought to our attention an important principle in the relationship between the Parliament and the Executive. The Committee had considerable difficulty due to inordinate delays in obtaining adequate documentation about Mandata from the Public Service Board. It was reluctant to provide or had declined to provide documents which were alleged to be Cabinet related interdepartmental documents, reports or material used in the preparation of those documents and reports, on the grounds of privilege. The Committee is of the opinion that the proposed guidelines of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) of September 1978 for official witnesses appearing before parliamentary committees in relation to privilege of these documents, has to some extent clarified the situation. But in our case the guidelines were interpreted far too widely by the Board. In the event, representations by the Committee to the Prime Minister achieved the desired result.

The Westminster concept of ministerial responsibility evolved at a time when government operations were much more simple and it was possible for a diligent Minister to comprehend the full range of activities of his department and to take full responsibility for them. The vast increases in complexity and sophistication and the increase in the volume of work in the last decades have put the Westminster tradition under severe stress. It remains absolutely fundamental to parliamentary government that the Executive must be accountable to Parliament which is properly informed of the activities of government. Therefore the need for scrutiny by parliamentary bodies such as the Public Accounts Committee is even more important and reduces the justification for failure to provide relevant information under the excuse of privilege where documents relating to Cabinet submissions or other interdepartmental activities are denied. The members of the Public Accounts Committee do not accept that a general embargo should be placed on access to all material needed in the preparation of Cabinet submissions. An extension of this principle would make the work of the Public Accounts Committee or any other committees of the Parliament- or even the Parliament- impossible.

In November last year, 1 1 months ago, we presented the first report in our series on automatic data processing, the acquisition of systems in the Public Service. In spite of the Prime Minister’s directive for a response within 6 months, and our own long-standing arrangements with the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) and his Department, a response on this subject has not yet been received. Whilst the delay is of concern to the committee, even more disconcerting is a report published in Computer World last Friday, 5 October, that new delays are being built into the process of acquiring a computer system making the situation worse than ever. We hope there is no substance to that report.

The Committee would like to think that the Public Service Board and other interested bodies will examine our recommendations in context and, before the new guidelines are promulgated, will discuss them with the Committee as well as with those who will be charged with the responsibility to permanent heads for the implementation of systems within their departments. The rate of change of computer technology is faster than the community’s ability to appreciate it. Whilst there is often criticism that Parliament is not giving its efforts to major social problems this Committee’s report represents the most serious attempt by any parliamentary institution to come to grips with the implications of computer technology.

In undertaking this inquiry the Committee has imposed on itself a very great workload and due acknowledgement must be given to my colleagues on the sub-committee- the honourable member for Lalor, Mr Barry Jones, Senator John Watson and Senator Misha Lajovic. We must also pay tribute to the secretariat of the Committee and its technical adviser, Mr Peter MacGregor. I reiterate that we firmly believe that this report is a positive contribution to administrative efficiency and effectiveness. I commend the report to honourable members.

page 1738

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 September, on motion by Mr Street:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-We of the Opposition are totally opposed to this legislation. We see the legislation as very sinister and perhaps the ultimate linchpin to be used by this Government in calling any future snap Federal election because it has all the provisos necessary for the Government to interfere totally with the operations of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, in complete ignorance of what is best for industrial relations in this country, and so bring about a confrontation from which the Government would hope to benefit politically at any given election. There can be no explanation for the changes in the legislation now before the House. Certainly none was given in the second reading speech of the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street). It was a very short speech and it gave no explanation of these very major changes to the operations of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The changes are viewed with great suspicion not only by the Australian Labor Party but also by people outside this place whom I will name and who have gone as far as to say that some of the measures could be challenged and could prove to be quite unconstitutional as far as the operations of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission are concerned.

With that in mind one can understand why the Government needed to keep secret as far as possible the measures contained in this legislation. It did that successfully because not only were the documents which gave the details of this legislation and which were handed out to members of the Government taken back by the Minister so that they could not be shown to anybody else but also at the National Labour Consultative Council- the tripartite body set up by this Government to discuss industrial relations legislation to come before this House- meeting at which this legislation was discussed only representatives of the employers were present. The Minister in his second reading speech said that it was unfortunate that the trade union movement was not present at the August meeting which discussed the measures contained in this Bill. However, that is insufficient reason to give to the Parliament of this country or the people who are involved in the day-to-day operations of industrial relations, whether they be from employer or employee organisations, being given absolutely no opportunity to discuss these measures. A the time the trade union movement was protesting about the Government’s actions in respect of the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act so it boycotted the meeting.

The Minister should have persisted to ensure that everybody involved with these measures was given the opportunity to discuss them, but that was not the case. The only people who were present at the meeting which was held on 6 August were the Minister, his departmental officials, Sir Samuel Burston, Mr Brunckhorst, Mr Kirby, Mr Polites, representing the National Employers Policy Committee, and his advisers, Mr Tregillis, Mr Watchorn, Mr Fry and Mr Noakes. There was no voice at all from the trade union movement. Subsequently, it became a pretty happy club with the representatives of the employers and the Minister sitting down to say: Well, how can we go on and do a little more union bashing in this country? Have a look at the provisions that we propose to put into the Conciliation and Arbitration Act’. Of course, whilst there was some questioning as to the legality of these measures, by and large the employers said: Well, if it is going to make it tougher for the trade union movement, if you think you can get away with it, let us have a go ‘. The legislation has been brought in without the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Council of Australian

Government Employee Organisations sitting down with the Government to discuss it.

The legislation is brought into this place in such a vague way that no one can readily understand the ramifications of the legislation and no one can give an interpretation of it. The Commission was not consulted, which I think was an insult to the Commission because a previous Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Clyde Cameron, has told me that when he was intending to bring into the House legislation dealing with the Act he would always seek the opinion of the Commission. Some of the most experienced industrial relations people- whether they be in the commissioner or the presidential role- are members of the Arbitration Commission and their views should have been sought because we are dealing with legislation that cuts across all the traditional relationships between commissioner, deputy president and the President himself. But there is no explanation by the Minister in his second reading speech as to the effects of the proposed changes.

The Bill has political overtones. One is suspicious of the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) now has in his own department a section to advise him on industrial relations. One is entitled to ask: Is this legislation the product of the Department of Industrial Relations or is it the brainchild of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet which by and large does not know anything about industrial relations? Why was the Government so keen to fix things up at the meeting that was held by the employers on 6 August- the partially attended meeting of the National Labour Consultative Council? The Minister has admitted that some of the measures included in this legislation are designed to overcome isolated instances. We are now debating in this Parliament legislation which has ramifications beyond anything this Parliament can expose. This legislation deals not with things that occur every day in the field of industrial relations but with instances that may occur once a year. That is the reason for altering the Act. We all know in this Parliament that the Act is hard enough to follow as it is. In fact, there is not a copy of the Act available for every member of this Parliament. Many members of Parliament who will be taking part in this debate will not have had the opportunity of even looking at an up-to-date copy of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. That is the sort of mess that we find ourselves in when we come to a debate of this nature.

The Opposition’s objection is that there has been no consultation with half of the parties to industrial relations in this country- those units which represent organised labour in this country. These measures have been pushed through at a meeting between the Government and representatives of the employers. They will grossly undermine the role and the position of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in such a way as to impede the Commission in fulfilling its statutory function of preventing and settling industrial disputes. It has to be kept in mind throughout this debate that the Commission exists constitutionally to settle and prevent industrial disputes. These measures will hinder the Commission in finding workable solutions to the industrial relations problems that may arise. The changes represent a continuation of the Government’s foolish reliance on draconian sanctions rather than common sense and negotiations to settle industrial disputes. Whenever we have an industrial dispute in this country it is always the wish of this Government to crack the nut with a sledgehammer and to try to settle disputes in a tough way.

Honourable members will see that one of the changes is directly related to the threats that were made by the Prime Minister in this House some months ago in relation to a dispute between Telecom Australia and the Australian Telecommunications Employees Association. At the time, when the Prime Minister made his threats, they fell on deaf ears because when the people sat down to negotiate one of the features of that settlement was something that the Prime Minister said would not happen. Now we have wholesale changes to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to see that this sort of thing does not happen. This measure should not have been introduced into the Parliament until such time as a full meeting of the NLCC had been held and until such time as the Government had been able to give an interpretation of what these changes mean so that those people who will participate under the legislation know exactly how they will be involved.

As I said, much has been said about these laws that ought to be looked at quite seriously. Sir Richard Kirby is known to everybody in this country who has been involved in industrial relations. No one is looked upon as being a greater authority on the question of industrial relations than Sir Richard Kirby. Let us look at his reaction to the measures that were introduced by this Government. In attacking the legislation generally, he said that it destroyed respect for the Commission in the eyes of all groups in the industrial process. He said:

Industrial harmony and co-operation between workers and employers is not produced by legislation of this sort. You cannot achieve it by Draconian legislation or threats.

Further, on AM on 2 1 September, he said:

More consultation and less confrontation, the better.

He believes that by hobbling the Commission’s powers, the Government had called into question the Commission’s role as an arbiter. His attack on constitutional grounds was directed at the proposed bar on the Commission to order employers to make good wages lost during a strike. He said:

The Constitution states that the Federal Government has powers to legislate for a Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to settle disputes of an interstate nature. Thus, an Arbitration Commission if it’s to arbitrate, must be able to settle a problem based on the arguments before it

You cannot tell the arbitrator beforehand what the result is going to be.

Sir Richard Kirby has made it quite clear that he believes that these laws may not be legal and, if they do turn out to be legal, if ever challenged, it may well be that they just cannot operate; that they will not work in the best interests of industrial relations; that they will hobble and undermine the respect in which the Commission is held; and that they will interfere greatly with the relationships that have been built up in the Commission itself.

I turn now to some of the measures that are contained in this Bill. I want to deal firstly with proposed new section 22A, ‘Commissioner to consult with Presidential Member before exercising certain powers’. The proposed new section reads:

*22A.Where-

a Commissioner proposes to make an award, or certify a memorandum of agreement, making provision for, or altering, the rates of wages or the conditions applicable in relation to employees in a particular industry or group of industries; and

that industry or group of industries, as the case may be, has been assigned under sub-section ( I ) of section 23 to a panel of members of the Commission, the Commissioner shall, before making the award or certifying the memorandum of arrangement. whether or not he is a member of that panel, consult with the Presidential Member who is a member of that panel.

That is the first major item which the Minister asks this Parliament to accept. I put it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that no one in this Parliament has had explained to him what the term ‘consult’ means. Does it mean that the people who are to be involved- the Commissioner and the Deputy President- have to sit right through the hearing, does it mean that the Commissioner merely gets a pat on the head for the work he has already done, or does it mean that the Deputy President can change the decision without listening to the case? The Parliament is entitled to ask the Minister those questions.

This proposed new section will require a commissioner, before making or varying an award or certifying a memorandum of agreement with respect to wages or conditions, to consult with the presidential member assigned to the relevant panel. The requirement of consultation raises problems of a legal, industrial and constitutional nature, all of which illustrate that the proposed amendment is ill-conceived and ought to be withdrawn. The immediate difficulty arises as to what the requirement to ‘consult’ in proposed new section 22A entails. It would seem that consultation involves something more positive than a commissioner simply informing the presidential member of a decision. Whether, on the other hand, the presidential member must approve a decision before it may be handed down is not clear. What is clear is that the proposed section will lead to great uncertainty in the minds of members of the Commission and of the parties before the Commission about the consultation process and may lead to legal challenges to decisions handed down. Further, the proposed new section provides no guide as to what is to occur in a situation where, for example, there is a disagreement between a commissioner and a deputy president. Whose decision is to prevail?

The requirement to consult will tend to undermine the existing authority of commissioners in the eyes of the parties appearing before them. This will make it more difficult for commissioners to perform their work of conciliating and arbitrating. Further, the knowledge that whatever decision a commissioner comes to is subject to the approval of a deputy president will tend to lower the confidence of parties in the conciliation and arbitration system and to make them sceptical about the value of participating in proceedings where the real judge is not even present to hear the arguments. I repeat: The real judge, if that is to be the role of the deputy president, will not even be present to listen to the arguments before the commissioner. Thus, he will be given the role of being able to make a decision over and above that of the commissioner. The requirement to consult will also fundamentally alter the existing relationships and work loads in the Commission and may promote disaffection amongst members especially since no clearly denned decision-making process is provided in proposed new section 22A. Further, depending upon how the requirement to consult is interpreted, the requirement may place a heavy work load on presidential members as they would need to examine fully the arguments and information put before the Commissioner in order to assess the proposed decision.

There is also the question raised by Sir Richard Kirby- the constitutional problem. There is scope for arguing that proposed new section 22A is invalid for constitutional reasons. The Commonwealth Parliament has power to legislate with respect to conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of interstate industrial disputes. The High Court of Australia has held that conciliation and arbitration implies the existence of a tribunal, conciliator or arbitrator which conducts the conciliation and arbitration. Although the conciliator or arbitrator does not have to be present at every stage of the hearing of a dispute, he must at least be present at some stage. In the Boilermaker’s case, R. v. Kirby ex parte Boilmakers Society of Australia as set out in 1956 Commonwealth Law Report No. 254, Mr Justice Taylor of the High Court said:

The constitution therefore authorises Parliament to legislate for the establishment of a tribunal to which the parties to industrial disputes of the specified character are compelled to submit their differences and which, in the exercise of its arbitral functions, is bound to proceed, according to the principles of justice, to hear the parties and to determine the matters in dispute.

It would seem, therefore, that the process of conciliation and arbitration contemplated by the Constitution involves the application of the principles of natural justice. In normal circumstances, natural justice requires that he who decides must also hear. In other words, the members of a tribunal who participate in a decision must have listened to the submissions and evidence. However, the requirements of natural justice are not fixed but vary according to all the circumstances. Whether the principles of natural justice which apply in respect of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission are offended by the requirement to consult as proposed in new section 22A will require determination by the High Court.

The overall effect of proposed new section 22A is likely to impede the efficient and effective operation of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and to jeopardise good industrial relations. It will create greater uncertainty both within and outside the Commission. Further, there are serious doubts about the constitutionality of the proposed new section. Clearly, it is in an unsatisfactory state and ought to be withdrawn altogether by the Government.

The second proposed new section with which I wish to deal- section 2 5 A- relates to limitation on the powers of the Commission and states:

The Commission is not empowered to make an award, certify a memorandum of agreement, make a recommendation or take any other action, whether by way of conciliation or arbitration, in respect of a claim for the making of a payment to employees in respect of a period during which those employees were engaged in industrial action.

As Sir Richard Kirby pointed out, this is telling the judge to make the decision before he hears the case. Sir Richard Kirby is right. It takes away from the Commission one of the powers it has in order to carry out its constitutional function of settling industrial disputes. The section provides that the Commission is not empowered to deal with any claim by employees for payment for time lost when those employees were engaged in industrial action. Under the present law claims for payment for wages lost during industrial action have been made on relatively few occasions in recent years. The Minister admitted to this at the meeting of the NLCC at which the trade unions were not present. He said that the instances of that decision having been made were very isolated.

Where claims have been granted by the Commission it has been because the Commission has found that the industrial action was necessitated by the actions of the employer and that it would have been unfair to expect employees to bear the loss of wages involved. Thus, in the case of the Master Builders’ Association and the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation, Commissioner Taylor ordered a company to make good the wages withheld from members of the union who were on strike because, firstly, the amenities were unsatisfactory and, secondly, the company had failed to abide by an agreement for the settlement of the dispute by private arbitration. In a further case of Hurst and the same union strike pay was awarded because the strike over the hazards caused by materials left lying around the building site was justified. In a recent decision in the case of Costain Australia Pty Ltd and the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union of Australia, Mr Justice Alley of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission commented that there was no proper basis for payment for time lost as a result of industrial action unless the actions of the employer were so extreme that the refusal to work was the only reasonable course left open to the employees. I refer the House to the causes of industrial disputation in 1978 taken from Catalogue No. 6322.0 of the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Wages caused 5 1.8 per cent of industrial disputes; hours of work 1.5 per cent; leave, pensions, compensation provisions, et cetera, 1 .2 per cent; managerial policy was the cause of 25.6 per cent of all industrial disputes; and physical working conditions- this is another reason for the Commission granting strike paycaused 4.9 per cent of disputes. Industrial action in order to establish trade unionism in some places accounted for 4.4 per cent of disputes. Other reasons have caused 10.5 per cent of disputes.

One can see the one-sided approach that this Government has to the question of strike pay. It is taking away from the Commission the right to grant back pay where the Commission has found the employer to be at fault. One quarter of all the disputes in this country is caused by bad managerial policy. The granting of strike pay occurs very rarely but it occurs too often for this Government. It has determined to tell the Commission that it will no longer have the prerogative to settle disputes by awarding strike pay. This amendment will not do away with the problem. What will happen when the plumbers and gasfitters, the builders’ labourers, the metal workers, the wharfies, the miners or others go out on strike because of bad management and want their pay made up? One thing which will cause them to go back to work will be the settling of that argument. But the Government is taking from the Commission its rightful role in settling such disputes. It is saying to the parties involved- the employer and employee organisations- that they should settle the matter outside the Commission.

Many of the measures contained in this legislation push the parties away from the traditional acceptance of conciliation and arbitration, the role which the Commission has played for so many years. Does the Government think that as a result of amending the Act trade union members will say when they have lost a week’s work because of bad safety conditions prevailing on a building job that they do not want to be paid for it even though they lost the time because of bad management? The matter will be settled outside the court. No amendments to the Act will overcome that. As I have said, the number of these cases is so substantial that the Government should have been cognisant of that when it made its decision. If we want to trace the history of this amendment all we have to do is to remember the ravings of the Prime Minister during the Telecom dispute. He told us in the Parliamenthonourable members can look it up in Hansardthat for members of the Australian Telecommunications Employees Association who had been out in disputation over the technological change taking place in their industry, money lost was money lost. The Prime Minister told the people of Australia that anybody who had lost time and pay would not have it made up as one of the conditions of settlement of the dispute. But Justice Gaudron sat down on a Sunday with the parties involved and decided that 70 per cent of the workers involved in the dispute would receive their back pay. That was a fundamental reason why the dispute was settled. It was settled by the good offices of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the person who it put in charge of the dispute.

These activities will continue outside the Commission but they should not. The Government is denigrating the role of the Commission by pushing parties outside it. There is no doubt in my mind that the Prime Minister at last has had his say in making good his threat of last year that people who go out on strike or who are involved in industrial action will lose their money. In some instances where cases have been before the court and where the Commission has made good any pay lost, 99.9 per cent of the work still has been done. A dispute may arise over a very small section of the work that has to be done in any given industry. The Commission rightfully has said that the employers would not bludge on the decision of the Commission if the work has been done. If the employers did not want the work done they had their alternatives. If they wanted the work done- 99.9 per cent of it is done anyway- they had a duty to see that pay was made up to the employees involved.

Before concluding I want to deal with what I consider to be the most serious aspect of this legislation. I give notice to the Minister that we will debate all these clauses of the Bill at the Committee stage so that the Government can tell us then what it did not tell us in the second reading speech. The bureaucrats from the Department of Industrial Relations ought to brush up on their speech making prowess. The second reading speech of this Bill was dreadful if its authors were hoping that people involved in industrial relations would understand what the amendments meant. They did not go to any length to explain or to justify the proposed new section concerning deregistration. This is where the term ‘draconian’ used by Sir Richard Kirby comes into effect. For the Government to involve itself in determining the behaviour that a union will have to adopt in order to remain a registered party is something that no one involved in industrial relations could have imagined in his wildest dreams. The Government is taking away from the Commission its traditional role and giving itself the power, behind the cloak of the Governor-General in Executive Council, to determine the question of deregistration of unions.

This does not replace the existing provisions; it is in addition to the deregistration powers which are already part of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

As I have said, under the new provisions the Minister alone has the power to seek a declaration which means that for the six months after that declaration the Government can lay down the standards for the operation and behaviour of a trade union. This can be determined not as a result of the actions of all the trade union members but as a result of the actions of only two or more members of that union. Some unions in this country have 160,000 members. If two or more of those members do anything which in the words of this amending Bill affects the safety, health or welfare of the people of this country a declaration can be sought from the Commission that if such behaviour occurs again within six months the union will be deregistered. The Government now will take that power into its own hands. That is why I say that this is the linchpin for an election. No union will tolerate this measure. The Minister does not interpret the word ‘consult’. We can understand that, but when we look at the words used in the Bill we wonder what does not affect the health, safety and welfare of the people of this country. This Government has made some of the most disgusting decisions in the history of Australia. It took away the twice-yearly indexation of pensions. That affected the health and welfare of Australians but the Government does not interpret its action in that way. Everything that is done in this country affects the safety, health and welfare of people, but the Prime Minister wants to kick the trade union movement and use it as the last resort in order to stay Prime Minister of this country. That is what this draconian legislation is aimed at. That is the reason why it was shrouded in secrecy. That is the reason why the measure was pushed through the National Labour Consultative Council when the unions were not present. That is the reason why this Bill has been brought into the House so quickly before there could be any discussion on its provisions. As yet, we have not been given an explanation how the provisions of the legislation will apply.

The Government did not have the decency to ask the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for its opinion on these measures. No doubt, privately, members of the Commission at all levels are making their voices heard about what they see as the impact of this legislation. One cannot make good laws by the manner in which this Bill has been presented to the Parliament. This measure will prove to be the avenue of greater confrontation in the field of industrial relations in this country.

It may be that the Prime Minister will get some political advantage out of this legislation in the short term, but it will disrupt industrial relations enormously. I am shocked and surprised at the attitude of some of the employer representatives who collaborated with the Government at the NLCC meeting to push these measures through; they should have had more sense. As time will tell, the trade union movement will not be able to subscribe to the powers that the Government has given itself. Come the first challenge to the High Court that some sections of this Bill are unconstitutional, that challenge will prove to be correct.

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

Mr BURR:
Wilmot

-In his opening comments, the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) said that he was totally opposed to the legislation now before the House. I can understand why he is so totally opposed to the amendments proposed by this Bill. People throughout Australia should understand the reason for his total opposition. No one in this House or in this nation should lose sight of one of the resolutions of the Australian Labor Party conference at Adelaide earlier this year to the effect that an Australian Labor Party government would recognise the rights of unions to regulate their affairs in a democratic way free from government and judicial interference. The key to the reason why the honourable member for Port Adelaide is so opposed to this legislation is that the Labor Party is opposed to any form of regulation of or interference in trade union affairs by any government or by any jurisdiction. I think that that attitude is absolutely disgraceful.

Mr Neil:

– They are pawns of the left wing.

Mr BURR:

– As the honourable member for St George says, they are pawns of the left wing. The reason why the honourable member for Port Adelaide is so opposed to this legislation is that his party believes that trade unions should be above the law. This Government does not believe that any organisation in this country should be above the law. It is prepared to take such legislative action as will ensure that the community is protected against the actions of these industrial gangsters.

In his speech, the honourable member for Port Adelaide seemed to lay some importance on the fact that the trade union movement did not participate in the National Labour Consultative Council discussions when the amendments proposed by this Bill were brought forward. He seemed to lay at the feet of the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) all of the blame for the failure of the trade unions to attend that meeting. Such a claim is totally wrong and we need to understand that fact. On two occasions, the Minister wrote to the Australian Council of Trade Unions and to the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations inviting them- in fact, appealing to them- to participate in the NLCC discussions for the reason that he was proposing amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. But the trade union movement, showing its usual short-sightedness, refused to participate in those discussions. It refused even to come to the meetings where amendments were being discussed. That is why the trade union movement did not participate. The reason was not that the movement was not aware of those discussions. It was certainly not because of any failure on the part of the Minister; he did everything in his power to ensure that the trade unions would be represented. He purposely set up the NLCC for that purpose. He invited, and appealed to, the trade unions to come to those meetings. However, they failed to come. They showed a short-sightedness in respect of a matter which they thought to be of some importance. Can the Minister be blamed because the unions did not attend? Surely, the blame for that failure should be laid very squarely at the feet of the President of the ACTU, Mr Hawke. None of us should forget that fact.

Other claims mentioned in the speech of the honourable member for Port Adelaide should be cleared up as some people who listened to his speech unfortunately may be deceived into thinking that his arguments had some validity. What utter rubbish! He made the comment that some of the amendments proposed by this Bill could be brought under constitutional challenge. He based that opinion on a statement by Sir Richard Kirby, a former President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. However, Sir Richard Kirby ‘s view on this matter should be treated with a great deal of suspicion. What does section 5 1 of the Constitution provide? The honourable member for Port Adelaide may be interested to read the Constitution because in that section the Government is given power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth -

Mr BARRY JONES:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Parliament! The Parliament! Not the Government, the Parliament!

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr BARRY JONES:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I raise a point of order. The honourable member is misleading the House. It is not the Government; it is the Parliament.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Lalor will resume his seat. There is no point of order.

Mr BURR:

– I am quite prepared to discuss the point of order raised by the honourable member for Lalor. It is the Parliament that will make these laws. When the vote is taken in the House, the honourable member will jolly well see that the majority supports the proposition being put forward by the Government. But if it is the Parliament that is charged with the responsibility of making laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth, surely that is exactly what the Government is proposing to do. That is what this Parliament will eventually do. It will make laws for the peace, order and good government of this country.

What we have seen over recent years in this country is a disgraceful exhibition by a minority of militant trade unions. The Australian community will no longer tolerate such behaviour. The Government recognises that fact.

I suggest that, for their own self-preservation, members of the Opposition take a good hard look at community thinking on the actions of the Opposition’s colleagues in the trade union movement. If the Opposition believes that it can cling to the apron strings of the trade union movement and win elections, it has another jolly think coming to it. The community will not tolerate unruly disruption by certain sections of the trade union movement. Without a shadow of doubt, the trade union movement is dominated by the left wing of the Labor movement. The purpose of the people on the opposite side of the chamber is to become the puppets of the left wing of the trade union movement. Therefore, if the Constitution gives the Parliament power to make orders for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth, surely the statement that has been made by Sir Richard Kirby should be treated with a great deal of suspect. The Government has received quite expert legal advice to the effect that the proposed amendments do comply with the provisions of the Constitution. So the position is that some senior constitutional legal advisers to the Government say that these amendments are constitutional while one person, who cannot be regarded as an expert on constitutional matters, tells the Australian Labor Party that what this legislation proposes is unconstitutional. In the ultimate, I think the Parliament should accept that advice of the constitutional experts.

Sir Richard Kirby says that the amendment being proposed by the Government to ensure that commissioners should consult with a deputy president also is unconstitutional. The honourable member for Port Adelaide made the claim that this provision was an attempt by the Government to dictate to the Commission and to the commissioners what they should do. Surely what the Government is proposing is related to procedural matters. No direction in any way is proposed on the decisions that should be brought down by an individual commissioner, by a deputy president or by a Full Bench: The procedural matters contained in the legislation ensure that the Commission maintains some form of consistency.

What have we seen? The classic illustration of why the Government is bringing this measure into effect is the most disastrous and disgraceful decision that has been made by anyone of judicial authority in Australia, the decision by Commissioner Deverall in respect of claims that were made in the airline industry. What Commissioner Deverall did was to grant award increases ranging up to $23 a week to employees in the airline industry. That was done without any consideration at all of the effect it would have on the wage fixation system in Australia and it was certainly done contrary to the guidelines of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. We had one commissioner sitting on his own and bringing down a decision which was the most disastrous wage fixing decision in this country and which was in contradiction of the guidelines of the Commission itself. Yet members on the opposite side of this House say that the Government should not take action to prevent that happening again. What utter rubbish! We need to recognise the fact that when Commissioner Deverall made that decision it brought with it a spate of industrial disputation. The employers, quite rightly and knowing that they had grounds for appeal, appealed to a Full Bench, causing the unions to go out on strike. That decision was subsequently amended, which again brought a round of industrial disputation. After subsequent appeal to the Full Bench the increases ranged from $8 to $10 per week. This caused a flow-on effect to all other award provisions which is still continuing in this country 12 months later.

That effect itself has brought with it a wide range of disputation across this country. We had one commissioner sitting on his own, making a decision in contradiction of the Commission’s own guidelines that caused economic and industrial chaos throughout this country. Yet members opposite say that the Government should not have the temerity to change that situation. What utter rubbish! I remind members on the opposite side that we accept our constitutional responsibilities to make laws for good government and good conduct of this country and regardless of what members of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the trade union movement generally and members on the opposite side of this House say, we will not shirk those responsibilities. I was surprised that the honourable member for Port Adelaide made no reference to the decision that was made by Commissioner Deverall. Quite obviously, he would be aware of the situation and I suspect that he would have taken part in private discussions about it with people in the trade union movement. Yet he very purposely made no reference whatever to it in his speech. I think there could only be a very purposeful intent behind his not commenting on that matter in his speech.

Let us go on to some of the other points in the Bill and some of the other points that were made by the honourable member for Port Adelaide. I was surprised at the line that he took. In the course of his speech he made considerable reference to the fact that the Government is legislating to prevent the Commission from ordering strike pay. He seemed to think that there was something sinister in that. What utter rubbish! Who in this country believes that if a person says: I will not go to work’, that person should be paid? Who, using any form of common sense, could accept that situation? But that is what members on the opposite side of this House say. They say that if a person says: ‘I will not go to work’ he should be paid. What rubbish! What has happened to the old Labor principles of a good day’s work for a good day’s pay? Where have those principles of the great party gone? Good Lord, some of the predecessors of members opposite would turn in their graves if they could hear what is coming from members opposite at the moment. As my colleague the honourable member for St George says, they are puppets of the Left and the sooner the people of Australia realise that the better. We once had a great Labor Party and a great union movement but by crikey they have been led down the mine by the people who now sit opposite, and the people of Australia need to accept that.

The honourable member for Port Adelaide says that we should accept that people who go on strike should get full pay. He cited some of the decisions that have been made in this respect.

There were some notable ones that he did not cite and I think the people throughout the country should be reminded of them. One that he very purposely did not cite related to the dispute involving the State Bank site in Melbourne. What happened in that case? True, it happened two years ago but it was such a disgusting exhibition that no one in this country should forget it. What happened- I am sure my colleague the honourable member for St George would remember it- was that that notable leader of the trade union movement, Mr Gallagher, decided to use guerrilla tactics to blackmail a $30 a week increase out of employers. Which employer could accept that? There was industrial disputation and the matter went before Commissioner Brown who said that the members of the union should be paid full wages for the five weeks of that dispute. What rubbish! Those people purposely went on strike in order to blackmail increases out of their employer and then expected to be paid because they were purposely trying to drive their employer broke. Common sense could not accept that. No one exercising common sense could accept that sort of scenario. But that is what honourable members on the opposite side of this chamber want us to believe. I believe that the Government has acted responsibly in directing the Commission not to pay wages to people who are on strike. That is what the people of this country are demanding. We cannot have such disgraceful decisions being made. It is what the people want and it is what this Government is responding to.

The final point made by the honourable member for Port Adelaide related to deregistration. He believes that the Government is doing this in order to win an election. I remind honourable members opposite that this Government does not have to introduce industrial legislation in order to win an election. It is a lay-down misere that this Government will win the next election, whenever it is held. That seemed to be the point at argument by the honourable member for Port Adelaide. That in itself is totally irrelevant because there is no dispute that when the next election comes around the people of Australia will respond and re-elect this Government. They can see the legitimacy of the legislation that is being enacted, they can see the direction that the economy is taking and they know full well that given the choice between the philosophies of the Liberal Party and those of the Labor Party, the Liberal Party philosophies are the only ones that will keep this country on the straight and narrow.

What the honourable member for Port Adelaide also did not say in his speech was that this Government cannot simply make an order for deregistration of a union. The Government has to make application, through the Minister for Industrial Relations, to the Full Bench of the Commission. If the Minister decides that an issue affecting the health, safety and welfare of the community is of such importance that deregistration action should be taken, he must make application to the Full Bench and he has to justify his position in a Full Bench hearing. It is only then, on the recommendation of the Full Bench that the deregistration proceedings can continue. Is the honourable member for Port Adelaide challenging the Full Bench and saying that it is a puppet of this Government or of any government? If he is, such a charge is absolute rubbish, because no Full Bench would be directed by a government of this or any other persuasion. The Minister has to apply for those hearings. The honourable member for Port Adelaide asked quite piously: ‘What sorts of disputes could affect the health, safety and welfare of the community? What actions could the trade union movement take?’ Has he forgotten already the dispute affecting milk tanker drivers in Victoria when tanker drivers, trying to blackmail more money out of their employers, were prepared to hold up all milk deliveries in that State? Does he believe that that would not affect the health of the people of Victoria? Of course it would.

What government, acting responsibly, could allow unions to take that sort of irresponsible action and not respond to it? That is what this Government has done. No community can have such vital supplies held up. No government, when the health and welfare of the community are obviously at some peril, cannot respond to the situation. This Government is responding to it because its whole industrial policy is to protect the community. We believe we have a responsibility to do that. What we will not do is to sit quietly by and allow the trade union movement to ride roughshod over this community. Honourable members on the other side of the house would be prepared to do that because they are being dictated to by the left wing of the union movement. I am disgusted with them because they would allow their party and the great principles of their party of the past, to be so decimated by left wing manipulation that the Labor Party, as it was originally formed, no longer exists. It is no longer a Labor Party representing working people; it is now a left wing party that has been dominated and in some cases dictated to by people outside this country. They should be ashamed to have led their party into such a state of disrepute.

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

-Honourable members have heard another tirade from the lightweight champion of the back bench, the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr). It seems to me that the Government pays scant respect to the seriousness of this debate when it allows such an instant expert- by the sound of his speech, he became an expert two minutes ago- to speak on industrial matters. The Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill is just another saga in the ever-continuing philosophy of the Government to set upon the unions, to destroy the mouthpiece of millions of workers in this country and to make the tamecat organisations about which Ben Chifley talked a matter of course. Time and time again the Government has tried to stand over the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, make it a regulator of the economy, a scapegoat for the Government and a body which will carry out all the decisions imposed upon it by the Government’s philosophy when the Government does not have enough guts to carry them out itself.

Let us look at the provisions of the legislation. One provision stopping the Arbitration Commission from acting in certain ways will probably prove to be invalid. I will pay some attention to that in a few moments. No doubt, despite the protestations of those on the other side of the House, it will be challenged on constitutional grounds. The Government is trying to tell the Commission how to conduct its business. The new measures will lead to greater industrial trouble and the implementation of the provisions will be a tragedy. I am not referring to the remarks of a trade union leader who has just read this draconian Bill but to comments that were made today by the member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) when citing Mr Justice Kirby. Mr Justice Kirby is a long-time honoured member of the Full Bench. Who would have the courage to stand up in this House or anywhere else and criticise the service that Sir Richard Kirby gave to the Abitration Commission. I am sure the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) would not, and I do not believe that anybody else would either.

The remarks of Sir Richard Kirby referred to by the honourable member for Port Adelaide are fundamental to any argument that leads to the questioning of the bona fides of this legislation.

As I pointed out the other night, this is not just a series of amendments that go to the point of tidying up what has been a tried and tested piece of legislation. The procedures and principles of the present Conciliation and Arbitration Act have been used by many people on both sides of the fence in the interests of industrial relations. If the accent is taken away from conciliation and we move once again, as the honourable member for Port Adelaide has pointed out, to compulsory arbitration, we have to take the consequences. I indicated some days ago in a previous debate that a number of principles underlie a compulsory arbitration system. It really takes the accent away from conciliation, the process by which people sit across the table from one another in an endeavour to establish their bona fides and resolve an industrial dispute. Once a dispute is under way, the only manner in which it can be resolved satisfactorily at any time is by conciliation.

Time and dme again people have tried to impose a compulsory arbitration system on the workers of this country and their representatives, and they have all failed. They have failed because of one essential reason to which I have referred before. When penalties are imposed for non-compliance with arbitration decisions it is up to the courts to collect the money. All the four elements that are inherent in such an arbitration system failed at the time of the O’Shea case in Victoria. They failed because the trade union movement was not convinced that it should commit itself to or abide by a compulsory arbitration system. They failed because the unions refused to pay the fines, and they will refuse to pay the fines in the future. More power to their arm, because any compulsory arbitration system is doomed to failure.

Time and time again honourable members have seen the policies of the Government spat out by either the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) or his lackey at the table at the moment, the Minister for Industrial Relations, who through the course of an industrial dispute pour petrol on the fires of discontent in the industrial area. I refer to the telecommunications, postal and transport disputes, and the other disputes that have occurred over the last 12 or 1 8 months. Each and every time we have heard the Prime Minister or somebody from his side of the House say that there will be no movement away from the decisions taken by the Commission on principles put before it and there will be no movement away from the wage guidelines. Lo and behold, on every occasion without exception, how have the disputes been resolved? They have been resolved by negotiation and discussions about all the questions.

A classic example is the telecommunications dispute. The Australian Telecommunications Commission, after many months of attempted negotiation by the union, refused to negotiate any further. Why did it do that? Because the Government stood right over the top of it and told it that it was not to negotiate in that way and that any decision had to be taken before the Arbitration Commission. Lo and behold, when the matter finally went before the Full Bench- not because the unions wanted the dispute to go there but because, through considerations of public interest, the unions were reaching a stage in the dispute when they had to move a little to gain a little- the Full Bench decided that it was an anomaly to have a $20 difference between the amount being paid to Telecom workers and the amount being paid to workers in like classifications in private enterprise. At the present moment, that dispute is once again getting to a point where negotiations will take place and, once again, it will be resolved by that means.

I have made reference to the postal dispute. Again, there is a different tack by the Government but it comes down to the same issue. It has been said that the question of no work, no pay is outside the jurisdiction of the Commission and, therefore, the matter can not be handled properly by the industrial tribunals of this country but should be taken to common law. When it suits the Government to have parties to a dispute go outside industrial tribunals in this country, it will advocate such action. When it suits the Government it introduces legislation of this nature for the express purpose of attempting to cajole the unions and the Commission into giving effect to its policies. The honourable member for Port Adelaide dealt with a whole range of discrepancies in the Bill. He pointed to the viciousness with which its provisions are to be applied and to some aspects that will be and must be under challenge by the trade union movement.

Perhaps time did not permit him to deal with one of the most important aspects of the Bill, namely, the question of deregistration of unions. The deregistration provisions go a lot further than one would have expected in the past. If deregistration took place in the past there was a limit to the extent that the union would find itself out of the traditional areas of the trade union movement.

Proposed new section 143 A, which is sought to be inserted into the Act, will give to the Governor-General a wide range of powers which may be exercised against unions which take industrial action which has a substantial adverse effect on the safety, health or welfare of the community. What industrial dispute could one envisage that does not come within that category? That provision is about as wide and embracing as it could possibly be. There would be very few disputes that would be outside that interpretation of this proposed new section. If that is not the case then the Minister for Industrial Relations, who is at the table, has a responsibility to explain what that really means.

The proposed section allows the Minister to apply for a declaration from a full bench of the Commission that industrial action by a union or its members has had, is having or is likely to have a substantial adverse effect on the safety, health or welfare of the community. That part of the proposed new section will have application not only to the community as a whole but also to part of the community. Where a declaration is made the Governor-General may, within a six-month period, order the deregistration of the union concerned, or in heu of, or before ordering the deregistration he may do certain other things. I will go on to point out what these things are in a few minutes. In that six-month period the Minister will sit there like God and say: ‘You move one inch out of line and, as far as we are concerned, down will come the back of the axe in typical fashion and that union will be dealt with’.

But that provision does not stop there. Let us read the next part of the proposed new section. It says that the Governor-General may suspend any of the rights, privileges or capacities of the union or all or any of its members under the Act or under any award; give directions as to the exercise of any rights, privileges or capacities that have been suspended; and provide for restricting the use of the funds or property of the union or branch and for the control of those funds or that property for the purpose of ensuring observance of the restrictions. In other words, the GovernorGeneral may, for example, suspend the benefits flowing to members of the union under an award or may take control of the funds of the union in order to prevent the payment of strike pay or the publication of any material relating to the industrial action.

That is about as vicious a clause that one could possibly imagine. I have a copy of the Essential Services Bill which came before the Queensland Parliament on 4 September. Only that Bill, which was initiated in the fascist State in Australia, goes to lengths greater than those contained in the amending legislation which is before us today. The Minister sitting at the table is carrying out the fascist style dictates of the Prime Minister to whom he pays homage. That is what all the individuals on the back bench on the Government side are associating themselves with. This particular clause of the legislation must put to challenge the trade union movement. I believe that strong words are coming from a very weak stomach. We have heard all the gesticulations and seen the waving of arms of members of the Parliament. We have heard all the cajoling that has occurred and we have seen the goaling of people. Do what the Government may, this section is doomed to failure because the Government is painting the trade union movement into a corner. It is forcing the trade union movement to stand up and fight because no organisation worth its salt would accept this vicious legislation under any circumstances.

Where the registration of a union has been cancelled under proposed section 143 A, the union may not be re-registered without the consent of the Governor-General. Where a union is re-registered subject to a condition specified by the Governor-General the Minister may at any time apply to a Full Bench of the Commission for a declaration that the union has not complied with the condition. Where such a declaration is made the Governor-General may again exercise the powers which I have just set out.

What sort of draconion powers are they? What union could accept them? If the Minister still intends to hold the bludgeon over the head of the unions, what recourse do the unions have? There is only one recourse open to them. I refer to what happened in the O’Shea case. Is the Government prepared to take that sort of action? If it is not, the Minister has a responsibility to stand up and tell the public at large how he proposes to give effect to the provisions of this legislation, instead of sitting there sucking his pen while giving effect to everything that the Prime Minister says and tagging behind him like a lap dog. The Minister has a responsibility to the people of Australia, to the Parliament, and to the unions to explain precisely what this provision means.

The four objections to proposed new section 143A are: The use of the severe sanctions contained in the proposed new section is unlikely to assist with the settlement of industrial disputes; in fact, the use of such sanctions usually has the effect of exacerbating the industrial situation. That has been the history of the use of such sanctions. If honourable members read any of the works that have been produced in relation to the effects of the compulsory arbitration system, such as those by Foernander and Portus, or any of the other individuals, or even by Mr Justice

Woodward himself, one would then reach conclusions similar to those that I am reaching as a result of looking at just one clause of the Bill. The honourable member for Port Adelaide dealt comprehensively with many other clauses of the Bill.

The second objection is that the proposed section provides wide scope for the LiberalNational Country Party Government to interfere in industrial disputes for political reasons and without regard to the interests of the parties or to the real interests of the community. The honourable member for Wilmot who spoke in the debate asked: Why should people be paid strike pay? What would happen- this does not happen, as people who have had experience in the building industry in particular know- if we had a situation of people having to work with unsafe methods. For instance, in 1957 a crane on a building in Melbourne collapsed, killing about five people and maiming about 30. There were many deputations to the company regarding that job but those deputations were ignored. The company had to wait until somebody was killed before it did anything about it. If industrial action is taken under those conditions and if the employer is responsible, why should the employer not pay for what he has caused?

Mr Young:

– What about the bridge?

Mr INNES:

– And the King Street bridge was another one. The King Street bridge was a classic example where some 30-odd people were killed.

Mr Roger Johnston:

– You have your bridges mixed.

Mr INNES:

-The honourable member for Hotham would laugh at people who suffered the indignity of their breadwinner being killed. I hope that the honourable member will tell the people in Hotham that because I certainly will.

Parts of the Bill are draconian and vicious. They will incite industrial action the like of which has never been seen before. I have dealt with two major objections to proposed new section 143A. The third objection is that the proposed section ignores the existing safeguard of a full judicial examination before the serious step of deregistering a union is taken; the Government may, by Executive act, deregister or take control of a union. The proposed new section is designed to promote pimps, scabs and bludgers in union to do the bidding of this Government and anybody who wants to destroy the trade union movement. Turning to our fourth objection, there is no evidence of recent experience in this country either that there is a need for such a severe sanction as is proposed or that such a sanction would play a constructive part in the situation contemplated. In fact, history goes the other way, as I have pointed out and as I am sure other speakers will.

Finally, there may be constitutional problems with the proposed new section 143 A. For example it may be argued that the definition of industrial action in section 4 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act may need to be read down so that only industrial action having an interstate component is covered. This argument is at present before the High Court in the case of the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union v. Wood. They are the issues under challenge. They will be challenged in the courts and by every worker and by every union that is worth its salt.

Mr PORTER:
Barker

-Before I go on to the Bill itself I want to deal briefly with a couple of the points made by Opposition members who have spoken on this matter. The first criticism made by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) was that the Bill had not been properly considered and no opportunity had been given to the union movement to consider the Bill. I think that was the major claim he made. That is an interesting point. It is worth looking back over history for a moment to recall that in the years before the 1972 election when the Labor Party came to power, there was the National Labour Advisory Council. The honourable member for Port Adelaide got up in this House and said that the Labor Party would consult with the union movement to do all the right things. It is interesting to note that that National Labour Advisory Council was never called to meet during the Labor Party’s time in office. So much for the consultation throughout the Labor Party’s period in government.

It is also interesting to note that it was this Government which implemented the National Labour Consultative Council. Not only did we do that but also we have steadfastly maintained that Council as a basis for consultation. It may interest the honourable member for Port Adelaide that this Bill has been referred to that Council. How can we help it if the union representatives failed to attend? The honourable member said that the Opposition does not like this Government passing legislation which tries to assist industrial relations. It seems now that the Opposition wants us to pass bills to force union representatives before the Consultative Council. That council was set up precisely for the purpose of consultation between Government, the unions and the employers. Now really, I think it is going a little too far to try to expect us to force Labor Party members and union representatives to go to Consultative Council meetings.

The honourable member for Port Adelaide suggested that the Labor Party is more closely involved with the unions and is therefore in a better position to look after industrial relations in this country. That is an interesting proposition. If we look back again to the Labor Party’s years in government, in 1973 there were more than Vh million working days lost and in 1974 there were over 6 million working days lost. The Labor Government was doing pretty well. In 1976, the first year that this Government came to office, excluding the Medibank strike over Vh million working days were lost. So, looking at these figures, who is the better at looking after industrial relations in this country? The Labor Party claims to have a monopoly on that, but the figures do not support its claim.

In 1977 just over Vh million working days were lost and last year, unfortunately, the number increased to 2.1 million working days lost. But none of the figures for those years are anywhere near the figures of the years when the Labor Party held government. What happened to consultation then? What happened to the close affiliation between the Labor Party and the union movement? The Labor Party was not in touch and, quite frankly, I do not think it is in touch now. It seems to have lost all touch with the people of Australia.

The honourable member for Port Adelaide was involved in a television interview on the result of the South Australian election. It was a pretty disappointed person that appeared on television and one would think that some of the lessons of that election may have got through. Apparently they did not. It was during that election campaign that we saw some of the bus strikers in action. If ever a community has made a judgment on the sort of activity it wants to see in relation to the union movement, I believe that South Australians at that election clearly did so. The people do not want strikes. Certainly they want unions and they want unions to represent them and to look after their interests as long as these actions are reasonable. I believe that the Australian community just does not believe that many sections of the union movement are acting reasonably.

The previous South Australian Government had planned some legislation which the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes) would have loved. He has just confirmed in this House that he wants to put the union movement above the law, outside the common law. I make an offer to the honourable member for Melbourne and the honourable member for Port Adelaide to come over to Kangaroo Island and tell that to the people who were concerned in the Wooley and Dunford dispute during which bans were put on the normal trade of the people on the island by Dunford in South Australia. The only recourse those people had was to the common law. It assisted those people on Kangaroo Island and now the Labor Party wants to take that recourse out of the law. Members of the Opposition should ask the people in Australia whether they agree with the Opposition’s view. I think that they do not. If honourable members opposite take any notice of election figures they will see that they just do not agree with them.

The opposition says that ours is a confrontationist government. What we are trying to do is to protect the rights of the individual. Do honourable members think that it is confrontationist to provide for secret postal ballots for all elections to management positions in federally registered organisations? This government introduced that provision, not the Labor Party. Is it not worthwhile for the members of a union to have a vote? Provision has been made for the members of organisations to receive adequate notice of forthcoming elections. Is that confrontationist? Around Australia recently we have had the Hamersley dispute. It lasted for 10 weeks and we saw exports thrown to the wind by the unions in Western Australia. The Waterside Workers Federation of Australia and the Australian Workers Union were involved in a waterfront dispute over wheat with the Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd in Western Australia. Again, exports were thrown to the wind. Export trade was under threat of being lost permanently because of the actions of these unions. We have had bus and railway strikes in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. Honourable members opposite say that we should not be bringing in this legislation. The people of Australia have been yelling for this Government to do something and I believe that this Bill is just the right sort of medicine. We have got to do something. Industrial disputation is starting to increase in Australia and I believe we have to give the people within the unions the right to be heard. That is what this legislation is all about.

There are five main parts of the Bill before the House. The first concerns the requirement for consultation with the Commission. The second concerns the jurisdiction of the Commission concerning strike pay. The third refers to the facilitation of references to the Full Bench, the fourth to standing down applications and the fifth to deregistration. I want to deal in order with each of those parts of the Bill to point out precisely what is involved. There has been a lot of emotion in this debate. Undoubtedly when people are in strife they look to emotion to get away from the facts, but I want to come back to the facts and to let the people of Australia decide whether the provisions of the Bill are reasonable.

Looking firstly to the requirement of consultation by commissioners. The proposed amendment is designed to require a commissioner to consult with his deputy president, but not a deputy president to consult with a president, before making an award or varying an award with respect to wages and conditions. The purpose of the proposal is to facilitate compliance with guidelines or principles laid down by the Full Bench or by a Full Bench of the Commission. This consultative process will reduce the scope of individual commissioners for making independent decisions which lead to leap-frogging, or the application of wrong principles. There are about 22 commissioners and eight deputy commissioners, so it is not extraordinary that varying decisions have been given. The absence of the restraints imposed by this proposal concerning individual commissioners in making or varying an award has, in the past, led to considerable departures from guidelines and principles enunciated by the Full Bench.

Some comment has been made already on the example of the independence of action which was shown by Commissioner Deverall in the making of the Transport Workers (Airline) Award in 1978. The details of that award are worth recording in Hansard. Prior to Commissioner Deverall ‘s decision, a Full Bench, after a lengthy hearing of a work value case relating to the Aircraft Industry Award, identified only two main areas warranting wage increases. Following this Full Bench decision, the work value case before Commissioner Deverall virtually ceased, but the Commissioner was able to award substantial increases in wages by circumventing the Full Bench guidelines through the expedient of restructuring the classifications in the existing award. On the basis of the restructuring, increases were awarded to employees as a compensation for increases in flexibility of work arrangements. On appeal to a Full Bench, the increases awarded were substantially reduced, but protracted industrial action at the time of the appeal subsequently led the employers to apply to the Full Bench for a review of the award to increase the rates applicable.

The disruption caused to the airline industry, both by the granting of the initial award- claims for variations to other awards ensued- and the appeal and subsequent review of the award with its attending industrial action might have been averted had Commissioner Deverall been obliged to consult with a presidential member. Now that is what the legislation is about, and I do not believe that that is confrontationist.

I refer now to the jurisdiction of the Commission concerning strike pay. The proposal is designed to prevent the Commission making an award, order or recommendation, dealing with claims for payments to employees in respect of time lost as a result of industrial action. The intention is to avoid any possibility of the Commission imposing upon an employer a legal obligation to pay wages to an employee in respect of the period during which the employee was on strike. It is also to prevent an employer being pressured’ into making such payments by a recommendation of a member of the Commission acting in his official capacity, albeit that such occurrences are quite rare.

The need for these provisions arises from a number of disputes and I give but one example which has been briefly referred to already in this debate. On 25 August 1977, in Melbourne, Commissioner Brown recommended that Costain Pty Ltd make a payment to building employees engaged on the State Bank site in Melbourne of a total of five weeks pay lost as a result of being either stood down or on strike during a stoppage that extended for seven weeks and two days. The recommendation was amended on 29 August 1977 so that the payment would be made on the proviso that all bans be lifted. I guess that that was some sort of advantage that was gained from the payment. Not only were they going to be paid for the days that they had been on strike but also the bans had to be lifted. The bans had been placed on various aspects of the site work and they were in support of $30 a week wage claim.

I believe that those facts speak for themselves. There is a clear need for this provision and I believe that the amendment is a good one. I refer now to the facilitation of references to a Full Bench. The amendments proposed are designed to overcome weaknesses brought to notice by recent proceedings in the Commission concerning the claim by the Australian Telecommunications Employees Association for a 20 per cent increase in all wage levels of members employed by the Telecommunications Commission. Because of the serious consequences of the continuation of industrial action by the ATEA and the clear indication that the dispute would not be readily resolved by the member of the Commission dealing with it, it was desirable that in the public interest it be referred to a Full Bench. The effect of the proposed amendment is to enable the question whether an industrial dispute exists to be referred to a Full Bench, and to enable proceedings in relation to an industrial dispute to be referred to a full bench, whether those proceedings are at the conciliation stage or the arbitration stage. An amendment is also proposed in further response to the ATEA Telecom dispute to enable the President of the Commission to withdraw a matter from the member dealing with it, and deal with it himself by conciliation and/or arbitration, or refer it to a Full Bench of the Commission.

I pass now to the standdown applications and the amendments in this Bill. A stand-down clause in an award authorises an employer not to pay some or all of his employees in specified circumstances, for example, where they cannot be usefully employed because of a breakdown in machinery or industrial action by other employees. Applications for stand-down clauses are usually dealt with by a commissioner or a deputy president. The proposed amendment requires the Commission, on a stand-down application, to act as expeditiously as appropriate, having regard to all the circumstances. Provision is also made for a stand-down application to be referred to a Full Bench upon application to the President. This will enable an applicant for a stand-down clause either to have the matter dealt with initially by a Full Bench or, where the matter is before a single member of the Commission, to have it referred to a Full Bench in circumstances where he considers the application is not being dealt with in a sufficiently expeditious manner.

It is hoped that this proposal will encourage unionists as a whole to exert a moderating influence on particular union members or officers who are prone to strike, rather than use the umpire, that is, the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It will also protect employees against termination of their employment contracts. It is a pity that the honourable member for Port Adelaide and the honourable member for Melbourne do not want to help employees. Most commonly the Commission is concerned to insert such clause as an alternative to the applicant employer dismissing innocent employees because as a result of industrial action by other employees no work is available for them. In practice the Commission takes the attitude that an employer is not entitled to have such a clause in an award as of right. Moreover, a standdown clause is not granted automatically to safeguard an employer against economic loss. Evidence must be produced in support of such an application as it would be required in support of any other claim.

Finally, I deal with the proposed amendment concerning deregistration of organisations. The main features are that the Minister- and I stress that it is the Minister- may apply to the Full Bench of the Commission for a declaration that industrial action by an organisation, or a group of its members, has had, is having, or is likely to have a substantial adverse effect on the safety, health or welfare of the community or a part of the community. I stress the words ‘substantial adverse effect’. Where the Full Bench makes a declaration, the Governor-General may, within six months, direct the Registrar to cancel the organisation ‘s registration, or make orders suspending the rights, privileges or capacities of the organisation, or give directions as to the exercise of any of its rights, privileges or capacities, or for restricting the use of its funds or property to ensure observance of the order.

The difficulties faced in invoking the deregistration sanction in section 143 of the Act are clearly demonstrated in the case of industrial action earlier this year by the Transport Workers Union. At that time, the Minister announced an intention to initiate proceedings for cancellation of registration under section 143. However, due to the court’s interpretation of the requirements of the section the expectation of success of the application was minimal. In addition, the protracted nature of a section 143 hearing would have ensured that even if the application were successful substantial injury to the public interest would have occurred from any protracted industrial action.

Having regard to the highly developed capacity of some organisations to inflict immediate and sustained harm upon the community, not only are the present grounds for deregistration under the Act inadequate to protect the demands of the public interest- after all, are we not here to serve the public- but the procedural delays involved in section 143 proceedings do not permit a sufficiently rapid response. Even where an application for deregistration is successful, the former organisation may again apply to the Industrial Registrar for re-registration and there is no certainty that, even though the rules of the organisation comply with the Act and the general law that, once again registered, the organisation will not continue to engage in the conduct which originally led to its deregistration. An examination of section 143 shows that it has been used in only five cases since 1948.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr WEST:
Cunningham

-This legislation is provocative; it is vicious; it is antiworker and it is anti-union. In recent weeks the Government has given the impression that it wants to keep the excesses of the Western Australian and Queensland governments at arm’s length. It has not really wanted to get too close to these people in Queensland and Western Australia, with their excessive measures such as those involved in the public assembly dispute in Western Australia and the essential services legislation in Queensland. However, the reality is that this legislation is just as much part of that same arsenal of weapons against trade unionists and wage and salary earners in Australia as those pieces of legislation in Western Australia and Queensland. What is more, the Government has followed this approach for the last two years.

If one looks at the track record of this Government in industrial relations one finds that in October 1977 the amendments to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, otherwise known as the Industrial Relations Bureau legislation, introduced measures providing for the deregistration of a union, the seizing of union property and funds, fines on officers and rank and file trade unionists, suspension from office of union officers and the debarring of members of unions from standing for election to any position, full or part time. They were the main measures contained in the 1977 amendments.

I move on to the amendment to section 45 D of the Trade Practices Act which was introduced at about this time last year. It provided for a fine of $250,000 for unions engaging in so-called secondary boycotts. This record continued. In the last session of Parliament, we had the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill. This Bill provided for redeployment or the transfer and sacking of public servants under the euphemism of compulsory retirement if they become surplus to this Government’s needs. The Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act was another part of this same arsenal. It provides for the standing down of Commonwealth employees who do not perform exactly as required. For instance, the CEEP Act provides that employees could be stood down in the event of their not performing work in a manner in which it is customarily performed or if they adopt a work practice the result of which is to restrict, limit or delay the performance of work.

Let us look at how State legislation in Queensland and Western Australia has fitted into this situation. The Queensland essential services legislation, which obviously is condoned by this Government, provides for the emasculation of unions, the encouragement of scab labour against unions, the sacking of employees who go on strike. In other cases it forces people to work in so-called essential services industries. It provides for the imposition of massive fines, the deregistration of unions, the refusal of compensation to workers and the prohibition of employer-employee agreements based upon negotiation and conciliation. It also allows union property to be sold off for the payment of fines imposed under the legislation. It is interesting to note that that legislation was introduced by one Mr Hinze, the Queensland Minister for Local Government and Main Roads. This is the very same Minister who has been accused by his own Government members of rezoning land on Queensland ‘s Gold Coast against the wishes of the local council in exchange for substantial gifts to the National Country Party in Queensland. That is the type of person, I want honourable members opposite to understand, who introduces anti-worker legislation against the labour movement of this country.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– What is your own view? Do you think he took it?

Mr WEST:

-I think he must have. I do not think Bjelke-Petersen is too pleased with him. The last of this fair minded package of Commonwealth and State legislation is the latest interpretation of the legislation on illegal street offences in public places, or whatever it is, in Western Australia. Under it some local police constable can take it on himself to determine whether union leaders, trade unionists and workers will be allowed to conduct a meeting to discuss their affairs. We have seen the introduction of all this legislation in the last two years. Because the Commonwealth legislation over that period has not been doing the job and has not been sufficiently authoritarian and draconian for the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) and this Government they seek to introduce further legislation. I will deal with this legislation later in my speech. I point out that the whole purpose of all these provocative measures that I have just enunciated has been to reduce the wage and salary earners’ capacity to fight against the reduction of living standards and rising unemployment that have been forced upon them by this Government. This Government wants to force workers to accept the blame for the current depression in Australia and to make them think that they are to blame for unemployment and that it is necessary for them to accept reduced living standards to effect economic recovery.

For the edification of honourable members opposite let me briefly summarise the real reasons for the depression. They are not the wage increases which have been granted to Australian workers, meagre and insufficient as they have been, to compensate for rises in the consumer price index over the last four years. The real reasons for the current depression are: firstly, cuts in capital expenditure as effected by this Government and its complete failure to implement an economic policy. The second major reason is the industrial development which has transpired in South East Asia over the last decade and longer under the umbrella of low wages, generally enforced by military dictatorships, and tax concessions offered to multinational companies that site their operations there. The third major reason has been the complete inability of the Australian capitalist economy to implement technological change without corresponding massive unemployment.

Let me slowly and carefully explain so that the Minister will understand why Australians are resisting him and why there is industrial disputation in Australia today. The real answer is not to introduce draconian, authoritarian legislation of this sort. There has been a rapid decline in the value of real wages in Australia. In 1975 the nonmanagerial average wage was $152 a week. Had the consumer price index increase been applied cumulatively, today the average wage would be $225 a week. The average is now $21 1 a week, which of course is a loss of $ 1 4.

Let me have a look at why the members of the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia in my electorate are constantly in dispute with their employers, the Australian Iron and Steel Pty, which is a subsidiary of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and which recently announced record profits. The base rate for an ironworker is $76.20 a week. The minimum margin is $59.50 and the average overaward payment is $35. That adds up to $170.70 a week- a magnificent remuneration for 40 hours of solid, heavy, onerous work in the steel industry.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– What did you say the base rate was?

Mr WEST:

-I said that the base was $76.20, to which a margin and an overaward payment are added to total $170.70 a week. Let me look at what Telecom Australia workers are earning. I took the trouble today to phone the Australian Telecommunications Employees Association and I was told that a process worker with Telecom averages between $154 and $160 a week and the technicians average $188 to $230. These are Hong Kong wages that the Government approves for payment by one of its instrumentalities- Telecom. I do not hear the people who are attacking these workershonourable members opposite complaining, that they are being overpaid when they receive $37,000 a year. I would think that some of them are being overpaid. Look at the wages of the Governor-General, the person who is to be allowed, in the name of this Government, to deregister trade unions when this legislation becomes law. He gets $60,000, $70,000 or $80,000 a year or more.

Let me refer to some of the other measures which are forcing the workers of this country into disputation. As a result of the taxation measures in the last Budget a worker earning $10,000 a year will be over $5 a week worse off than he was last year. Family allowances have not been indexed for three years. As a result, a family with three children has lost $4.70 a week. Look at the increases in petrol and oil taxes. No wonder workers are in disputation. The driver of a sixcylinder motor car will on average pay $8 a week more for a full tank of petrol. In 1975 workers were covered for health insurance under Labor’s Medibank scheme. The average family will now pay $9 a week for hospital and medical insurance. All that adds up to workers being over $30 a week worse off in real terms than they were four years ago. Living standards are falling and that is the reason there is disputation in this country. We need not sledge-hammer tactics but an understanding of the hopes and aspirations of the Australian workers and a realisation that they are not prepared to stand by and see their living standards deteriorate.

I turn now to the measures in this Bill. I will deal with them one by one. In the words of the Minister, proposed new section 22A requires a commissioner to consult with his deputy president before making or varying an award relating to wages and conditions. What is meant by the word ‘consult*? Does it mean that the deputy president has to approve whatever has been decided? The intention of the Government in regard to proposed new section 22A is perfectly obvious. The Minister wants to prevent wage judgments by the Commission which do not suit this Government. In effect, the Government wishes to control the Commission by dictating wage policy to the President. The Government has decided that the decisions of each commissioner must be referred to the President for approval or otherwise.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr WEST:

-Before the suspension of the sitting, I was saying that in effect this Government, through the use of proposed new section 22A, wishes to control the Commission by dictating wage policy to the President of the Commission. At every national wage case hearing since 1975, this Government has opposed indexation. It has whinged and whined at every partial increase granted by the Commission. It has used arguments about excessive wage overhang and noncompliance with the guidelines by the unions. On most occasions it has been successful in getting less than full indexation granted, but now it seeks to go further and control the wage policy of the Commission itself by legislating so that commissioners have to refer their decisions to the President of the Commission before ratification.

I turn now to what I consider to be the most iniquitous section of the legislation, that is, proposed new section 143 A which provides that the Minister may request that the Full Bench declare that a union is in breach of the legislation. The Full Bench may then decide that the Governor-General may, within a six-month period, order the deregistration of the union concerned. In lieu of or before ordering the deregistration he may suspend any of the rights, privileges or capacities of the union or of all or any of its members under the Act or any award, give directions as to the exercise of any rights, privileges or capacities that have been so suspended, and provide for restricting the use of the funds or property of the union or branch and for the control of those funds or that property for the purpose of ensuring observance of the restrictions.

The fact is that the Governor-General may, at any time within the next six months after that declaration is made, decide that the union in question ought to be deregistered and may later decide under what condition the union should be reregistered. The Minister also said in his second reading speech that deregistration need not necessarily follow a declaration. What he is saying is that after a declaration, if the union and the unionists become good boys and behave themselves- in effect become tame cat unionsthey may not be deregistered. I ask honourable members: What union could accept that situation? If it did, it obviously could not represent its members. And the Government knows it!

I deplore the use once more by this Government of the Governor-General as a political tool. It used him in 1975 to its utter disgrace in dismissing a government elected by the people. In 1 979 it is seeking to use him again to sack unions. What I want to know is whether the GovernorGeneral is a head of state or an arm of this Government. The Government is encouraging Australians once again to hold the office of Governor-General in contempt. It is quite certain that what the Government is doing will only hasten the day when Australia becomes a republic. There is no question about that. I ask the Government whether it has reflected upon the results of its actions in this legislation. Let us look at what could happen. We could seek a dispute in a vital essential service whereupon the Full Bench could make a declaration and the Governor-General could move in. We could see the deregistration of a union on the say-so of the Governor-General, in conjunction with the Government, and we could then see the Government take control of union property. That is a chilling scenario for absolute industrial disruption in this country. The Government is setting the scene coldly and deliberately. Such a course could be embarked on only by a government which is determined to cause the maximum industrial chaos.

How can the Government seek to impose industrial peace by this archaic and repressive legislation? A herd of stampeding rhinoceroses would be more subtle. It will not work. It has never worked in the past.

When has legislation of this nature ever solved a major industrial dispute? It has never solved anything. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Minister for Industrial Relations know this; so what are their reasons for introducing the Bill? Let me list a few of them. There is the pressure from the more extreme right wing rabble of the coalition and the Government’s understandable desire to divert public attention from its acute embarrassment regarding the honesty and probity of its ministry and its electoral splits in Victoria and Queensland. There is also pressure from Court in Western Australia and Bjelke-Petersen in Queensland for the Federal coalition to support their own parochial brand of extremism as in the public illegal assemblies dispute in Western Australia and the Essential Services Act in Queensland. The Prime Minister and the Minister should be more circumspect about stomping on the industrial scene.

They are again making the mistake of becoming locked into defending the indefensible, as they were quite recently, you will remember, Mr Speaker. But this crowd of union baiters are bankrupt of economic and industrial policy and that is the reason for this legislation.

Debate (on motion by Mr Ian Robinson) adjourned.

page 1757

NEW AND PERMANENT PARLIAMENT HOUSE: DESIGN COMPETITION

Ministerial Statement

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Wentworth · LP

– by leave- On 22 November 1978 the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) announced that the Government had decided to proceed with the design and construction of the new and permanent Parliament House and that the building would be completed in 1988 as part of the nation’s bicentenary celebrations. To ensure that the project will be completed on time and within the cost budget, the Government has established the Parliament House Construction Authority to undertake and carry out the design and construction of the Parliament House.

The Authority accepted the recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee for the New and Permanent Parliament House and the Royal Australian Institute of Architects that the most appropriate method of selecting the designer of the new Parliament House was by a two-stage architectural design competition on 7 April 1 979, the Authority announced the commencement of the competition and invited all architects registered to practice in Australia to participate. Nine hundred and sixty-one architects registered for the competition and 329 design submissions were received. The assessors for the competition were:

Sir John Overall: Chairman, Architect, Town Planner and Member of the Parliament House Construction Authority, Former Commissioner, National Capital Development Commission.

Mr John Andrews: Australian Architect

Senator Gareth Evans: Labor Senator for Victoria

Mr I. M. Pei: American Architect

Mr Barry Simon, M.P.: Liberal Member for McMillan.

Professor Leonard Stevens: Dean of the Faculty of Engineering, Melbourne University.

I am assured that, in accordance with the terms and conditions of this competition, the registrar and the assessors have maintained anonymity and complete security throughout the conduct of the assessment. At no stage since the first entry was received by the registrar has he or the assessors been aware of the architect or firm of any particular whatsoever relating to the name of the registrant responsible for any particular design submitted. The assessors will continue to remain unaware of the relationship between each entry and its author until the conclusion of the second stage assessment. The assessors became aware of the names of the prizewinners and finalists only after the prizewinning entries had been selected.

The assessors have now completed the judging of the first stage of the competition and have selected 10 prizewinners, each of whom will be awarded $20,000. The prizewinners selected are as follows:

  1. Finalists

Bickerdike, John- 16 New End, London, United Kingdom, Bickerdike Allen Partners (UK)

Denton, John- 31 Niagara Lane, Melbourne, Australia, Denton Corker Marshall Pty Ltd (Australia)

Madigan, Colin Frederick, 201 Pacific Highway, Nth Sydney, Australia; Edwards Madigan Torzillo Briggs International Pty Ltd (Australia)

Thorp, Richard G., 18 East 18th Street, New York, U.S.A. E. B. Mitchell Jr, R. Giurgola, F. Foote, R. LaFrance, J. Lawson, R.Thorp,(U.S.A.)

Waite, Christopher Harding, Bowen Island, Von Igo, British Columbia, Canada

  1. Other prizewinners

Carroll, Jerry Wayne, 40 Brisbane St, Bondi Junction, New South Wales, Australia; Robert Venturi, John Rauch, Denise Scott Brown, Jerry Wayne Carroll (U.S.A.)

Daltas, Spero Paul, 1033 Massachusetts Ave, Cambridge, Mass, U.S.A. Brown Daltas & Associates Inc. (U.S.A.)

Jackson, Daryl, 4 Brunswick Place, Fitzroy Melbourne, Australia; Daryl Jackson Architects Pty Ltd (Australia)

Leech, Denis John, 6 The Avenue, Newport Beach, Sydney, N.S.W., Australia; Denis Leech in association with Stephenson & Turner (Australia)

Seidler, Harry, 2 Glen Street, Milsons Point, Sydney, Australia; Harry Seidler & Associates Pty Ltd (Australia)

Of the ten prizewinning architects, six are resident in Australia and four, one of whom we understand to be an Australian citizen, are resident overseas. Of the five finalists, two are resident in Australia, Messrs Denton and Madigan, one is an Australian resident in the United States, Mr Thorp, one is a Canadian with extensive Australian experience, Mr Waite, and one is resident in England, Mr Bickerdike.

The finalists will proceed to the second stage of the competition.

It is the opinion of the assessors that the building selected to house the Parliament and to be constructed on the Capital Hill site must exhibit the following four main qualities:

  1. the building should relate in a sensitive way to its environment and at the same time reinforce Capital Hill as the focus of Griffin’s plan for Canberra and his concept of siting the most significant national building at the apex of the Parliamentary Triangle.
  2. The building must express in a symbolic way the unique national qualities, attributes, attitudes, aspirations and achievements of Australia. It must at the same time express an architectural identity, integrity and prominence consistent with the surroundings and significance of the Parliament House.
  3. The building must provide a physical environment which will permit all the users of Parliament to perform efficiently and comfortably their diverse duties. It should provide for all the elements in the competition documents, clearly define the pattern of internal and external circulation, and provide a rational organisation of elements.
  4. The design must satisfy the assessors that it can be constructed by 1 988 and within the cost constraints. The basic economy of design and building approach must, therefore, be clearly evident. The design must demonstrate architectural and engineering feasibility. The structural principles, building system and standardisation of building elements should be clearly demonstrated.

The assessors were unanimously of the view that in the first stage they were selecting not so much buildings but architects who, in their design submissions, had demonstrated a clear understanding of the problems posed by the construction of a parliament house on Capital Hill and who indicated to the satisfaction of the assessors that they had or could in the second stage provide solutions to meet the criteria specified above. In the second stage, however, the assessors will select a design which can be presented to Parliament, government and the public as the building which, subject to refinement and development, should, in their judgment, become the Parliament for the Commonwealth of Australia.

In making their judgment in this competition, the assessors are operating on the assumption that the present provisional Parliament House will remain after 1988 and that in all probability the Parliamentary Triangle will ultimately be developed in accordance with the philosophy of the Griffin plan. In their report to the Parliament House Construction Authority, the assessors made the following observations in relation to their work on the first stage of the competition:

  1. This is probably the most significant architectural competition to have been held anywhere in the world in recent times. It has created world wide interest, as evidenced from the 961 registrations we received from a total of 28 countries.
  2. The assessors have been impressed with the enormous amount of time and effort that has gone into the 329 entries ultimately received. They estimate the average value of the work involved in each presentation to be something of the order of $30,000, suggesting a total of some $10 million worth of design work overall.
  3. The ten prizewinners selected by them include, together with their associates, a number of individuals and firms, both within Australia and overseas who are acknowledged to be among the world’s leaders in their profession.
  4. They are satisfied that, from the five finalists they have chosen to proceed to the second stage of the competition, a building will emerge which is not only functionally efficient and properly sensitive of the Canberra landscape, but also excitingly symbolic of its status as Australia’s foremost public building.

The designs of the prizewinners will remain confidential until the conclusion of the competition in August 1980. This is a normal condition of an architectural competition to ensure that anonymity is maintained.

During June/July 1980, the assessors will select the competition winner. In accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Act 1974, the design of the competition winner will be presented to both Houses of Parliament.

Honourable members will appreciate that many buildings of national importance are either in the course of being built or about to be built in Australia. It is a period of great challenge for our architects and designers. It will foster great interest in the interrelationship between the architecture and design of our buildings and our daily living. It is timely, too, that the relationship between art and architecture and design be fostered and encouraged. For some time, the Australia Council has been considering the question of setting up an architecture and design board for this very purpose. I hope that soon such a board will be established so that, in cooperation with the private sector, even greater encouragement can be given to this development. I present the following paper-

New and Permanent Parliament House Design competition- Stage 1 winners- Ministerial Statement, 9 October 1979.

Motion (by Mr Street) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– I respond briefly on behalf of the Opposition by joining with the Government in congratulating the finalists in the first stage of the Parliament House design competition, John Bickerdike, John Denton, Colin Madigan, Richard Thorp and Christopher Waite. I also congratulate the other prize-winners and the assessors who have served the Parliament so ably and given of their time so freely. I refer to Sir John Overall, the Chairman, Mr John Andrews, Senator Gareth Evans, Mr I. M. Pei, Mr Barry Simon, a member of this House, and Professor Leonard Stevens. All members of the Parliament are indebted to these gentlemen who have served on the assessors committee and who in the last couple of weeks have had the very laborious and onerous duty of choosing the first stage finalists from a great number of designs submitted.

The Joint Committee on the New and Per.mananent Parliament House settled upon a twostage competition after consultation with the Royal Australian Institute of Architects simply because the Parliament wanted a building which was attractive but functional and which would actually work well for the people who would occupy and work within it given the vast period that the building would be required to serve the Parliament. The design formula was an unusual one which was adopted for this very specialist and specific task. I think most people will agree that it works. The difficulty has always been to maintain the anonymity of designers from their designs so that a fair assessment could be made by the assessors of the final design in stage 2 of the competition or, in stage 1, the final designers. The parliamentary committee was interested in securing not only a designer with some flair for design but also, more importantly, an architect who could work with the Parliament House Construction Authority and the users of the new Parliament House, ourselves, to develop a building concept which was attractive and functional. The Opposition is very pleased about the fact that the competition was very wide, involving international architects. We are exceptionally pleased about the fact that 60 per cent of the 10 finalists are Australian.

The design competition will now move to the second stage. From the five designs there will finally emerge one successful design and a designer. At that stage of course the steering committee- which the parliamentary subcommittee has established- will meet with the five finalists to reinforce upon those finalists the subtleties of the design brief and the requirements of a parliament house building. It has been heartening that both sides of the Housethe Government and the Opposition- have seen fit on this occasion to work in harmony and in a completely bipartisan way to get this building built. I think that is a tribute to common sense. This building has long outlived its usefulness. A start had to be made on a permanent building. There is a marked difference between the final design brief and the design brief of 1971. I am glad that we are not building the parliament house which was envisaged then by that design brief but a far more generous one as a result of the delay in time which has taken account of the new functions of parliament house, the staff of members of Parliament and the expanded work role of the Parliament. Therefore, we will probably have a much more functional building.

I would also take this occasion to pay tribute to the media which have also played a very constructive role in this matter, not only in the design of the media section of the design brief but also for the fact that they took a very constructive attitude towards the establishment of the initial phases of this building construction. The Opposition appreciates the contribution which has already been made and which will be made in much greater measure by the Parliament House

Construction Authority, the members of which will serve quite some time now- I think over 6Vi years- to see the final building established and to translate into a three dimensional sense what was the designer’s dream on paper. That is always a very hard thing to do, particularly with a very finicky customer. I think it is important that the Parliament as the final customer has the opportunity to approve the design, to make contributions to the design and to have a say before the building is built. That provision has been made by the Parliament House Committee. I think the members of Parliament, in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, should be pleased with the work of that Committee.

I have served on a number of joint parliamentary committees, but there has been none more useful that the Committee which developed the design brief for this building, the New and Permanent Parliament House Committee. It has been a most constructive effort. As you said earlier this evening, Mr Speaker, there was not a cross word exchanged in all of the years we have been sitting, almost weekly now, almost every Wednesday at lunch time in each sitting week since 1 976. It is a great tribute to the members of that Committee that they have persisted with this concept. I pay tribute also to the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott) who had the onerous duty of selling this proposal to Cabinet and to my own leader and deputy leader who so magnanimously accepted the spirit of the proposal.

I hope Australia finally has a building befitting the aspirations of this young country and, as the major building of the capital of Australia, to cap and to seal the federation and the movement towards federation which began so long ago. Speaking for members of Parliament, I hope that we have finally a functional, attractive buildingnot a piece of packing case architecture that does not work- befitting the importance of this national capital and one which many members will be happy to serve in for many years in the future.

Debate (on motion by Mr Jarman) adjourned.

page 1760

GREAT BARRIER REEF MINISTERIAL COUNCIL

Ministerial Statement

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I seek leave to inform the House of the outcome of the inaugural meeting of the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council which took place in Brisbane last Thursday, 4 October.

Leave granted.

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The Ministerial Council at this inaugural meeting was I as convenor; Senator the Honourable James Webster, the Commonwealth Minister for Science and the Environment; the Honourable Max D. Hooper, the Queensland Minister for Maritime Services and Tourism; the Honourable Ivan Gibbs, the Queensland Minister for Culture, National Parks and Recreation. I replaced the Right Honourable Phillip Lynch as convenor, as Mr Lynch was not able to be present at the meeting.

Before going into detail on that meeting, I believe it would be useful if I recounted the developments which culminated in last Thursday’s meeting. The relationship between the Commonwealth and the Queensland governments on issues concerning the Great Barrier Reef has continued for a long time. Nearly a decade ago both governments agreed to the appointment of the joint Royal Commissions into Exploratory and Production Drilling for Petroleum in the Area of the Great Barrier Reef, on 5 May 1970. The Royal Commissions reported to both governments on 1 November 1974.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act developed the relationship to a further stage by establishing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority which provides an avenue for consultation between the Commonwealth and the State of Queensland at the officials’ level. That legislation also established the Great Barrier Reef Consultative Committee which provides a forum for discussion among officials, experts, interest groups and industry representatives. It creates a mechanism for the interest groups represented on it to provide specialised advice to the Marine Park Authority and to the Minister for Science and the Environment.

The House will recall that on 4 June 1979 the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in this place announced the Commonwealth’s decision as a result of its examination of the report by the Royal Commissions I referred to earlier. The Government decided that there should be no further exploration in the Great Barrier Reef region and that there should be no renewal of petroleum permits in the region until the results of both short and longer term research are known.

A further- and significant- development occurred on 14 June when the Prime Minister and the Premier of Queensland signed an agreement establishing the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council. This Council was established to provide a clearly recognisable forum for consultation and co-ordination at the ministerial level. Such a forum had not existed previously. Both the Prime Minister and the Premier in their joint agreement confirmed that it was the policy of their respective governments to prohibit any drilling on the Reef or any drilling or mining which could damage the Reef. The Commonwealth Government sees the development of the Ministerial Council as being entirely in keeping with its approach to proper sharing of responsibilities between the Commonwealth and the States.

This brings me to the inaugural meeting of the Ministerial Council. The most important issue was the question of the first section- the Capricornia section- of the Great Barrier Reef region and its development as a marine park. I am very pleased to inform the House that the Ministerial Council, following its careful consideration of this issue, agreed to recommend that this matter should be processed without delay. The reefs and shoals of the Capricornia section of the Great Barrier Reef form a distinct geographical unit. There are several habitable coral cays- islands composed of coral sand and rubble often densely vegetated- which provide a base for intensive recreational, tourist and scientific research use. Parts of this coral reef ecosystem are important breeding areas which are vital to the maintenance of several species of turtles and birds. The Capricornia area is the most accessible part of the reef for visitors from southern capitals and overseas. Local use by inhabitants of Bundaberg, Gladstone and Rockhampton is becoming increasingly heavy. The coastal centres benefit economically from the recreational and commercial uses of the reefs and surrounding waters.

It might be helpful to the House if I mentioned the marine park concept- a concept which is certainly not familiar to most of us. A marine park differs substantially from a national park, which typically protects the natural landscape and allows only limited human use. The Great Barrier Reef in general- and the Capricornia section of the Reef in particular- presents a very different picture. It is already widely used and enjoyed and effective planning of the environment of the reef can occur only in close cooperation with the community which will continue to use it. I would say that the scale, diversity and complexity of the Great Barrier Reef are unmatched by any other marine environment in the world. Therefore the Marine Park will need to be designed to allow reasonable use while conserving the reef. It will therefore differ, at least in some respects, from other models already in existence or proposed elsewhere in the world.

Day to Day Management

The Council also considered the question of the day to day management arrangements which will need to be put in place in the Marine Park. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Premier had previously agreed that this function should be undertaken by the appropriate Queensland Authority, which in discharging this responsibility will be subject to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

Within that general framework, the question of the matters to be included in the management regime will of course require detailed discussions. Such discussions are required because, as I mentioned, this concept of a marine park is unique but also because both Governments are concerned to ensure that an effective management regime giving appropriate protection to the ecosystem of the Great Barrier Reef is established without delay. The next meeting of the Ministerial Council will examine this matter in detail.

Associated with the day to day management is the zoning plan which is in preparation by the Marine Park Authority. This plan will be directed towards minimising the effect of incompatible activities on the Marine Park and giving extra protection to those areas which need it. The public will be extensively consulted during the preparation of the zoning plan. The final plan, taking account of all comments which have been received, will be submitted to the Ministerial Council for its consideration. When it is approved it will be tabled in this Parliament and members will be given an opportunity to express their views on that plan. The Council also examined a number of other issues which impinge on the Barrier Reef. Rather than delay the House further on this matter, however, I seek the approval of the House to have incorporated in Hansard the communique which was issued at the conclusion of the Council meeting.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

COMMUNIQUE

GREAT BARRIER REEF MINISTERIAL COUNCIL

The inaugural meeting of the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council took place in Brisbane today. The Council at this inaugural meeting was: the Hon. Eric Robinson, the Commonwealth Minister for Finance (Convener);

Senator the Hon. J. J. Webster, the Commonwealth Minister for Science and the Environment; the Hon. Max D. Hooper, the Queensland Minister for Maritime Services and Tourism; the Hon. Ivan Gibbs, the Queensland Minister for Culture, National Parks and Recreation.

Mr Robinson replaced the Rt Hon. Phillip Lynch as Convener, as Mr Lynch was not able to be present at the meeting.

The Council was set up following the Agreement between the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon. Malcolm Fraser and the Premier of Queensland, the Hon. Joh Bjelke-Petersen at Emerald on 14 June. In the joint statement concerning this Agreement they announced that the decision to set up the Council had been taken so that both Governments would be able to co-ordinate policy in relation to the Barrier Reef at the Ministerial level. The Agreement also noted that ‘the first section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park- the Capricornia section- should be processed by the Ministerial Council as an immediate task to enable early proclamation to take place’.

Mr Fraser and Mr Bjelke-Petersen also announced that as sections of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park are proclaimed the day-to-day management should be undertaken by the appropriate Queensland authorities, who in discharging this responsibility will be subject to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

That Authority will continue to have the responsibility for: recommending the declaration of marine parks; developing zoning plans and plans of management of parks; and arranging for research and investigation relevant to marine parks.

The Prime Minister and the Premier confirmed that it was the policies of their respective Governments to prohibit any drilling or mining which could damage the Reef.

The development of the Ministerial Council is an initiative which is entirely consistent with the approach to an appropriate sharing of responsibilities between the Governments of the Commonwealth and of the State of Queensland.

Proposed Proclamation of the Capricornia Section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

The principal item on the Agenda of today’s meeting related to the Capricornia Section of the Marine Park.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority had previously selected the area encompassing the reefs and shoals of Lady Elliot Island and the Capricornia and Bunker groups for consideration as the first section of the Great Barter Reef Marine Park. This selection was made because of the proximity of this area to southern capital cities, because of its importance in the fields of commerce, recreation, tourism and science, and because the area is generally regarded as one of the best known sections of the Great Barrier Reef.

The Ministerial Council examined a report received from the Marine Park Authority concerning the proposal and agreed to recommend that action to enable proclamation of the Capricornia Section as the first stage of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park should proceed immediately.

The Marine Park Concept

The marine park concept has come into being as a result of concern for the conservation of marine environments. The scale, diversity and complexity of the Great Barrier Reef is unmatched by any other marine environment in the world and therefore a marine park designed to allow reasonable use while conserving the Reef will differ, at least in some respects, from other models already in existence elsewhere in the world.

Day-to-Day Management

The processes of declaration of the Capricornia section of the Marine Park is but a first step. Ministers today agreed that the development of detailed Zoning and Management Plans directed towards long-term administration of the Marine Park should be set in train.

The Zoning Plan for the Capricornia section is to be prepared by the Marine Park Authority. That Plan will be directed towards minimizing the effect of clashes of incompatible activities on the Park and giving extra protection to those areas which need it. The Authority is to place public notices in the national press advertising its intention to prepare the Zoning Plan and calling for public submissions. All submissions which the Authority receives as a result of this action will be examined carefully and will be taken into account in preparing a draft Zoning Plan. The draft Plan will then be published so that members of the public are aware of the detailed nature of the Authority’s proposals and are able to comment on them. The draft Zoning Plan will be open for comment for at least one month.

Following this procedure, the revised Plan will be submitted to the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council for consideration. The recommended Zoning Plan, together with representations from the public, will then be formally submitted to the Minister for Science and the Environment for his review, approval and subsequent tabling in the Parliament.

The Council also recalled that Queensland authorities are to be assigned the day-to-day management role of any declared marine park. In this regard the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act makes specific provision for the Commonwealth Government to make arrangements with the Queensland Government for the performance of functions and the exercise of powers under this Act.

The appropriate Queensland authorities will in this context be subject to the oversight of the Marine Park Authority. However the very close consultative arrangements which have developed between Queensland and Commonwealth authorities in this unique area will ensure that Zoning Plans and Management Plans for the Capricornia section are developed and implemented in a context which will ensure the conservation of a unique feature of Australia’s and Queensland ‘s heritage.

The Council members agreed that the questions of the matters which are involved in the day-to-day management of the Marine Park should be the subject of examination by officials for consideration at the next meeting of the Ministerial Council. Other related issues here include the scale of costs to be involved in the day-to-day management arrangements and the sharing of these costs between the Commonwealth and Queensland Government.

The Council decided that Commonwealth and Queensland officials should examine the possibility of complementary management regimes in areas of the State adjacent to, or likely to affect the Marine Park. This examination will cover

  1. the proclamation of terrestrial national parks and marine parks under Queensland legislation;
  2. the suitability of legislation, both Commonwealth and Queensland, for establishing a uniform management approach, particularly with reference to the difficulties of law enforcement at the interface between the two jurisdictions; and
  3. consultative mechanisms in the development of proposals.

The Ministerial Council also agreed that the present scope of co-operation between Queensland and Commonwealth officials on issues relevant to the Reef should be maintained and expanded.

The Council also decided that: the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority will undertake its functions with the maximum practicable use of Queensland Government and private sector services commensurate with efficient operation; the Authority should develop a strong corporate identity in keeping with both Commonwealth and Queensland commitments to protect the Great Barrier Reef; the Authority will pay particular attention to its planning and research functions as required to achieve the establishment, control, care and development of a viable marine park (in particular in order to declare and zone further sections of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park); and the Authority will co-ordinate the provision of advice on research relevant to the Great Barrier Reef to the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council.

The Committee also considered the possible nomination of the Great Barrier Reef for inclusion on the World Heritage List. They were aware that this issue had been the subject of correspondence between the Prime Minister and the Premier and that the Premier had indicated that, in his view, only those areas of the Reef that have been assessed and surveyed as having prime ecological significance and which are considered suitable for declaration as Marine Parks should be included on the World Heritage List.

Ministers decided that before taking a decision on the question of nomination of the Reef for inclusion on the World Heritage List, they would like to study the implications of nominating the Great Barrier Reef- or sections of it- for inclusion on the List.

Ministers agreed that this matter should be studied by Commonwealth and Queensland officials with a view to presenting a report to the next meeting of the Ministerial Council.

In relation to the Great Barrier Reef Consultative Committee, the Ministers noted that the Minister for Science and the Environment was to announce the membership of the Committee at the conclusion of the meeting in terms of the attached statement. The Council agreed to refer matters to the Consultative Committee through the Minister for Science and the Environment.

page 1763

MEDIA RELEASE

Minister for Science and the Environment

Parliament House, Canberra A.C.T. 2600 Telephone 7260S0

page 1763

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

The Minister for Science and the Environment, Senator Webster, today welcomed the Commonwealth-Queensland agreement to recommend that action to enable proclamation of the Capricornia Section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park should proceed immediately, and announced the new membership of the Great Barrier Reef Consultative Committee.

He said that the decision by Ministers of the two Governments would mark the beginning of a new era in which the two Governments would act together to safeguard the uniquely valuable national resource.

The Consultative Committee was an important element in the co-operative arrangements which the two governments had established for the development and management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

The Minister said the Committee would advise him, and, through him, the Ministerial Council on matters relating to operation of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. It would also advise the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority on matters relating to the Marine Park.

The Minister said the Queensland and Commonwealth Governments had each nominated seven committee members, with a fifteenth member being appointed by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

The membership reflected the wide range of interests in the region. It included people with diverse backgrounds and areas of expertise, including science, recreation, conservation, industry and the Queensland and Commonwealth Governments.

Members are appointed for a term of three years. The appointments of the majority of the retiring committee members terminated on 20 September.

Senator Webster said the new members of the Committee were:

Mr D. Fraser, First Assistant Secretary of the Tertiary Industry Division of the Commonwealth Department of Industry and Commerce, which has tourism responsibilities.

Mr G. McKauge, Chairman of the Reef Region Tourism Task Force established by the tourist industry.

Dr P. Saenger, whose professional field of interest is ecology, physiology and biochemistry of marine algae and sea-grasses. He is Deputy Chairman of the Queensland Amateur Fishing Council, a body representing 20,000 club members through its affiliated member organisations.

Mr K. Thompson, First Assistant Secretary of the Environment Division of the Department of Science and the Environment. Mr Thomson has for many years been a senior officer in the environment area of the Commonwealth Government. He was formerly the head of the Environmental Studies Bureau in the then Department of Environment.

Retiring members who are to be re-appointed are:

Mr J. Ballingall- Queensland Commercial Fishermen’s State Council

Mr D. Connell; Australian Conservation Foundation

Mr P. Eccles; Commonwealth Department of Transport

Mr E. Hegerl; Australian Littoral Society and Queensland Conservation Council

Mr J. Izatt; Queensland Game Fishing Association

Dr P. Mather; Great Barrier Reef Committee

Mr G. Saunders; Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service

Professor K. Stark- James Cook University of North Queensland and

Mr J. Woods; Queensland Department of Mines

Dr Bunt, the Director of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, was appointed earlier to the Committee, and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority proposes to appoint its Acting Chairman, Mr G. Kelleher, as its representative.

The Minister said that the retiring Committee had performed a most valuable role in providing both him and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority with a source of independent advice on a range of matters important to the Great Barrier Reef.

The Committee would continue to play an important role in ensuring that the Great Barrier Reef was managed in a way which would bring long-term benefits to the people of Australia. 4 October 1979

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Finally, I must not let this occasion pass without mentioning the success of the initiative of creating the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council. We believe that in a matter of such importance as the Great Barrier Reef, major decisions need to be considered at the ministerial level by both governments. The Council has provided an appropriate mechanism to ensure that such consideration can take place. Furthermore, the very amicable meeting of the Council showed that the proper approach to issues where the interests of the Commonwealth and the State overlap is to engage in reasoned discussion. This approach is in sharp contrast to that advocated by the Opposition, which has consistently argued that the Commonwealth Government should ride roughshod over the important and legitimate interests of Queensland in this most important matter. The decision to progress the question of establishment of the Capricornia section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is, however, but a first step. There are many important matters which require early and detailed discussions so that we can have a fully operational marine park. I am confident that these issues will be speedily resolved and that the marine park will be an efficiently operating entity which will further serve to ensure that preservation of a unique feature of the heritage of Australia and Queensland. I present the following paper:

The Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council- Ministerial Statement, 9 October 1979.

Motion (by Mr Street) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

-The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act was passed by the Whitlam Government on 20 June 1975. The present Government has been in office since November 1975, so it has taken almost four years to reach the point where the first sectionthe Capricornia section- of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park can be declared. I understand that that section covers approximately 6 per cent of the total proposed area of the park. If this tortoise-like pace continues it will take 65 years for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park to be finally declared. Few Australians who are alive now will live to see Australia’s greatest natural asset and possibly the world’s greatest natural asset free from the forces that now ravage and threaten its very survival. I do not have to remind this House of the very real depth of feeling that the vast majority of Australians have for the Great Barrier Reef. Australians do not have a very good record as conservationists and, regrettably, past generations were guilty of monumental desecration of Australia’s wilderness areas and sections of Australian environment which are of great ecological significance.

Whatever the attitude of Australians may be on some conservation issues, it is clear from public opinion surveys that they will not tolerate any action by government or business that places the Great Barrier Reef at risk. Earlier this year when the question of oil drilling on the reef was headline news almost daily a public opinion poll was published in the Sydney Morning Herald showing that 66 per cent of Australian people opposed drilling on the Barrier Reef. The Government managed to defuse the issue by stating that there would be a moratorium on drilling on the reef until the results of both short and long term research were known. The impression in the public mind was that the reef had been saved. This is patently not true. All that has happened is that there has been a stay of execution, not a full pardon. There can be no guarantee that the reef is safe from predators such as the oil companies until such time as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park has been fully declared. The Opposition is certain that the moratorium has been introduced so that no firm decision on oil drilling will occur for some years. I am sure that the Government is confident that in the meantime substantially increased fuel charges and shortages will change Australian public opinion to the point where the majority of Australians, desperately short of fuel, will permit desecration of the reef so that they can get fuel for their cars. We believe that that is the motive behind the present moratorium.

The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has constantly assured the House that no drilling will be permitted on the reef, but has refused to provide assurance that drilling will not be permitted near the reef. The difference between ‘on’ and near’ is immaterial, and it is absurd for the Prime Minister to give an assurance that he will not permit drilling that would damage the reef. Whatever powers our Prime Minister may have, they do not include supernatural powers, such as King Canute thought he had, that would enable him to stop oil fouling the Great Barrier Reef and the whole of the Queensland coast in the event of a major oil blowout. There is ample evidence of massive damage caused by oil spills from tankers such as the spillages from the Amoco Cadiz off the coast of Brittany in 1978, the Torrey Canyon off the south coast of England in 1967 and the Oceanic Grandeur in the Torres Strait in 1970.

However, on 3 June this year a massive blowout occured at the Ixtoc- 1 well head in the Bay of Campeche in the Gulf of Mexico. It is the largest and longest blowout in the world. Some 20,000 to 30,000 barrels of oil are flowing into the sea every day. It was stated on tonight’s Australian Broadcasting Commission news that 390 million litres of oil have flowed into the Gulf of Mexico from the Ixtoc- 1 blowout. It reached Texas, some 800 kilometres to the north, by late July. It has fouled the Texas coast. It threatens a $140 million fish and shrimp industry and it has wrecked the tourist industry in Texas. The famed oil expert, Red Adair, failed to cap the well at Ixtoc- 1. Two other wells have now been drilled to relieve pressure but the original well is still flowing at about one-third of its previous pressure and after four months there appears no immediate possibility of stopping the oil from spilling out of the Gulf.

So how in the name of all that is sacred can the Prime Minister possibly give an assurance to this nation that no damage to the reef will occur as a result of drilling for oil on the reef? How can he give us an assurance? It is not possible. So, I point to the absurdity of this debate and highlight one of the great risks that Australia faces unless action is taken to declare the Great Barier Reef in full so that no drilling can ever be done in that area.

I would like now to turn to another matter that is of concern to the people of Queensland and has been in the newspapers and headlines of this nation for the last few days. It concerns black martin fishing. Again through the incompetence of this Government, Australia now has a situation where an agreement with the Japanese Government will permit Japanese long-line fishermen to continue to fish for black martin and threaten the tourist industry and the black martin fishing industry of north Queensland. I do not have to remind this House that the Great Barrier Reef is our greatest asset. I am talking now not only from an environmental point of view but also from a tourism point of view. Part of the tourist attraction is the fishing available on the Great Barrier Reef. The reef is famous as the greatest black martin fishing area in the world. Of course, the area off Cairns is a breeding ground for black martin. I wish to cite figures from an eight-year United States tagging survey of martin off Cairns. Between 1971 and 1974 there were 1.2 fish caught per angler per day and in 1 975 to 1 976 it was down to 0.6 fish caught per angler per day. It appears prima facie that there has been a 50 per cent reduction in the catch of black martin in that area. The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, in its 1976 report, stated that in 1971 the catch by Japanese long-line martin fishermen in the Pacific had been 2,200 tonnes but had dropped to 772 tonnes in 1976. It is true that the Japanese have been fishing for martin off Cairns.

Mr Bourchier:

– I wish to raise a point of order. I know the matter is of very much concern to the honourable member, as it is to the House, but really it has nothing to do with the statement that is being debated. Also, the honourable member should accept that the Government will not have a chance to oppose or talk about what he is saying because it is not related to the statement. I suggest that he keep to the statement or sit down.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

-The honourable member for Robertson is possibly, but not necessarily improperly, taking advantages of a situation to broaden the subject of the debate. That is of concern to the Chair, but I do note that in the report of the Minister reference is made to the ecosystem, and it might be argued that black martin are part of the ecosystem. I strongly urge the honourable member for Robertson not to digress from the subject.

Mr COHEN:

– What I am saying is extremely relevant. We are talking about the declaration of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and the management plan that will come from that declaration. Things such as black martin fishing, oil well blowouts and what I am going to talk about are parts of the management plan of the Great Barrier Reef.

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I wish to raise a point of order. I think it ought .to be pointed out to the honourable member for Robertson that the points of view that he might have with regard to martin have nothing whatever to do with this statement which involves setting in action a process to enable a proclamation of the Capricornia section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

Mr COHEN:

-I did not interrupt the Minister during his speech, but he is now taking up my time.

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, you would know that that has no relationship at all with the waters off Cairns. The matter to which the honourable member for Robertson is now referring is a matter between the Queensland Minister for Fisheries and the Ministers for primary industry of the Commonwealth and Japanese governments. It is an entirely separate issue and one which is recognised by the Queensland Minister.

Mr COHEN:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, the Minister is debating the matter.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! I uphold the point of order taken by the Minister. I call the honourable member for Robertson.

Mr COHEN:

– Time does not permit me to debate the points that the Minister has taken but they are quite obviously nonsense. All this is related to the question of what is going on in the Great Barrier Reef and the ruination of the reef. I would like to conclude by quoting from a recent article in the Bulletin about the damage that is being done along the whole of the reef by Taiwanese clam fishermen. I hope honourable members will not try to tell me that this does not concern the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The article stated:

The Great Barrier Reef, Australia’s major tourist attraction, may soon be stained by bloody violence and even destroyed. The lengthy chain of coral that flanks most of the east coast is a visual delight. But to an increasing number of Taiwanese fishermen and big business interests it represents a rich and more tangible reward in dollars.

While most foreign vessels are content to operate legally outside the 1 9-kilometre limit, large numbers of Taiwanese in rickety, expendible junks, commit ecological rape every year. Their violation of the sedentary organisms, the clams, the triton and helmet shells, turtles and porpoises could result in the destruction of the reef.

The blame for this plunder has been placed on small, independently-operated Taiwanese combines but the big companies that process the catches have been ignored. Since 1 976 there have been 22 prosecutions for clam poaching and some vessels have been confiscated. Yet the plunder continues unabated, with the Federal Government offering only token resistance.

The damage being done to the reef, and its vulnerability, have been highlighted by Dr R. Endean, a lecturer in biology at Queensland University. Dr Endean was one of the first to point out the dangers to the reef of the Crown of Thorns starfish . . .

Dr Endean has been keeping some check on reef conditions by monitoring the catches by commercial fishermen. There have been marked drops in catch sizes in area devastated by the Crown of Thorns, or overfished or denuded of clams . . .

The extent of the attack on the clams by Taiwanese poachers can be seen clearly from a light aircraft The white, opened shells dot the reefs, acting like beasons to searchers. A single Taiwanese junk with a crew of between 1 5 and 20 will leave no clams alive in a selected area. One Taiwanese junk caught in July this year at Swain Reefs, south of Mackay, had 1 1 tonnes of clam meat aboard when it was towed in. Since the average clam contains about 250 grams of edible muscle, the vessel must have taken about 30,000 clams.

Such predation is the start of a whole chain of damage which may me irreversible’, says Endean. ‘It is known that clams filter the sea water, but as yet nobody really knows just how important they are to the system. It is believed that some species play a major role. ‘

Unfortunately, time does not permit me to continue. All of this article ought to be read by every member of Parliament.

Mr Baillieu:

– Is that Dr Endean?

Mr COHEN:

-It is Dr Endean. There is quote after quote from fishermen and marine biologists which show that the devastation of the reef by the clam fishermen is absolutely monumental and is an enormous threat to the Great Barrier Reef. The only way in which this can be avoided is to proceed quickly with the declaration of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and for the Federal Government to back it up with proper craft and proper policing so that the Taiwanese can be arrested and sent back to their country so we can finally put a stop to it once and for all. This is our greatest natural asset and if the Government allows it to be ruined by its negligence and by its appalling-

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

Mr BRAITHWAITE:
Dawson

-I want to take this opportunity to speak because I think that the statement is of considerable importance.

Mr Bourchier:

– I wish to raise a point of order. Can I move that the debate be adjourned?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-The honourable member for Dawson has the call.

Mr Bourchier:

– If he likes to move that the debate be adjourned, he will have the first call when the debate is resumed.

Mr BRAITHWAITE:

– I intend only to make some relevant comments because this matter concerns part of my electorate. The Great Barrier Reef adjoins my electorate. I want to say how thankful I am that the Government has acted in this regard in consultation with the Queensland Government. It is a matter of great concern to the residents of the area of the Capricorn coast, as well as the fishing people and the people in the tourist resorts. I agree with the previous speaker, the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen), when he says that it is an asset that should be preserved. One way of preserving it is to make sure that from now on we set the standards and lay down the principles. I believe that it is the function of this consultative committee not only to make the declaration but also to insist on the disciplines that should go with it later on. What is important in this regard is the proper development of the tourist industry, the protection of the reef from the Taiwanese poachers and also the proper policing of the 200-mile limit. From the point of view of the electors of Dawson and of north Queensland this is a start that we ought to encourage as far as further development and protection of the reef is concerned. It has my full support.

Debate (on motion by Mr Young) adjourned.

page 1767

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr IAN ROBINSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP

-The Bill before the House seeks to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It is one of the most significant pieces of legislation that this House has dealt with in the current session. The amendments in order of their importance relate, first of all, to the prohibition of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission from ordering or recommending or sanctioning in any way an employer paying wages to an employee for time worked, or time not worked which is what it really should say, when the employee was engaged in industrial action. We know that this simply means that the Government takes the view that there should be no pay if there is no work during a strike; nothing more and nothing less.

The second vital amendment provides for expeditious hearing of stand-downs or applications for stand-downs either before a single member of the Commission or the Full Bench. This is a vital need in overhauling the present provisions of the Act. Thirdly, the Bill provides that the question of whether an industrial dispute exists be the subject of reference to a Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and then it enables an industrial dispute, or part of an industrial dispute, to be referred to the Full Bench for conciliation. It does so for very good reasons. It is patently clear that events of recent months and events of this day necessitate the Government’s taking a firmer stand in regard to industrial laws in this country. What we require is a positive move towards a reinstatement of effective conciliation and arbitration.

We heard in the House earlier today the views of the Opposition in relation to this matter. I was disappointed to hear the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), who is steeped in these industrial matters, make a contribution that was lamentable. He had no proposition to put and no alternative to offer, but he asserted that the Government was moving towards confrontation. Has he forgotten that confrontation began months ago, that this nation has been held up to ransom by the most blatant actions of milltant trade unions and that we have seen the employer, the public and the community at large -

Mr BARRY JONES:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Held to ransom.

Mr IAN ROBINSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP

– More than held to ransom. They have been taken right to the cleaners in relation to this matter. What we want to see is the restoration of effective conciliation and arbitration.

Mr Holding:

– We won’t get it through this legislation.

Mr IAN ROBINSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP

– The honourable member for Melbourne Ports says: ‘We won’t get it through this legislation’. We on this side of the House know full well that his friends of the Left- no doubt he will express their views shortly; he is their spokesman in this House- will tell us that the Carmichaels and the Halfpennys of this world are dedicated Australians. We know that they are dedicated to dragging this nation down in any way that they can. We see their actions week by week and month by month. We know also that the Labor Party is currently very much in the clutches of that section of the trade union movement, as evidenced by the decisions of the Adelaide conference of the Australian Labor Party.

When honourable members think in terms of the precise provisions of this legislation it is a matter of the Government placing priorities where they ought to be. The Government attempted to have consultations through the National Labour Consultative Council. Despite what was said by the honourable member for Port Adelaide this afternoon, the employees were not present at those discussions. They had every opportunity to be there, but in line with the industrial action that was envisaged at that time by the union movement, the employees boycotted that particular meeting of the NLCC. Why did the employees do that? They did it because once again they believed that confrontation, a militant approach, would be one means of scaring the employer and the Government. That tactic did not work. Today Australia has learnt with dismay of a further decision by the Telecom unions which threatens once again the telecommunications network of this country. Notwithstanding the decision of State branches of the union body over the past week- two States voted not to proceed with the industrial action that was proposed -

Mr McVeigh:

– What States were they?

Mr IAN ROBINSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP

-Does the honourable member not know what they are? I am sorry; of course he does. He is wanting to draw attention to them. They are two of the better States- the States of Queensland, I believe, and Western Australia.

Mr McVeigh:

– That is right.

Mr IAN ROBINSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP

– The honourable member has a very great interest in the State of Queensland. But we find the hard core unionists in the State of New South Wales and the State of Victoria wanting to go ahead with militant action. We must recall that only a matter of a few weeks ago this country was on the brink of one of the most serious industrial crises it has ever faced. In that regard we found that the union leadership was not prepared to accept the umpire’s decision. The union leadership stood right away from the recognised procedures of conciliation and arbitration. They had the opportunity of a full bench hearing but they were not prepared to accept that. Instead they made a declaration that they wanted an increase in pay, or nothing. Eventually there was a cave in by the union and its members agreed to further negotiations. Weeks and months have gone by and now we find once again that the union members are demanding simply to get what they want. They do not want to engage in negotiations. They have made a straight-out demand and they are prepared to hold the country to ransom to get what they want. The provisions contained in these amendments to the Act would enable in circumstances of this kind an effective and much improved approach on what we have experienced in the past.

It is very much to the credit of the Government and the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) that this House has before it the legislation which we are considering. It is legislation which will give a proper opportunity for a return to sanity in this matter and create a situation in which there is ample opportunity for effective negotiation. In order to achieve that end it is necessary to amend the law. These amendments will enable the bench to require certain steps to be taken in the matter of stand-downs or deregistrations. The main issue, of course, in the Opposition’s view is undoubtedly that of deregistration. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) will oppose that provision, but I am sure that his colleague, the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron), the former Minister for Labour and Immigration, who is so assiduously preparing something here, because of his experience at an earlier time must, without doubt, recognise that there is a very great need for action to be taken. I am sure that he knows full well that need because he, as Minister, was denied the opportunity of seeing, effective administration within his own department during the time when he occupied that office. That was for one reason: Irresponsibility on the part of the militant sections of the trade union movement of this country.

We know of the recent plea by the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Hawke, and the dismal failure that he experienced at the last ACTU Congress. He has now decided to seek a way to come into this place to put his views. Whether he will get here remains to be seen. He is attempting to come obviously because he too is disenchanted with the stage that has been reached in industrial relations in this nation. He is obviously very disenchanted with the membership of the ACTU. It has rejected his leadership. But the Australian Labor Party, of course, has wowed down to its demands. So it is little wonder that we see fairly vehement opposition by the Opposition in this House today and tonight without any alternative proposals as to how the problems can be solved. I mentioned earlier that the main issue will be that of deregistration. Of course, there have been demands over many years that the Government should strengthen the arm of the court in matters relating to industrial disputes.

Mr BARRY JONES:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– While at the same time limiting its flexibility.

Mr IAN ROBINSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP

-Flexibility no doubt, in the honourable member’s view, is to have a one-sided procedure which, of course, is the demand being made by the Left and in accordance with the resolutions of the Adelaide Australian Labor Party Conference that there be no opposition to any reforms in this area. That is what it means. In other words, that Party wants to surrender completely to union domination.

Mr Holding:

– What absolute rubbish!

Mr IAN ROBINSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP

– The honourable member knows that it is not rubbish. He put his case on the ground that the worker is right, the employer is wrong, and the public does not matter. Now we take the view that the public does matter and, as a consequence, we are providing in this legislation that deregistration can occur on grounds of safety, health or welfare of the community. If these are put at risk, following procedures that can only begin in the court itself, action can be taken to deregister a union. Why are we seeking the right of deregistration? We are seeking that right because it is the only punitive action that can be taken. It is the only way that the membership can assert itself if it so wishes. It is the only way that we can bring quickly to a process the requirements of the law when there is obviously a long confrontation which is designed to be a long confrontation, when the action being taken is deliberate and intended to take a lengthy period with the public suffering. We have seen this in the recent Telecom dispute. We have seen it in many other areas. Of course, there is no procedure currently to speed up the approach through the court so that we can get to a point where either a requirement exists for conciliation and arbitration or some other punitive action is taken. We all know- members from both sides of the House know and the public knows- that we cannot take every unionist by the scruff of the neck and say: You will go back to work by tomorrow morning’. We are not suggesting that.

Mr BARRY JONES:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The next best thing.

Mr IAN ROBINSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP

-The honourable member would say so, but he has no alternative. When the milk tanker drivers of Victoria a few short months ago were refusing to supply the essential needs of the public, what did the honourable member for Lalor say about it then? He probably urged the tanker drivers on and said ‘Hear, hear! ‘ every time they asserted their right not to supply an essential food and an essential commodity. It could have led, as it had begun to lead, to a drastic situation in that State. What did we find in the recent Telecom strike? We found that people were not just inconvenienced; we found that health was at risk. We found that great damage was being done in many areas. I mention the tourist industry. I refer to it for a particular reason. Something is going to happen outside this building tomorrow and there is great interest in that. I see some people in the gallery tonight who are particularly interested in that matter. If we think in terms of what the Telecom dispute occasioned in loss for the tourist industry, it is an example of real damage. Now, perhaps all of the provisions of this amending legislation would not be applied just in circumstances of that sort. Nonetheless, the public is inconvenienced. If we are to overcome that problem effectively, there is a very great need to update the existing provisions of the Act.

The Minister has been striving for two to three years to bring in gradually amendments which are meaningful. He has not rushed in willy-nilly. He has not rushed in with extravagant proposals. He has not followed the line of the unions themselves through threats or through a series of actions which interfere with the processes of trade and commerce in this country. He has not said: ‘Do it or else ‘. What he is doing is providing in the true Australian tradition for a better procedure whereby the umpire has the opportunity to call the tune and then it is up to those who want to play the game to recognise that there is a way of dealing with problems- not just standover tactics.

Mr Yates:

– Muscle; that is what it is all about.

Mr IAN ROBINSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP

-Somebody used the word ‘muscle’. We know that industrial muscle in recent years has gained momentum far beyond the recognised and proper bases upon which trade unions are a vital part of the community. None of us opposes trade unions. Their purpose and their basic work is to look after their members, to negotiate on their behalf, to put forward proposals for consideration, to make requests and to do the kinds of things in a democratic society that are expected for the betterment of the workers’ lot. But, when we find such action being taken to the point where the rest of the community is expected to carry the burden- someone said this afternoon that this legislation was, in fact, wage fixing in effect, and that it went to the stage of taking away the right of workers to demand the wages that they thought they should get, not what the umpire said they were entitled to -

Mr Jull:

– Who said that?

Mr IAN ROBINSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP

-I think it was the honourable member for Cunningham. If it was not the honourable member for Cunningham, of course, it would be his friend and associate, the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes), who also spoke on this matter. The honourable member for Melbourne, if I recall, is a very experienced gentleman in terms of his time in the trade union movement, including his period as vice-president of the ACTU. He again simply criticised the Minister and the Government and, like other speakers, quoted as his guide and philosopher a previous man from the Bench in the person of Mr Justice Kirby. Of course he said that Mr Justice Kirby had put the view that this legislation was adverse, that it was contrary to what would be the wish of the bench, and that it was also contrary to the wish of those who understood the requirements of industrial relations in this country. Well we know that for a long time that retired gentleman has taken a contrary view to the present Government and to his colleagues on the Bench.

Mr BARRY JONES:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– He is not a confrontationalist

Mr IAN ROBINSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP

– He may not be a confrontationalist, but if we look at his record it is a pretty dismal one. I would hate to be guided by his advice in this very important matter so far as the future of Australia is concerned. In the remaining few minutes that I have let me say that the Government is moving on a responsible course. It is taking action of the kind that the community at large expects it to take. It is not rushing into an area without giving great care as to the legal grounds, the proper judicial grounds, and the prospects of success in improving industrial relations in this country. It is not a matter of confrontation at all. It is a matter of fair play, honesty and justice for all Australians.

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

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

– I find it extraordinary that the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Ian Robinson) will defend to the death the right of a farmer to withold his produce from market in order to effect a larger return to himself but finds it completely immoral that a working man, or tradesman who has got nothing to barter with but his skill, should want to exercise his right, if necessary, to withold his labour in order to increase his return. What is also appalling when one talks about the National Country Party, and perhaps when we look at its activities in Queensland it ought to be more appropriately referred to as the National Crooks Party -

Mr Street:

– I take a point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Melbourne Ports will withdraw that statement.

Mr HOLDING:

-Well, sir, if you insist I will withdraw it. I would say, though, that it is accurate. I understand the honourable gentlemen’s sensitivity, but I get a little bit sick when the honourable gentlemen, who get so sensitive about these matters, continually refer in a derogatory way to ordinary Australian trade unionists- and there are some 2Vt million of them- who are essentially operating within unions which are legal structures. Those organisations are designed to improve and develop and, under present economic circumstances, defend the living standards of their members. Whenever honourable gentlemen opposite talk about those 2Yi million Australian people who are in that situation they continually carry on as if they are talking about the enemy; as if they are talking about some foreign power, when they are in fact referring to good Australian citizens who are simply concerned with defending their living standards and, if possible, improving them.

We are told by the honourable member for Cowper that we should put up alternatives. Let us look at the history of this legislation. What opportunity was there for anybody to provide alternatives? I would have thought that one of the tests of this legislation, and its success, is whether it will increase or reduce industrial tension. I would say that there is a considerable body of knowledge in the community about industrial relations. This does not just come from one side. Does the Minister suggest for one moment that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the judges and the commissioners who have a great deal of knowledge in these matters, were ever consulted about this legislation? Is it suggested for two minutes that anybody from the peak councils, or from the trade union movement, was consulted or that-

Mr Street:

– They wouldn’t come.

Mr HOLDING:

– The honourable gentleman knows that he is using a thoroughly specious argument. The fact of the matter is that the body of expertise that was available to the Minister was never called on. I challenge the Minister to deny that. Does he say that his own Department of Industrial Relations was involved? The Minister is acting like a humbug and he knows it. What happened to this legislation? In the initial legislation, according to the Age of 31 August 1979, ‘the Government was keeping the legislation under tight wraps; initial copies were made available to a party meeting; copies were collected at the end of Tuesday nights meetings and back benchers were asked to regard the briefings as confidential. ‘ Let us not talk about this legislation being a genuine attempt by this Government to seek a range of expert opinions which are available within this community as to how one goes about decreasing industrial tension. This legislation does not reduce industrial tension but will promote industrial confrontation.

Mr Lucock:

– Why doesn’t the left wing of the labour movement want the Labor Party in government?

Mr HOLDING:

– The honourable gentleman would not know the left wing of the Labor Party. I would advise him to look at the scandalous behaviour of some of his party colleagues in Queensland. I do not know of any trade unionist who has gone on record as saying that he gets a bribe offered to him once a week. If one is going to offer a Minister a bribe once a week one must believe that he is ready to take it. So before the honourable gentleman talks about trade unionists let him clean up his own house.

This legislation purports to do a number of things. In the time available to me I just want to deal very quickly with some of the confused concepts that this legislation is going to create in industrial affairs. The first concept is that we are told that the Bill requires a comissioner to consult with presidential members in certain circumstances. It does not say how he is going to consult. It does not state what detail he is going to consult about. Honourable gentlemen opposite can go ‘oh’, but a basic tenet upon which the exercise of judicial functions rests is ‘He who hears, must decide’. If honourable gentlemen opposite were involved in a matter before a court concerning an argument about a contract, and having put all the evidence to one judge, and having had him sit on the case for two or three days, would they be happy about a process whereby the judge is required by law to state: ‘I am going to reserve my decision. I am going to wander down to my club, or I am going to go into some smokefilled room, and the decision I am making is not necessarily going to be a decision on the facts or upon the merits of the case as argued. It is going to be a decision based on consultation with the senior judge’. That is a sloppy concept because those parties, whether they are employers or employees who come before a commission, are entitled to accept the view that what is good enough, as a matter of basic principle in the normal courts of the land, ought to be good enough for the settlement of their industrial problems. One puts one’s case to the commissioner who is listed to hear it; one argues out the case; all the evidence is there, and the comissioner makes a decision and tries to resolve that problem on the evidence before him. Now that is a very fundamental principle. That principle is eroded in this legislation and no good or compelling reason has been given by the Minister.

The new section 25a provides that the Commission is not empowered to deal with claims for payment by employees for time lost in industrial action. That might sound all right, but traditionally there have been a number of cases- we are not dealing with a large number of cases because there are not very many applications of this sort- where a number of decisions were made by the Commission when the actions of the employer were so completely unreasonable that it was found that a refusal to work was the only reasonable course open to employees. Those cases are listed. If the honourable gentlemen opposite knew anything about industrial law or industrial relations they would know that that is the power that has been exercised very rarely within our industrial tribunals. Should not it be there?

Mr Yates:

– Give us the name of the case.

Mr HOLDING:

– I will give the honourable member the cases afterwards and he can look for them. If the honourable gentleman is sincere I will provide him with all the case authorities in that respect. I assure him that those decisions have been made. All the Opposition is saying is that that is a power that ought to continue to reside not with the Opposition, or with the Minister, but with the Commission. It is an important power that ought to be there. It has been exercised on a number of occasions not just to the advantage of employees but in ensuring proper and effective industrial relations.

The other matter that I am concerned about is the proposal in clause 8 to empower the President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to take a matter which is actively before a member of the Commission out of that member’s hands if he is of the opinion that there are special reasons for doing so. What are the special reasons? They are not to be specified. Why is it that that power ought to be attached to our industrial tribunals when if it were sought to be exercised in any other court in any other jurisdiction we would be appalled by it? A case could be part heard with much of the evidence given. This legislation provides that the President may walk into such a situation, perhaps because he has had a conversation with somebody or a Minister of the Crown has pressured him, and say that there are special reasons why he is taking the case away to deal with it. Can there be any concept- I do not deign to call it a judicial concept- that can erode public confidence and the capacity of commissioners to perform their functions more than that concept? What we are talking about is a system by which law can regulate industrial relations for the purpose of diminishing industrial tensions. Any two parties who come before a judge or a court have to have confidence in that court. The same principle applies in our industrial tribunals. The minute the Government gives the President of the Commission the power to intervene without a publicly stated reason it creates an infrastructure which could undermine the whole operation of the Arbitration Commission.

I turn to clause 1 6. 1 think it is the most important, the most vicious and the most reactionary aspect of the legislation. It empowers a full bench to make a relevant declaration where it is satisfied that two persons have in the past been engaged in industrial action- for example, a ban- which has had a substantial effect on the welfare part of the community. This is the deregistration provision. My basic objection to that concept is that under our whole rule of law we must never confound Executive action with judicial function. Let me give an analogy. How would honourable members opposite feel if in the area of corporate law a prominent company director was charged with breaches of the Companies Act and the Attorney-General of New South Wales said that he would give the court the power to determine whether that man was guilty but said that the sentence would be fixed by him? Honourable members opposite would feel a sense of outrage, as would the community.

Mr Yates:

– What are you hinting at?

Mr HOLDING:

– What I am hinting at is that this Parliament should never tolerate confusion of a judicial function with an Executive and administrative act. Clause 16 provides that a Full Bench may make a declaration based on a very narrow set of facts indeed. Let me indicate what the facts could be. All that is required is that two persons, not the whole of a union, in the past have been engaged in industrial action- it need not have been a strike but could have been a ban- which has had a substantial adverse effect on the welfare of part of the community. The declaration may rest on losses alleged to have been incurred by shareholders, because shareholders are part of the community. If there is a power to deregister, that power ought to be exercised by the tribunal that makes its findings upon the facts. It is a fundamentally wrong principle that following a declaration by any section of our judicial system the Minister in Executive Council may make a decision which affects the legal rights of people. When an organisation is deregistered the legal rights of every member of that organisation are affected. Would honourable members opposite give such power to the Attorney-General to exercise over public companies which break the Companies Act, thereby affecting every shareholder? I would not give such power to a Minister because I do not believe that there should be this confusion between the exercise of the prerogatives of the court and prerogatives of the Parliament. That is one of the basic tenets which run through the constitutional fabric not merely of Great Britain but indeed of our Commonwealth. I am deeply concerned that this provision, which is designed to strike at the rights of millions of Australians, is to be exercised on the basis of a finding of fact by a judicial tribunal which considers that it has no other course of interpretation open to it, but the penalty operates at the political whim of the Minister.

Mr Yates:

– You are wrong.

Mr HOLDING:

– I am sorry; I am right and the honourable gentleman is wrong. All that is involved is that application is made to the full bench by the Minister. It can be made on the most narrow of grounds. That Commission is limited to a finding -

Mr Yates:

– Who decides, the Minister or the Commission?

Mr HOLDING:

– The Commission decides whether a declaration will be made. The other example is that a judge could say whether a man is guilty or not guilty, but he could not pass sentence; that would be left to a Minister. In principle that is bad and no amount of specious argument by this Government can make it correct. I invite honourable gentlemen opposite to search the records. I have, and I cannot find a precedent in any industrial system or in any other judicial system save one. The judges in prewar Germany were legally able to conclude that Jews and communists were no longer full citizens entitled to rely on rights previously accumulated. That is to say they were persons who could be struck down by mere executive act. A unionist is either within the law or outside it. Deregistration determinations historically in Australia have been vested in our industrial tribunals. This legislation enables a Minister by a mere administrative act, admittedly predicated on the finding of a tribunal, to make such decisions. This does not make it any more right. Essentially this legislation affects the civil rights of every unionist. It strips him of his rights so to that extent, for the purposes of his industrial rights, his award entitlements and all entitlements he becomes a citizen outside the law with no standing or status. That is a serious inroad into the rights of every trade unionist in Australia. That action is predicated on the decision of a Minister acting in the Executive Council, and I am not prepared to concede that power to the present Minister.

Mr Street:

– It is not true.

Mr HOLDING:

– I will be interested to argue this in Committee. This Government is blurting about my allegations not being true but within a matter of 10 minutes it will apply the gag so that the matter cannot be argued out. All those opposite who say that it is not true will not vote to give themselves the chance to disprove my argument or contention; they will follow the Government line and, whilst they talk about the parliamentary system and the rights of the Parliament, they will vote to destroy a concept that has been fundamental to the operation not merely of our judicial system but of our whole industrial process. This legislation was conceived not on the basis of any advice sought from experts in industrial relations, not on the advice of senior people in the Minister’s own department, not on the basis -

Mr Street:

– That is nonsense.

Mr HOLDING:

-Is the Minister saying that he approached the commissioners for their views on the legislation? Of course he did not.

Mr Street:

– Commissioners don’t write the law.

Mr HOLDING:

-I am not suggesting that but is the Minister saying that he does not believe that, by virtue of their experience, their comments on legislation of this kind might be prudent and helpful? Oh, no! This legislation is introduced because the Government is in trouble with its economic policy and rising unemployment. It is now determined to use legislation of this kind to attack and bedevil the trade union movement. That has been the approach taken by governments of similar persuasion when confronted with an economic crisis. This Government is acting no differently from every reactionary government of the past. At least this sort of action is predictable. It will be understood not merely by the trade unionists of Australia but also by all those Australian citizens who want to see industrial problems solved, not created by this Government as a spurious political exercise.

Mr CADMAN:
Mitchell

-The honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) was one of those at the Austraiian Labor Party conference who insisted on writing into the industrial relations section of the Party’s policy these words:

The recognition of the rights of unions to regulate their own affairs in a democratic way free from government and judicial interference and at the same time expanding the role of the Industrial Registrar in advising on matters relating to rules so that unions will have access to information and independent advice which will allow them -

No tribunal; no judicial procedure- where necessary, to improve and update their rules.

The honourable member talked about the rule of law and about consultation with commissioners; yet he is one of those who are responsible for that clap-trap, that tripe which is presented by the ALP as industrial relations policy.

I wonder whether the ALP consulted, for instance, Mr Justice Staples when it wrote its policy. Whom did it consult? Who helped it produce this document and who helped it to write its policy? The Labor Party supporters say that we should consult with the people on the Full Bench and find out from their experience. The Labor Party has not done that because it jolly well knows that this is not the process of industrial law in this country. Governments do not consult commissioners. Commissioners administer the law. Governments are judged on their decisions. The people of Australia want fair decisions in industrial relations but the whole problem with the ALP is that it has moved so far from the shop floor that it no longer understands what the average working Australian wants today. The workers want to be at work; they want to earn their money and they do not want inter-union disputation. They do not want anybody in this Parliament or from anywhere saying from on high: ‘You will go on strike’, ‘You will have a dispute’, ‘You will have stoppages’, ‘You will use guerilla tactics.’ The working men do not want that; they want to work. The most common theme that I hear amongst union members and their families is from the wives who ask me: Why cannot we have a vote for a strike?’ They want a vote because they know that their menfolk are being stood over to yield when they should not yield. The wives and the families of these men are the people who will judge the ALP at the next election. They will judge it on its policy which says that ‘the unions in Australia will run wild and do as they like; there will be no government interference, no government moderation; the government will stand back from that situation and let them run riot’.

It is interesting to note that at the ALP conference in Adelaide the person who I suppose will soon become a member of this House, Mr Bob Hawke, endeavoured to establish what would have been a democratic process for the union movement in Australia. Mr Hawke said that he wanted a contract referendum policy- a democratic policy. The left wing unions said: ‘We will not wear that’. At that stage the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) sold out, supported by the record holding leader of any Opposition in Australia, the honourable member for Melbourne Pons who has just left the chamber, and by the Left of the Labor Party. Bob Hawke, the man who has more experience in industrial relations that anybody on the Opposition side, said: ‘It is a sellout; you have ;old me down the river.’ What did he do? He said: ‘I am going to resign’. That knock-back, the way in which the Labor Party set him up and then left him, was too much for him. He said: ‘I am not going to be up there and cop it from everybody as President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I am going to get out. I am going to give up. I am not going to stay head of that important body in Australia. I am going to leave it. I am going to come into the Australian Parliament and I am going to have my say there. ‘ He has left it to the Left.

Mr Neil:

-He has left it to the Left.

Mr CADMAN:

-Yes, look at the change in the representation in the ACTU executive today and look at the structure today compared with what it was two months ago. There has been a complete restructuring. Fancy a union official with the experience and capacity of Charles Fitzgibbon not being on that body. He was sold out. Bob Hawke has left the union movement. The Labor Party has said that the union movement can run riot. Its supporters have said: ‘We will let the unions run riot and we are not prepared to step in and act on behalf of Australian citizens’.

The one point missed by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports and the point that he kept hammering was that the Minister intervenes and there is no judicial process. The honourable member failed to say, of course, that the Minister will intervene only when matters such as the safety, the health and the welfare of the community are involved. But the Minister does not make the decision even then; he refers the case for deregistration to the Full Bench- the judiciary. The Full Bench makes the decision, not the Minister. Would the honourable member and the Labor Party have us say that the Government should not be concerned about the safety, the health or the welfare of the community? What would they say if the petrol strike at the Caltex refinery had continued for another two weeks? Would they say that the welfare of the community would not be affected? Would they say that it would not affect the community if ambulances could not travel because of lack of fuel. Would they say when the services of doctors were restricted by strike action that that would not affect the community? It appears to me that the Labor Party is not concerned with the health, the safety or the welfare of the community because it would deny the Minister an opportunity to act for the Australian people.

The decision is not with the Minister, it is with the Full Bench The Minister initiates action and says: ‘This is bad. I must act responsibly for the Australian community’. Under this legislation the Minister refers the matter to the Full Bench. Are honourable members opposite saying that the Full Bench in Australia is not competent? I would have thought that the lesson of natural justice and the lessons of the rule of law that were taught last week in this House by the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) would have registered. But no, they do not seen to have registered with honourable members opposite and again in a sort of sly or passing way the honourable member for Melbourne Pons raised those matters which were raised last week. I would have thought that natural justice and the rule of law which honourable members heard about from the lips of the Minister for Defence would have made them understand that in this legislation the Full Bench makes the decision, not the Minister. It is rubbish to say otherwise. Honourable members opposite are saying that the Government of Australia is not concerned about welfare, safety or health. The Labor Party is not concerned. Under this legislation the Minister has power to act and that is what the people at the shop floor level in Australia have been wanting. They are saying: ‘You allow us to have safety and welfare; you allow us to earn our money; you allow us to attend to the wellbeing of our families. ‘ Labor Party supporters are not proposing that sort of thing. You are remote from the scene. You know nothing about who are the real workers of Australia.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Order! The honourable member will address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr CADMAN:

– I am using the collective term, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am applying the collective term to the Labor Party because if one reads -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I advise the honourable member to address his remarks to the Chair, and not in any generic sense.

Mr CADMAN:

– Certainly, sir. If you were to read this document, sir, which spells out the policy of the Labor Party on industrial relations, you would understand that to a man, and unfortunately against the best professional advice they could get, members of the Labor Party support the policy of non-intervention and of allowing the union movement of Australia to do as it will. I think that spells disaster and the workers of Australia think that it spells disaster, too.

Let us look at this legislation. Despite the debate from the other side of the House, I think the Opposition has failed to deal with the Bill. It tried, unsuccessfully, to raise emotional factors. It tried to represent its new policy as being something that is worthwhile to the workers of the country, but it failed to do so. What has the Minister said? What is he proposing? What does the Government want to do? The first point- standdowns is dealt with in an expedient way. If there is a stoppage and men are not able to work, why should it be a matter of weeks and weeks before an application for stand-down can be dealt with effectively?

Mr Neil:

– It should be automatic.

Mr CADMAN:

– Consideration for automatic stand-down could take place but the Minister has said: ‘No, let us expedite the process. Let us be reasonable. Let us get the hearing on quickly and get the matter resolved ‘.

I turn now to the proposal that where there is no work there should be no pay. ‘Where there is no work there is no pay’ used to be a proposition that the Labor Party held dear. Not only did one not work, but one did not go out moonlighting either. How many union members today break that oath of faith in their movement and go out and work in clubs and pubs around the country doing any casual job that they can get? They are not concerned about their fellow unionists; they are after the finance that keeps their families going. If a dispute arises and a stoppage is called and they are forced out of work, of course they will go looking for the first casual job they can find. But the Labor Party will not espouse those causes, those principles of the union movement of Australia. The Labor Party says that, if people do not want to work, they should be paid anyway. Well, that is not a fact. This legislation sets down firmly and solidly, as it is should, the principles that the union movement itself holds, one of which is: No work, no pay. If funds have to be raised to support men in their jobs, if funds have to be raised by any means so that the dispute can continue, that indicates the dedication of the workers involved in the dispute. The principle involved is: No work, no pay.

I think that when considering the other proposals of this legislation, such as referral to a full bench for deregistration, one only has to look at some of the disputes involving the Transport Workers Union of Australia and at the rights of the individuals in this matter. (Quorum formed). Members of the Labor Party object to this legislation. But let them look to the remarks of the Premier of New South Wales. Let them look to the newspaper article whose headline reads: Wran blasts unions for undermining jobs’. The article refers to Mr Wran’s addressing shipbuilding unions and people in Newcastle and states:

While the audience clapped and cheered his remarks, Mr Wran told how sections of the State dockyard workforce had caused the loss of two major contracts by demanding overaward payments.

So there we have a person in the Labor Partythe Premier of New South Wales- saying that there must be fairness, responsibility and dedication to the wellbeing of the union movement at large and not the selfish point of view that has been put forward tonight. It would seem to me that the Labor Party, in its policy produced in Adelaide, has proposed a complete sellout of any rule of law, any sane and sensible industrial relations, in every union in this country. The strong will get stronger and the weak will get weaker. The ones who can make the stand-over demands, the ones who can operate the guerrilla tactics, will be the ones who are successful under Labor policy. There is no thought for moderate unions and the families of moderate unionists. I think that the Labor Party should be condemned for its policy and condemned for continuing to enunciate its policy. It should be seen for what it is- a sellout to the Left. Mr Hawke could not continue in the ACTU if the shambles of an industrial relations policy of a future Labor government as proposed at the Adelaide conference were to prevail. Mr Hawke said: ‘I will not continue in the ACTU. I will get out because I cannot live with this industrial relations policy’. He is going to come into this House and he is going to attempt to convert members of the Opposition from within. I hope that he will start his conversion course with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) because, if anybody has shown the capacity to sell out, it must be the Leader of the Opposition.

I bring before the House another matter related to industrial relations that I think is significant in cauusing the current wave of disputation in Australia today. It seems to me that the unfortunate decision made in an airline dispute before Christmas last year that allowed a flow-on of $8 a week to $ 14 a week was the key to and the crux of much of our problem in Australia today. I think that the decisions endorsed by the Full Bench in those circumstances have been very difficult indeed. They have given wage increases outside the indexation guidelines. The Minister produces legislation and the Government endorses it. Every honourable member here knows that the Australian people want legislation such as this.

Honourable members on this side of the House say that there must be a fairer, more practical way of dealing with industrial relations than considering the public good by giving in to the strongest party. The problem with industrial relations in Australia today is that the weak lose and the strong gain, and the way to settle the dispute is to allow the strongest party to have its way. Unfortunately, as I see it, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has been party to decisions of this type. I think that that is unfortunate. I really feel that the adversary spirit in industrial relations today is bad for everyone involved. It is bad for Australia’s image overseas; it is bad for the Australian worker; and it is bad for the continuance of the wellbeing of Australian families. There is no way that the adversary spirit will gain anything for any of the parties involved. To my mind, the crime of this attitude is that it dispenses the energies of management and labour in struggles between themselves, in a war where there are no real victors. Nobody is winning in industrial disputation in this country today. The Government has a responsibility, it has seen the responsibility and it has been begged to take up its responsibility to deal fairly with these problems.

The legislation before us tonight deals with these problems fairly. These are not draconian measures; they are sensible, moderate attitudes that will allow the Full Bench- not the Minister- to adjudicate. This is not a political process, not a standing back, not an intervention, but a sane and sensible approach. It is one that has been espoused by the Minister who is a man of moderation and fairness. He is recognised by the union movement in Australia as being such. The union movement, piqued at not being able to browbeat the Minister, has not seen fit to involve itself in proper discussions on this legislation. I regard that as a criminal neglect of its duty. The union movement has not seen fit to sit down and discuss these provisions. They have been introduced into the House after careful study. I commend them. I know that they will be an improvement in the interests of sane, sensible industrial relations. I commend the Government for introducing them.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I begin by taking up a point made by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). Towards the end of his remarks he paid tribute to the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street). I do the same thing. I do not blame the Minister for what is contained in this Bill. I do not blame his Department for it either. The trade union movement, which knows the Minister well, also knows that he would not willingly be party to this kind of legislation. I do not even blame the employers. I know that large sections of the employers themselves are fearful of the consequences that will flow from this Bill. Neither the Australian Industrial Court, the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, nor the trade union movement was consulted in the preparation of the Bill now before the Parliament. It is true, as I was charged by the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr), that I did not call the National Labor Advisory Council together once during the time that I was Minister for Labour.

Mr Baillieu:

-Why not?

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Why not? I refused to call it together because I believe that these socalled bodies are a complete waste of time. They are a futility. Everybody attending them talks for the record and then goes out and defends himself against any charge of having gone soft or having let the side down. I did not call the Council together, but on every occasion on which I sought to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act I sent copies of the proposed Bill to the judiciary, the unions and the employers before it was brought into this House. On frequent occasions, as the parliamentary draftsmen will testify, I made substantial alterations to those drafts after receiving comments from the judiciary, the trade union movement and, on one occasion, even from the employers. The Government is deluding itself if it is naive enough to believe that industrial disputation can be eliminated by Acts of Parliament. It cannot. If it could, all of us would be remiss in not having thought of the wonderful brainwave 50, 60 or 70 years ago. Every parliament in the world has been remiss if passing Acts of Parliament or Congress was all that was needed to prevent industrial disputes. It cannot be done. There is no shortcut and no simple way as we would imagine would be possible by the mere passage of these amendments.

The Parliament must never lose sight of the objects of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act whenever it seeks to amend that Act. Let me tell the House, because it appears that nobody on the other side seems to have noticed, that section 2 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act- I will paraphrase it- says that the chief objects of the Act are to encourage the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes by means of conciliation and to encourage the registration of unions under the provisions of the Act. Unless an amendment causes the Act to comply more adequately with these objects it will cut right across the policy of the Act. Any amendment made to the Act must keep firmly in mind the objects of the Act. In looking at the objects of the Act we have to keep in mind equally what the Constitution says we can do in relation to industrial laws.

The Parliament’s power to pass laws in relation to industrial matters derives from placitum (xxxv) of section 51 of the Australian Constitution. This placitum provides for the Parliament to be entrusted with the power to make laws with respect to:

Conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of anyone State.

But more than 170 cases have been determined by the High Court of Australia as to the meaning of those few words in the Constitution. In essence the Court has consistently and drastically read down the power of the Parliament to deal directly with laws relating to labour relations. It has never read the power up. It has always read down those powers and the placitum to which I referred. I think it has been wrong in doing so, but it has done so. We are stuck with what the High Court has done. It has specifically ruledthis is the point we are now discussing- against the Parliament’s exercising arbitral powers over labour relations. It has specifically ruled against the Parliament’s exercising judicial powers. Obviously, on the last point, the High Court could not consistently do anything else. It is axiomatic that the Executive arm of government, that is the Executive Council or the GovernorGeneralinCouncil, cannot exercise powers that are denied to the Parliament itself. Therefore, any powers that we purport to give to the Executive Council or the Governor-General-in-Council are powers that can survive a challenge in the High Court only if they are within the competence of the Parliament to exercise directly and should it choose to do so. I mention this by way of preface because it is germane to what I propose to put to the House in relation to the proposals contained in this Bill.

The Bill seeks to inject into the Act a provision that purports to give the Parliament power to order that claims for lost wages due to industrial action shall not in any circumstances be awarded by the Commission. Secondly, it transfers the judicial powers of the Federal Court in respect of deregistration processes to those members of the Parliament who happen to be serving members of the Executive Council assembled with the Governor-General presiding. On the first matter it can be said with certainty that the High Court will have to stand all its earlier decisions on their heads to be able to uphold the power of the Parliament to direct the Commission on how it shall exercise its constitutional powers to prevent and settle industrial disputes.

On the question of not being able to award arrears in wages, let us examine the situation of a strike brought about as the result of a safety issue. For instance, miners may claim that methane gas in the mine constitutes a threat to their health or to life and limb. Surely no one would say that if they went on strike and as a consequence of the strike finally settled the dispute to their satisfaction they would have no right or the Commission would have no right to say that they should not have been forced to lose wages over a matter in which they were completely justified. That is an example which cannot be dealt with once this Bill is passed. If this proposal is held to be valid I believe that the High Court will be compelled to set aside the majority of its earlier judgments in relation to placitum (xxxv) or its members will stand condemned as biased, political partisans. I think that even Lionel Murphy and Garfield Barwick would not like that sort of charge to be levelled against them.

I turn now to the second point, which relates to the power of certain members of the Parliament to exercise the judicial powers which now reside in the Federal Court. I refer to the processes of deregistration under section 143 and proposed new section 143A. If two members of any union stop work in some remote corner of the Commonwealth, the Minister- not the judge, not the Full Bench- can ask the Full Bench of the Commission to give a certificate to the effect that there are two members on strike in the Gulf of Carpentaria. If the Minister proves that two members of the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union are on strike the Full Bench is obligated to give the Minister a certificate that he has asked for -

Mr Street:
Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Yes, it is.

Mr Street:

– Only if the safety, health or welfare of the community is adversely affected -

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am coming to that. A declaration may be made if it is held that industial action is adversely affecting the health, safety and welfare of the community. Now the words ‘health’ and ‘safety’ are just window dressing. ‘Health’ and ‘safety’ sound terribly good, terribly safe, terribly paternalistic -

Mr BARRY JONES:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Motherhood.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Motherhood, if you like. But it is not necessary to show that industrial action is having an adverse effect on health and safety if it can be shown simply that a strike is against the welfare of the community the certificate has to be issued -

Mr Street:

– The Bill refers to a substantial adverse effect.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I accept that but I will show that even with those words injected into the provisions of the Bill the situation is still the same. If there is a strike involving shipping, transport, the post office or any public facilities, it can be easily argued that the welfare of the community is affected by it substantially. That is all that has to be done. Once that occurs, given all the factors I have enumerated, the Minister, armed with this certificate, can call one of his ministerial colleagues into session with him, phone the Governor-General and say: ‘Your Excellency, Mr Fraser and I would like a meeting of the Executive Council. We are going to deregister the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union or we are going to do something else’. I will deal later with the other options that are open to the Minister. The Executive Council may meet in camera with only two members of this Parliament present- there need be no more. They can be biased members and therefore not fit to act in a judicial capacity. Immediately the Executive Council meets they can thereupon determine to exercise the options that are open to them. Those options are enormous and some of the consequences that can flow from the exercise of these options are quite horrendous.

These two Ministers, sitting in Executive Council with the Governor-General, may freeze the whole of that union ‘s funds if that is how they feel moved to act. They can direct that a specified officer of that union shall cease to hold office in the union. They can also determine that he shall not be paid for his services to the members. They can direct the trustees not to hand over any money to specified officers who are entitled to be paid their salaries, having been elected to certain offices. They can order that a particular employee or group of employees shall not be permitted to contest a ballot for union office. They can also order that a particular employee, and they can name him individually, or a group of employees- that is, nobody in South Australia, for instance- shall be permitted to vote in a union election, shall be permitted to nominate for any union office or shall be permitted to attend a union meeting. By this means they will be able to stack the meetings by having their stooges at the meetings finding out who are the militants, getting their names and, in the Executive Council, directing that those particular members shall forthwith be disqualified from attending union meetings or voting at union meetings. They can order that a particular employee or group of employees shall forfeit all legal rights to accrued annual leave, to accrued long service leave or sick leave, no matter how much this leave might amount to. In Executive Council they could also deprive particular groups or particular named employees of their rights to claim the rates of pay prescribed by an award or an agreement.

Should any of these remedies by sought be the Government, I am certain that it will force the trade union movement to court rather than to try to avoid deregistration in order to escape these oppressive, tyrannical and unjust features of the legislation. The irony of the whole matter is that once the unions get into the arbitration system under the law as it now is, they are locked into it; they cannot get out. A union gets in by application but it cannot get out of the system once it is in except by expulsion. Deregistration will remain the only alternative that the unions will have open to them. If that happens, as indeed it must happen, it will cut right across paragraph (e) of section 2 of the Arbitration Act, to which I referred earlier. It states that one object of the Act is to encourage the formation and the registration of organisations under the Act. It will cut right across the object of the Act and do the very opposite to what the Act claims to have as its object. Australia’s system of conciliation and arbitration cannot work without the co-operation of the trade unions. How can the system work if it does not have trade unions registered, if the only organisations which are registered with the arbitration system are the employers? How can we do anything at all if that is what the Government brings about?

The honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) boasted that the Government will be reelected whenever the next election is held. It is clear that that boast was made in the context of the hope that this Bill will cause a breakdown in industrial relations and that the Government will ride into power again on the misery brought about by the confrontation that it has directed against organised labour. The employers will be made to suffer; the unions will be made to suffer; the community at large will be made to suffer just because the Government thinks that by enacting this legislation it may create the political climate for being elected again. Let me warn the Government that if this is the purpose of the Bill it is playing with fire. The people of this country are not so wooden-headed as to be unable to see when they are being deliberately punished for purely political purposes. If that is what the Government believes it can do, let me remind the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) or perhaps, appropriately, let me remind the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) of the fate of the Heath Government when it sought to win an election on the misery which followed in the wake of Britain’s crippling miners strike when everybody was forced to accept two days work a week and the lights went out almost half and hour after nightfall. That brought about the defeat of that Government. Such action will bring about the defeat of any government, because for a while after a dispute takes place everybody tends to go on the side of the strength; people always go to the side which they think will win. But as people discover that organised labour is not prepared to wilt under these pressures, as they begin to have the scales raked from their eyes and see more clearly what is happening they quickly turn to the side of the underdog. That is what happened in Britain and that is what will happen here if the Government attempts to enforce this legislation.

Reference was made by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) to the case of Woolley v. Dunford in South Australia. He criticised me for seeking to give unions immunity from actions for torts arising out of strike action. But the Woolley v. Dunford case was based upon a decision of the High Court of Britain, upheld by the Privy Council in 1902, the infamous Taff Vale case, which was so bad that the House of Commons was forced in 1906 to bring in a special Act to nullify the effect of that High Court decision. That case was followed by a case against officers of the Australian Workers Union in the same year, 1902, when Spence and Macdonell were charged under the provision of the Taff Vale law. Judgments were entered against them, but it was an archaic decision given by an archaic judicial system that has no place in modern law. The Taff Vale decision was outlawed by the House of Commons, and when it was resurrected in the case of Rookes v. Barnard 60 years later, it was outlawed by the House of Commons again.

The decisions of the House of Commons were based upon the belief that each human being is the owner of his own body and his own mind and that he cannot be required to deliver those possessions to another human being except on terms and conditions that are acceptable to him. That is a basic human right. It is the right to withhold one’s labour and brain power that distinguishes the free man from the slave, and that is something that cannot be gainsaid. If we take away that right from a person we reduce the status of that person to that of a slave. If it is the right of an employer to fix the prices of the goods and services which he has to sell it surely follows that an employee must be given the right to fix the price of the only thing that he or she has to sell - his or her labour power.

This Government points with pride to the record profits which are now being made by the foreign-owned multinational corporations in Australia. It even points with pride to its own success in reducing the level of real wages so that there should be no profit at all in the sale of what a human being might have to sell in terms of brawn or brain power. This Bill deserves to be rejected. I am certain that if it is not rejected by the Parliament, then the party that supports it will be rejected by the people.

Mr BARRY JONES:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-This is a very bad Bill-

Motion ( by Mr Bourchier) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 71

NOES: 28

Majority…… 43

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 70

NOES: 28

Majority…… 42

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clause 1.

Progress reported.

page 1780

ADJOURNMENT

Mr Johann Grunau: Deportation Order; Closure of Abattoir at Cootamundra; Metric System; Screw Worm Fly; Unemployment Programs; Education

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr YATES:
Holt

-This evening there is a family in my electorate who have discovered that their husband and father is to be deported on 5 November. It is somewhat extraordinary that a deportation order should be served against a person, even though he be in gaol, and his family not be informed. It is agreed that Mr Johann Grunau is a German migrant who has been in Australia for 20 years. It is agreed that when he came to Australia he did so on a German passport. It is agreed that he offended and in a drugs case in Cairns he was sent to gaol for a period of six years for carrying marihuana, I believe it was. He served his sentence and was due to be released. The young children and the wife, having made a home in my electorate, awaited his return on 5 November. A letter came from the prison which in essence stated: ‘I hoped to be with you all very soon, but this afternoon, despite my years of good behaviour, I was put back into close confinement and I was handed a deportation order.’

After serving four years in Townsville gaol, having been married to an Australian citizen and having had three Australian children, Mr Grunau was sent by this Government and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) a deportation order signed by the Minister on 19 September and delivered on 29 September. This deportation order denied him the opportunity to return to his family. I suppose the idea was to deal with the matter quietly- to put him on an aircraft and to send him awaybecause his family were not told. Thank goodness I found out about it. If there is one thing that makes my blood boil, it is discovering a person who is married to an Australian citizen and who has Austraiian children being treated in this manner. I sent a message to the Minister to ask that he be in the chamber at 1 1 o’clock tonight to explain to this House and to me why a deportation order was served without the family being informed.

There were two alternatives open to the Minister. I am surprised that the person was not deported immediately after the crime. I would be perfectly willing to agree to the whole family being deported. On the other hand, I would be much happier if the offender, having served his sentence, were allowed to join his family in my electorate. Mr Grunau did not know at the time how he could appeal. We had great difficulty in making quite certain that he knew his rights of appeal. I am very glad to say that counsel’s advice has been taken and Mr Grunau will appeal against that deportation order on behalf of his Australian wife and his three Australian children. I am very glad that his counsel is doing this, although I understand that the Minister may have something important to say about the case which I do not know.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-On 13 September the flamboyant honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) in the adjournment debate delivered a quite unreasonable, dishonest and sordid attack on a trade union -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order! The honourable member must watch his language.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, of which I am proud to be a member. The honourable member for Hume outlined the history of an industrial dispute at the former Conkey ‘s Abattoirs at Cootamundra in his electorate. His outline did not include his own shady, almost clandestine actions behind the scenes. These actions, cloaked under the guise of interceding on behalf of disadvantaged families, were in fact hypocritically calculated to manipulate men fighting to retain their employment under the State award which had traditionally covered them for a generation or more.

The truth is that the honourable member has been interfering in union matters for his own political purposes and in support of the disgraceful attitude of the employer, Metro Meats Ltd who now operate the former Conkey ‘s Abattoirs. Under the excuse that he was acting for members of the union to get the works reopened, he was trying to persuade the workers to accept the employer’s proposition that their rates of pay and conditions of employment be covered by a federal award. The honourable member’s campaign included the use of all local media outlets, the manipulation of a small minority of gullible union members and pushing his spurious claims that the dismissed employees would not be entitled to the dole because they were on strike, although he knew in reality that they had in fact been stood down. The honourable member contacted the nearest Commonwealth Employment Service office, which is at Wagga Wagga, and told the officer that the employees had been sacked for being on strike. Through his efforts the agency in Cootamundra refused even to give the dismissed employees claim forms.

To enable the truth to be revealed about the issue, I would like to cite the following facts. On 29 March 1979 Metro Meats Ltd took over the Conkey Abattoirs. Over the 25 years of Conkey administration the works were covered by New South Wales State awards and agreements. The new owners carried on the works under the existing arrangements until 22 June. On this day, after work had commenced, a dispute developed in the boiler section of the works. The maintenance unions were on strike at the time and this caused the meat workers to go home for the day. Later the same day the local afternoon newspaper and television station stated that 320 meat workers at the abattoir and the maintenance employees had been dismissed because they were on strike. On Monday, 25 June the meat workers turned up for work and were informed by the management that they had been dismissed as indicated in the newspaper and on television and radio on the previous Friday. In fact the general manager for Metro Meats Ltd, Mr C. Watson, stated in evidence before Commissioner Gough on 27 June that the company maintained operations at Cootamundra for as long as they were viable but that it reached a point where it was no longer viable because of losses and the high price of livestock, and so the company had to close down its operations.

In May of this year the company indicated that it wanted the Federal meat industry award to replace the State award coverage. After consultation the union informed management that it would not agree to this change. The company replied that it would approach the Federal Commission by way of an application seeking Federal coverage. Subsequently the employees, after discussion on the company’s intention regarding a Federal award, walked off the job for a day in protest and decided to stop work on every day of the hearing.

This dispute has dragged on for months. The union members have offered repeatedly to go back to work under the existing State award pending the result of the Commission’s hearings. The honourable member for Hume has continued his efforts over this period to have the men capitulate to the employer’s wishes. Eventually, on 19 September, Justice Mary Gaudron of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission handed down a decision against the employers justifying the claims of the men to work under a State award. At this hearing Justice Gaudron handed to the parties two telegrams that had been forwarded to the Deputy Registrar. These telegrams referred to meetings of a minority of union members organised by the honourable member for Hume in Cootamundra on Saturday, 1 1 August. The telegrams were not admitted by the judge but were certainly designed with the help of the honourable member to influence the company’s case and the commissioner.

Once again truth has prevailed and the shady manipulations of the honourable member have been to no avail. I hope that the honourable member will refrain from future excursions into union business. The AMIEU is a union with a long and proud record. Its history traces back to 1 880. 1 venture to say that it will survive, working for the interests of its members and the meat industry generally well after the honourable member for Hume and his cheap politicking will have passed into disgraceful oblivion.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for giving me the first opportunity I have had this year to speak in an adjournment debate. I would not rise unless it was to raise an issue of great importance. I, along with many of my colleagues on this side of the House- no doubt honourable members on the other side of the House have been sympathetic to my cause- have been advocating a slowing down in the metrication changes. The Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) in the Senatefar be it from me ever to attack a Minister- has turned a blind eye to the comments being made by me and others, as if we belong to another world that is old fashioned and out of touch. The previous speaker from this side of the House, the honourable member for Holt (Mr Yates), was a member of the British Parliament before coming to this country. It is not often that I find myself in strict accordance with the views of his mother country. It pleases me to draw to the attention of the House a decision of the British Government on 26 September to abandon the program of forced metrication.

The people of this great country of ours, Australia, where we have fought to preserve freedoms, face penalties of up to $400 if they even think in imperial measurements. Such has been the campaign of that Norgard-headed Metric Conversion Board. Now that is no reflection on Mr Norgard, of course, but that has been the approach that has been adopted. It scooped up the States and they said: ‘Come on, agree to it or we will penalise you by up to $400 if you do not convert’. New South Wales- this will take the smile off the faces of Labor Party members sitting opposite- went along meekly. Mr Dunstan and Mr Corcoran in South Australia went along. Regretfully Tasmania and Victoria also agreed. Those two bastions of freedom, Queensland and Western Australia, have said: No, we don’t think what you are doing is right’. Now the attitude of those two great States has been vindicated by none other than Great Britain.

I think the arguments of the Minister in the other chamber, when he pushes down our throats the fact that there is hardly any nonmetricated country in the world, are fast falling to pieces. Every day a different country in the world looks and thinks: ‘What have we agreed to? Shall we continue along the path of stupidity and force our people, including the aged, to convert to a system which they do not really understand?’ Anyone can go to any other country in the world and quickly cope with the change in currencies. We have got to learn. Many of the older people in our community turn off from metric measurements because they can survive in their own little way by not paying too much attention to it.

What I am suggesting is that Australia, under the Metric Conversion Board and with the guidance and leadership of the current Minister for Science and the Environment, has been endeavouring to set a new world record in the conversion to metric. I do not believe that the aged people of this country should have to suffer simply to meet the whims of a few powerful men. I make the plea that every member of this Parliament take note that the United Kingdom has abandoned temporarily, for some years indeed, this program. I ask for leave to incorporate in Hansard an article from the London Financial Times of 27 September 1979 and an article from the London Daily Telegraph of the same date.

Leave granted.

The articles read as follows-

Imperial measures gain reprieve

No more compulsory metrication orders will be made, Mrs Sally Oppenheim, Minister for Consumer Affairs, said yesterday.

This would mean that in many cases it would be up to each shopkeeper, garage owner or publican to decide whether to sell goods in either traditional English or metric measures.

The announcement was made in a speech when Mrs Oppenheim opened a pickle factory at Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk.

A Department of Trade spokesman stressed that Mrs Oppenheim ‘s speech did not mean the metrication program would be stopped- merely that there would be no compulsion.

Mrs Oppenheim ‘s Statement follows a plea by Mr Maxwell Wood, the board chairman, to introduce legislation to compel traders selling fresh meat, fish, fruit and vegetables to abandon the imperial system within four years.

Reprieve for Pint and Inch

A reprieve for gallons, pints, pounds, inches and other imperial measures was announced yesterday by Mrs Oppenheim, Consumer Affairs Minister. She said no further compulsory metrication orders would made.

Mrs Oppenheim preempted a report to be submitted to her soon in which the Metrication Board will ask for dates to be set by which goods “weighed-out” in front of the customer- such as meat, fruit and sweets- must be sold only in metric measures.

Her announcement means that in many cases it will be up to each shopkeeper, garage owner or publican to decide whether to sell his goods in the traditional English way or like traders on the Continent.

One problem is that 1 9 million school-children have been taught the metric system and many of them have not been taught the imperial system.

This is because Britain was due to become a fully-metric nation by 1975.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Finally, this is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak in the adjournment debate this year. I hope people recognise that I would not have done so unless I had been motivated by a very strong feeling on a most important subject to so many people out there in the community, including residents of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania.

Mr BRAITHWAITE:
Dawson

– I want to speak on a matter of grave importance to the cattle and sheep industries, particularly in northern Australia. Recently I asked a question of the former Minister for Primary Industry concerning a very important subject, that is, the screw worm fly. The answer indicated that at that time the Government and the departments of the Commonwealth were aware of the potential threat that this fly poses to the Australian sheep and cattle industries. Over the recent recess period I visited Malaysia where my brother manages a pioneer cattle industry on a property south of Kuala Lumpur. While he was satisfied with the success of the breeders of droughtmaster strain acquired from central Queensland, the growth of tropical pastures and the co-operation in Malaysia from our own Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation officers working in that country, the main concern is the incidence of certain diseases and the influence of the screw worm fly.

Over a period of four months from the beginning of this year, records on this property show that one-third of the herd of some 3,000 head were affected by this fly. The control of this worm is effected only by personal husbandry involving a very heavy labour component and frequent treatment. Fortunately, with the low cost of labour, this treatment can be effected. The warning is that there exists no natural control over this screw worm fly. The fly itself is already as close to Australia as Papua New Guinea. If it spreads to Australia it would devastate the beef cattle industry and the sheep industry in central and northern Queensland and the Northern Territory. The estimated economical losses to the beef and sheep industries have been put at between $65m and $ 1 55m annually.

I want to refer to the Australian Meat Research Committee report which was handed out today for the year ended 30 June 1979. It brings to attention the particular problems faced in relation to this screw worm fly. The report states:

The estimates from New Guinea are that 30 per cent of all calves are lost from this type of strike. The calving cow also offers prime targets, and the wounds of ticks and buffalo flies would probably also be suitable sites.

The threat to Australia increases year by year as the cattle population in New Guniea and the Torres Strait islands grows, and as the traffic in people, cattle, dogs and pigs, which can also be struck, increases.

From what we know of the fly’s habits it is likely that it could permanently colonize most of the wetter parts of Queensland and the Northern Territory, and possible that it could extend through much of New South Wales and even Victoria in favourable summers.

The low cost labour personally to provide the frequent treatment necessary to control the screw worm and the research into the control of the spread of the fly are not available in Australia although the United States has apparently developed a sterile insect which on release has enabled very significant control of this fly. In researching this problem I found that in Australia a great amount of work has already been done particularly by the Australian Bureau of Animal Health through a committee chaired by Mr W. A. Geering. The commitee has issued a report entitled ‘Screw Worm Fly’ which sets out the possible prevention and eradication policies for Australia, which makes some 27 recommendations and which has given priority classification to each. It is not an easy matter to alert a country to a danger when there exists no immediate evidence of that danger, although it exists all around us. This applies particularly to the screw worm fly. This then is the difficulty facing the committee which brought forward the report and the Bureau: To have the recommendations recognised by Federal and State governments and the industries concerned will involve outlays of funds and further research that is absolutely necessary if the intrusion of this insect and the resulting parasite are to be kept out of Australia.

The high priorities contained in the recommendations include: The establishment of a Torres Strait quarantine council; the effective control of all owned cattle in the Torres Strait; the urgent evaluation of the technique of the sterile insect release method by the CSIRO; construction of a factory in Port Moresby capable of producing SO million sterile screw worm flies per week when research and development of the sterile method are complete; training in the identification of the screw worm fly and their larvae by specialists; assistance by veterinarians in the CSIRO research program in Port Moresby; the development of a buffer zone in the northern Cape York region. The economic consequences can be reduced if preparatory steps are taken by governments, research organisations and the industries in advance of an invasion. While there is no immediate reason for panic the reality of the threat of the screw worm fly requires an awareness and an alertness. There is an awareness within the Bureau of Animal Health.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr HOWE:
Batman

– I want to refer briefly in this adjournment debate tonight to my experience in relation to unemployment programs in my electorate. A great deal has been said in this House about the way this Government continues to maintain a concern for the unemployed and provide support for the unemployed through a variety of programs. I want to say that, in relation to my electorate, it is my experience that a great deal of my time has, in fact, been forced to be devoted to rescuing schemes for which the Government has provided funds. Last year I was involved in endeavouring to rescue the West Heidelberg Youth Program which was funded under the National Employment and Training Scheme. The guidelines for that program were changed. It was a program which the people in West Heidelberg regarded as extremely valuable in terms of dealing with a group of disadvantaged young people. In fact, it was eliminated. In the course of its elimination, a very talented youth worker was lost to that community. Whilst the program was subsequently re-established after several months, that worker was lost to the program.

Later in the year the Northcote Community Youth Support Scheme program was also discontinued or failed to achieve funding because the people concerned with that program had the temerity to question the very restrictive guidelines that governed this scheme. Over a period they were involved in protesting about those guidelines. They lost their funding, and they went for a period of four months before that funding was restored. The program now operates, but because of the gap it was necessary to recruit completely new staff. Many of the young people dropped out of the program because it was not operating, and contact had to be reestablished. As we know, there is very little in the way of security employment associated with CYSS programs. It is difficult to recruit staff who are skilled in working with the kind of young people associated with program centres.

Recently I was approached by the people associated with the PUSH project- another CYSS project in West Heidelberg- who told me that rather than funding being increased, as the Minister was explaining today, they had a cut of $7,000 in real terms from funding for last year. They were not supplied with sufficient funds for vital equipment to continue to carry out the programs that they had developed over the past year.

I wanted to refer particularly to the latest crisis in what seems to be a series of crises that afflict these various programs. It concerns the Special Youth Employment Training Scheme, which is part of the Employment Program for Unemployed Youth, and a program which operates in association with the East Preston Technical School. Yesterday I was visited by two young people who had been involved with that program for a four-week period. They told me that the factory in which the program was operating had been closed down and was up for lease because the Victorian administration of the program had discovered that as a result of this year’s Budget there was not sufficient funding to maintain all of the programs even for the balance of 1979. Their program had been cut down without notice. When I spoke to the State administration about the situation I was told that there had been a misunderstanding and it was unfortunate that that program had been cut down. It could give me no assurance that the program would be resumed. It said that there had been 50-odd applications for projects for next year, of which only fourteen would be approved- a reduction of 50 per cent in that program in Victoria. That is a 50 per cent reduction in EPUY programs alone. There are 27 projects operating in Victoria this year, and there will be only 14 projects operating next year.

The Government makes a great deal about its training programs and what it is doing in that regard. I can quite honestly say to the Government that nobody in my electorate believes that the Government is doing anything in terms of maintaining substantial programs, offering security of employment to people or offering security even for the trainees who embark upon programs and then find that they are suspended in mid-stream.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

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

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

-Tonight I draw the attention of the House to the consequences for education of the recent New South Wales State Budget. As honourable members will know, the record real spending on education in Australia is mainly bringing more and more pay for more and more teachers, and not better facilities for children at schools. This is particularly so in New South Wales, where the record value of education money is being diverted from buildings and equipment for pupils into salaries. Government spending for each child in State schools has never been so high, even after inflation is taken into account. Of course, this is despite the continued allegations of cuts in Federal funds. But the amount spent on facilities by the New South Wales Government has fallen by I3¥i per cent since the Wran Government came to power. This year only 15.3 per cent of the New South Wales record total education spending is budgeted to go into school buildings and equipment. This represents a savage cut from the 25 per cent going to buildings and equipment under the previous Liberal- Country Party Government in New South Wales.

This switch to spending more on salaries and more on teachers has followed immense pressure on the New South Wales Government from the Teachers Federation. Over the last four New South Wales Labor Government Budgets the teachers’ salaries bill has risen by 61 per cent to $8 10m, but spending on school buildings and equipment has fallen by 13 per cent to $146m, which represents a far greater fall if inflation is taken into account. This drastic slump in funds for equipment and buildings cannot be blamed on alleged Federal Government finance cuts, as the total money made available for education from State and Federal sources combined has continued to rise to record levels each year. The New South Wales Government has preferred placating the Teachers Federation by acceding to its demands for more teachers and more pay, to providing a better balanced approach which would have been of far greater benefit to children in the State school system. As a result the four-year increase in New South Wales budgeted spending on school education of 42 per cent to a record $956m has, of course, been accompanied by this drop in capital spending. Therefore, it is simply dishonest for members of State Parliament, who are not prepared to face me before their constituents on this matter, to try and blame the Federal Government for inadequate school facilities.

While the States were cutting back on capital spending in recent years, the Federal Government nevertheless maintained its top-up capital contributions until the present Budget, when at last it followed the lead of the State government and cut its capital contribution while increasing its recurrent contributions to State schools for each pupil attending. Now we did not hear Labor members of the New South Wales Parliament, or Labor members in this House, complaining when some two years ago the Wran Government cut $15m from New South Wales capital spending programs on education. Yet we have heard bitter attacks on the Federal Government for this year’s $ 10m cut in its capital spending funds to New South Wales which has followed a year in which school enrolments have fallen for the first time since the Second World War.

The concentration by the State Government on teachers instead of facilities can be seen from the 12 per cent increase in the number of State school teachers in Australia during the last three years compared to a rise of only 3 per cent in the number of pupils. There is no doubt that a reduction in the pupil-teacher ratio was needed, but not at the expense of school facilities. Most of the high schools in the Macarthur electorate are at present suffering from a desperate lack of facilities, for which there was adequate money available, had it not been diverted so rapidly into teachers’ salaries. Of course the same applies to primary schools. It is not up to the Federal Government to dictate to the States how they should distribute their education money between buildings and equipment, and teachers salaries, but it is disgraceful when States blame the Federal Government for problems emerging from their own decisions, particularly when more Government money is being spent on each child in State schools in Australia than ever before. So teachers have won their campaigns for more benefits for themselves at the expense of facilities for children.

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

– In the adjournment debate this evening the honourable member for Holt (Mr Yates) raised the question of deportation orders served against Mr John Paul Grunau, a German criminal deportee. I would like to outline to the House in very brief form the circumstances relating to this case. Mr Grunau, a 40-year-old West German citizen, was admitted to Australia for settlement on 20 October 1959, and in 1965 he married an Australian citizen and the couple have three daughters aged 13, 8 and 6 years. On 27 August 1975 Mr Grunau was sentenced to six years imprisonment following his conviction in the Cairns District Court for possessing dangerous drugs for sale. He had cannabis, and the quantity of the drug was 78.8 kilos. In those days it had a value of $50,000. He thereby rendered himself liable to an order that he be deported from Australia. I might say that there were co-offenders in this incident. The total amount of marihuana involved was 159 kilos.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order! The time now being 11 o’clock, the debate is interrupted.

Mr MacKELLAR:

– I require that the debate be extended, Mr Deputy Speaker. After considering most carefully all the circumstances, including Mr Grunau ‘s family situation- I say at this stage that the honourable member for Holt does not have a mortgage on human compassion and human concern in relation to these matters; all members of parliament feel very strongly about these sorts of situations- I directed that he should be deported in the public interest. Accordingly, I signed a deportation order against him on 13 September last to be put into effect when he completes his sentence. It is the usual practice, and has been for many years, that criminal offenders should complete their sentences before deportation orders are put into effect. I also directed- this is of particular significance-that Mrs Grunau and the children be offered passages to West Germany at Commonwealth expense in the event that Mrs Grunau elected to accompany her husband with their Australian-born children.

Mr Grunau, who was imprisoned at Townsville, was informed of my decision on 28 September last. He was also told of his right to apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of my decision if he were of that mind. Thereupon he indicated that he does propose to lodge such an application. There is no thought of concealing from such persons their rights under the law. Mrs Grunau first learned of my decision from the Queensland prison authorities on 27 September, the day before her husband was given formal notification of my decision. The prison authorities were given advance notice because it is customary to alert them about prospective visits to prisons by officers of my Department carrying out duties in relation to deportation matters.

Subsequently on the same day Mrs Grunau spoke to an officer of my Department by telephone. He confirmed the advice given to her by the prison authorities with respect to the signing of the deportation order. The officer also explained to Mrs Grunau that an application for review could be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This is done whenever the deportee or his spouse is within the categories of persons eligible to make such an application. I am informed that Mr Grunau will not become available for deportation before 5 November next, which is the date when he is due for release from prison. In the event that an application for review is submitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, no further action in relation to Mr Grunau ‘s deportation would of course be taken pending the hearing of the application and my further consideration of the case in the light of the findings and recommendation of the Tribunal. Mr Grunau ‘s unsettled lifestyle resulted in long periods of separation from his family. His wife and children returned to Victoria from Queensland in 1974 while he remained in Cooktown where he was employed as a miner.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister’s time has expired. Does he wish to take a second period?

Mr MacKELLAR:

– I do, Mr Deputy Speaker. In 1975 Mrs Grunau alone rejoined her husband in Queensland and remained with him until he was sentenced. She then returned to her family in Victoria where they have remained, except for one visit she and the children made in 1976 to see Mr Grunau in prison. Mr Grunau said at interview that he expected that his wife and children would rejoin him in Cairns after his release from prison.

I would like to make some points in relation to the contribution of the honourable member for Holt. He said that the family was not informed. That is patently not so. The family was informed. He said that we were hoping to carry out the deportation quietly. Obviously that is not the case. He said: ‘Thank goodness I found out’. This suggested that if he had not found out the people involved would not have had any knowledge of the rights they have under the law. That is not so. He said that he would be happy if the whole family were deported. That in fact was offered.

I make this final point: I regard the issue of drug cultivation and distribution in a very serious light. I have an electorate which unfortunately has had amongst its residents some who were addicted to drugs of many types. I have seen the effects of drug dependency on young and old people. Anybody who has seen the effects of drug dependency upon people, I am sure, would have the same attitude that I have in relation to these matters. The amount of drugs involved in this case was not inconsiderable. I repeat that it was 78.8 kilos. Of course we have to take into consideration, and I do, the individual circumstances in relation to particular cases. The families ‘ interests must be taken into account, but so must the wider public interest. I will do all I can to protect particularly the young people of this country from the depredations of drug pushers and drug cultivators.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The debate having concluded, the House stands adjourned until 2. 1 5 p.m. tomorrow.

House adjourned at 11.6 p.m.

page 1788

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Good Neighbour Councils (Question No. 4054)

Mr Kerin:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 30 May 1 979:

  1. Did the Prime Minister say on 15 May 1978 that people employed by the Good Neighbour Council and subsequently displaced as a result of Government policy would find jobs in Commonwealth Government employment.
  2. Did the Public Service Board write to the Chairman of the Working Party of Good Neighbour Councils on 8 January 1979 stating that this was not possible.
  3. If so, did the Prime Minister contact the Board on behalf of employees of the Good Neighbour Councils in either 1978 or 1979.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) When tabling the report of the Review of Post- Arrival Programs and Services to Migrants on 30 May 1978 (Hansard, page 2730), the Prime Minister said that the Government’. . . will assist in the redeployment of staff and the placement of volunteers . . . ‘.To this end a Working Party which included a representative of the Good Neighbour Councils was established on 19 June 1978.
  2. ) The Public Service Board wrote to the Chairman of the Working Party on 8 January 1979 advising that Board officers would continue to be available to provide assistance and advice to Council staff interested in exploring employment prospects in the Australian Public Service but that all applicants for positions in the Australian Public Service must compete on merit for vacancies open to persons inside and outside the Public Service.
  3. Letters to the Prime Minister about Good Neighbour Council staff have been brought to the Board’s attention. This was the case when in March 1979 a copy of the Prime Minister’s reply to a letter from the President, Good Neighbour Council of South Australia, was referred to the Board.

Government Schemes for the Unemployed (Question No. 4060)

Mr Kerin:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 30 May 1979:

Has he stated during 1979 that 400,000 persons have been assisted by the Government’s various schemes for the unemployed; if so, (a) over what period and in what schemes have the 400,000 persons been assisted, (b) how many persons have been assisted in each scheme and (c) how many persons were assisted in the various schemes available in each (i) calendar and (ii) financial year since the present Government came to office.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

Information is not available on a calendar year basis. The following table presents relevant figures for the number of persons approved for assistance under the Government’s manpower programs for the financial years 1976-77 to 1978-79.

Common Fund (Question No. 4222)

Mr Kerin:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 6 June 1979:

  1. 1 ) Did he attend a meeting of UNCTAD at Manila, Philippines in May 1979.
  2. Did he promise or commit funds to the second window of the Common Fund; if so, what will Australia’s contribution be.
  3. Is it a fact that by 23 May 1979, 9 countries had committed $1 16.5m to the Fund but Australia had not forwarded any sum by 31 May 1979.
  4. When will Australia transmit the promised or committed funds to UNCTAD.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. Yes. (2)I indicated Australia ‘s support for a viable second window and stated that we would make an effective contribution to it. Contributions to the second window are on a voluntary basis and Australia has refrained from making any specific offer until such time as the actual scope of operations of the second window and an appropriate cost sharing formula have been determined. Most other countries have also adopted this position.
  2. According to the UNCTAD Secretariat, as at the end of August 1979, 13 countries had pledged specific amounts totalling US$86.7m to the second window. Another 1 5, including Australia, have announced that they would contribute to the second window without specifying the amounts.
  3. It is not possible to say when we will be in a position to make a specific pledge to the second window. An interim committee of the negotiating conference on the Common Fund has been established to resolve outstanding issues, including that of the second window. Three sessions of that committee are scheduled before the end of the year, by which time the scope of the activities of the second window and an appropriate cost sharing formula may have been decided and countries will be better placed to assess the appropriate level of their contributions.

Australia will, at the appropriate time, honour her commitment to make an effective contribution to the second window of the Common Fund.

Training Programs (Question No. 4263)

Mr Young:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 7 June 1 979:

  1. How many persons have been assisted by the (a) National Employment and Training Scheme, (b) Community Youth Support Scheme, (c) Government’s various apprenticeship schemes and (d) Education Program for Unemployed Youth, in each year since 1975.
  2. ) What was the cost of these programs in each year.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

Information is not available on a calendar year basis. The following table presents relevant details for the financial years 1975-76 to 1978-79.

Advertising for Skilled Tradesmen (Question No. 4264)

Mr Young:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 7 June 1979:

  1. What classifications of skilled tradesmen has the Government advertised overseas as being in short supply in Australia in each year since I97S.
  2. What has been the cost of advertising in each of these years and what has been the cost of bringing these tradesmen to Australia.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) In 1975-76 no advertising was undertaken. In 1976-77 and 1977-78 advertising campaigns were conducted in Britain. The advertisements sought inquiries from professional and skilled people without listing occupations.

In 1 978-79 advertising campaigns were conducted in Britain, West Germany, the Netherlands and Italy. The advertisements in Britain followed the pattern of previous years without reference to specific occupations. Similarly the advertisements in Italian newspapers did not list occupations. In West Germany the advertisements listed the following occupations- computer programmers and/or analysts, toolmakers, fitters, mechanics, turners, structural boilermakers, motor mechanics, panel beaters, cabinet makers, hairdressers (ladies), butchers, pastry cooks and bakers.

The following occupations were listed in the advertisements in the Netherlands- Panel beaters, motor mechanics, fitters (diesel), auto electricians, refrigeration mechanics, motor vehicle painters, cabinet makers, furniture polishers, upholsterers, wood machinists, fabric cutters, butchers, bakers, pastry cooks.

The scope and content of Australian recruitment activity overseas is influenced by the attitudes of governments in source countries, the Department’s assessment of prospects and information on labour requirements in Australia.

These occupations were identified as in demand, in the assessment of labour market conditions for various occupations in Australia prepared and regularly revised by the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs.

  1. ) Overseas advertising costs were-

lt is impossible to identify separately the costs of assisted passages and other associated expenditure for those tradesmen who migrated to Australia as a direct result of advertising campaigns. Furthermore, not all tradesmen receive assisted passages.

Total assisted passage expenditure, excluding refugees, was-

Prime Minister and Cabinet: Motor Vehicles (Question No. 4282)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 7 June 1 979:

  1. How many (a) motor cars and station wagons by make and tare, (b) trucks and other commercial vehicles by make and mass and (c) motor cycles by make, are operated by his Department and statutory authorities and business undertakings under his control.
  2. ) What is the average fuel consumption (kilometres per litre) of each type and make of motor vehicle referred to in part (1)
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by the Minister for Administrative Services to his Question No. 4299 (Hansard, 11 September 1979, pages 972-3).

Transport: Motor Vehicles (Question No. 4288)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 7 June 1979:

  1. How many (a) motor cars and station wagons by make and tare (b) trucks and other commercial vehicles by make and mass and (c) motor cycles by make, are operated by his Department and statutory authorities and business undertakings under his control.
  2. What is the average fuel consumption (kilometres per litre) of each type and make of motor vehicle referred to in part (1)
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2)1 refer the honourable member to the answer to Question No. 4299 (Hansard, 1 1 September 1979, pages 972 and 793), provided by the Minister for Administrative Services.

Health: Motor Vehicles (Question No. 4296)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 7 June 1979:

  1. How many (a) motor cars and station wagons by make and tare, (b) trucks and other commercial vehicles by make and mass and (c) motor cycles by make, are operated by his Department and statutory authorities and business undertakings under his control.
  2. What is the average fuel consumption (kilometres per litre) of each type and make of motor vehicle referred to in part (1)
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by the Minister for Administrative Services on 1 1 September 1979 to Question No. 4299 (Hansard, pages 972-3).

Immigration and Ethnic Affairs: Motor Vehicles (Question No. 4297)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 7 June 1979:

  1. How many (a) motor cars and station wagons by make and tare, (b) trucks and other commercial vehicles by make and mass and (c) motor cycles by make, are operated by his Department and statutory authorities and business undertakings under his control.
  2. What is the average fuel consumption (kilometres per litre) of each type and make of motor vehicle referred to in part (1)
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the Minister for Administrative Services’ answer to Question No. 4299 in Hansard of 1 1 September 1 979 (pages 972-973).

Capital Territory: Motor Vehicles (Question No. 4307)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 7 June 1 979:

  1. How many (a) motor cars and station wagons by make and tare, (b) trucks and other commercial vehicles by make and mass and (c) motorcycles by make, are operated by his Department and statutory authorities and business undertakings under this control.
  2. What is the average fuel consumption (kilometres per litre) of each type and make of motor vehicle referred to in pan (1)
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I am informed by my Department that:

(I)-

N.B. The weight, except where otherwise stated, is given in

  1. The Department is unable to supply details of fuel used (litres per 100 klm) for individual vehicle types.

Funding for Youth Organisations (Question No. 4357)

Mr Young:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 21 August 1979:

What are the details of additional funding for voluntary youth organisations and community youth groups as a consequence of the increased status of the Office of Youth Affairs since December 1978.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

In the 1978-79 financial year $16 1,000 were allocated and expended by five national secretariats of Youth Organisations from grants under the Program of Assistance for Youth Organisations, administered by the Office of Youth Affairs.

The 1979-80 Budget allocates $300,000 under this program as reported in the Budget and in my media statement of 26 August 1979.

The IS National Youth Organisations to receive grants this year are listed below.

unladen form.

Office of Youth Affairs

(Question No. 4358)

Mr Young:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 21 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the agenda and what are the priorities for the activities ofthe Office of Youth Affairs during 1 979-80.
  2. Was any process of community consultation used in establishing that agenda and priorities, if so, what was it.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Office of Youth Affairs concerns itself with all issues relevant to youth and it continuously researches, advises, consults and monitors developments in these areas. During 1 979-80 it will continue to carry out its consultative, co-ordinating role and will focus on areas of identified need, including youth unemployment, school/work transition, the servicing of the Task Group on Youth Affairs, support of the National Youth Advisory Group, regular consultations with national youth co-ordinating bodies, conduct of the National Youth Conference in October, and the dissemination of information through the newsletter and other publications.
  2. The Office is continuously involved in consultation with the community on all areas of concern to youth, lt services the National Youth Advisory Group which broadly represents the major sectors of Australian youth which is primarily concerned with advising the Government of young people ‘s particular needs and concerns, and ofthe impact of its programs on young people.

The Office is organising the National Youth Conference which is aimed at giving young people an opportunity to discuss matters of importance to the community.

It has also set up links with the following national bodies representing youth organisations:

The Australian Council of Social Service

The Conference of Youth Organisations

The National Youth Council of Australia

The Conference of State Youth Councils.

Specific and periodic consultations are also held with other national youth organisations.

The outcomes of these consultations are taken into account in setting the activities of the OYA.

Consultation with Youth (Question No. 4360)

Mr Young:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 21 August 1979:

  1. Did the Government reject ‘A Proposal for Consultation with Youth ‘ made by the National Youth Council; if so, why; if not, what stage has been reached in the implementation of the proposal.
  2. ) Does the Government have any proposals for a widely based consultation with young persons on issues of concern to young persons.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. The Government received a proposal from the National Youth Council of Australia entitled ‘A Proposal for Consultation with Youth’ in 1978. It has not rejected such a proposal.

  2. The Government has stressed its willingness to actively seek out youth opinion and involvement in proposing and evaluating youth programs and needs in a number of ways:

    1. On October 3 to 5 the Government is sponsoring the first ever, national youth conference, comprised of 120 young people from all walks of life in Australia to seek their views on youth issues, youth needs, and the contribution of young people to Australia’s future. A major topic will be communication with Government.
    2. It has established an independent National Youth Advisory Group composed of young people from throughout Australia which is actively seeking the views of young people and organisations.
    3. The Office of Youth Affairs now meets regularly with the national peak youth organisations and is examining the means of further developing this forum for cooperation and exchange of views. This will add to the topic specific discussions that the OYA has with youth bodies and individuals on a continuing basis.

The Government awaits the views of the National Youth Conference before further consideration is given to the development of improved communication between Government and youth.

Fawnmac Group of Companies (Question No. 4456)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 22 August 1979:

  1. Is he proposing to sell the Fawnmac group of companies for a price less than three times their annual profit to the Government and less than half the price for which the Whitlam Government acquired the companies.
  2. What are (a) the grounds for this sale and (b) the disabilities which may result to the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories if no priority is reserved for contracts undertaken for the C.S.L. by Fawnmac after the sale.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The Government has decided to seek a buyer for the shares in the Fawnmac group of companies. The Department of Administrative Services, by public advertisement, has invited expressions of interest from persons or companies who may be interested in purchasing the shares. The final decision on sale will be made by the Government following the second round of negotiations whereby firm offers will be invited from registrants.

  2. (a) The Government proposes to introduce legislation for amendments to the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories (C.S.L.) Act, which will include removal of the present limitation which restricts C.S.L. to the production of biological products. In this way, the Commonwealth would be able to maintain a presence in the non-biological pharmaceutical production area if this was necessary in the national interest.

    1. No disabilities are expected to result to C.S.L. in regard to contracts with Fawnmac.

Secondment of Public Servants (Question No. 4478)

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 23 August 1979:

What guildlines are there for the secondment of public servants to the staff of

Ministers,

b ) Government backbenchers,

Opposition shadow ministers and

d ) Opposition backbenchers for short or long terms.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to section 48a of the Public Service Act, which reads as follows: “48a. An officer seconded for duty as Private Secretary to a Minister or member of the Federal Executive Council or to the Leader of the Opposition in either House of the Parliament, shall, upon the termination of his employment in that capacity, be entitled to appointment to an office in the Service of such status and salary as are determined by the Board, having regard to the office held by the officer prior to his being seconded for such duty and to the period and nature of his employment as Private Secretary.

The Public Service Board has informed me that procedures to be applied to Public Service Act staff who desire to be employed on the personal staff of Ministers, Senators or Members of Parliament are set out in the Board’s Memorandum to all Departments No. 75/7075 dated 2 1 September 1976. The Memorandum reads as follows: “Consideration has been given recently to the treatment of Public Service Act staff who desire to be employed on the personal staff of Ministers, Senators and Members of Parliament. It has now been agreed with the Department of Administrative Services that the following procedures should be followed.

Permanent Officers

  1. Permanent officers who are selected and are prepared to join the personal staff of a Member, etc., should be requested to indicate their agreement in writing to go on the Unattached List of the department in which they are employed.
  2. At the same time, they should be requested to apply for temporary transfer to the Department of Administrative Services, for the duration of their employment with the Member or Senator (unless the officer is already employed in that department). Although interdepartmental transfers are subject to approval by the Board, provided the Permanent Head of the officer’s present department supports the temporary transfer the Board’s approval can be anticipated in normal circumstances.
  3. For staff ceiling purposes, all personal staff employed by Members or Senators are included on the strength of the Department of Administrative Services, for which a special allocation is available.
  4. At the end of the period of temporary transfer the officer reverts back to his original department on whose Unattached List he has remained and becomes that department’s responsibility to arrange placement, with assistance from the Board if necessary.
  5. In circumstances where a Permanent Head may oppose an application for interdepartmental temporary transfer, the matter shall be open for negotiation between his department and the Department of Administrative Services in the first place, with reference to the Board if necessary.

Temporary Employees

  1. While formal unattachment and temporary transfer processes do not apply in the case of temporary employees, the same principles should be followed. Employees selected to work on the staff of a Member will terminate their engagement in their present Department and begin a new period of engagement, with continuity of employment for superannuation and other employment conditions purposes, with the Department of Administrative Services. They will count in the staff ceiling of the Department of Administrative Services. At the end of the period of employment with the Member, employees who had indefinite tenure with their previous Department will be entitled, subject to the availability of work for which they are qualified, to reengagement. Where such work is not available, the Board will provide assistance in seeking suitable placement.”

Treasury Budget Lock-up (Question No. 4494)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. 1 ) What was the name of each person who attended the Treasury Budget lock-up on 21 August 1979 in (a) Canberra, ( b) Sydney and (c) Melbourne.
  2. Which organisation did each of these persons represent
Mr Howard:
Treasurer · BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (l)and(2).

Rental Housing (Question No. 4583)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 11 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many persons were on waiting lists for Housing Commission rental dwellings in each State in each month from November 1975 to date.
  2. What was the average waiting period for rental of a dwelling during each ofthe same months.
  3. 3 ) What proportion of those persons on waiting lists were (a) unemployed and (b) in receipt of social security benefits other than unemployment benefits.
Mr Groom:
Minister for Housing and Construction · BRADDON, TASMANIA · LP

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

Figures on a monthly basis are not received in my Department. Figures available are provided in the following tables:

  1. ) This information is not readily available.

Trans-Australia Airlines (Question No. 4586)

Mr Morris:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. 1 ) What are the names and addresses of the organisations or individuals who have expressed an interest in the purchase, transfer or amalgamation of Trans-Australia Airlines referred to in his answer to question No. 3737 (Hansard, 29 August 1979, page 776).
  2. ) In each case, when was the interest expressed.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2). The honourable member would be aware that it is not the normal practice of Ministers to provide information about representations made to them on specific issues. Nevertheless, I can advise one such representation was made by ESOP Advisers Pty Ltd of G.P.O. Box 4359, Sydney, which has publicised its interest in the purchase of TAA. Its representation was received on 2 1 May 1 979.

Lead in Petrol (Question No. 4620)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 13 September 1979:

  1. I ) Has his attention been drawn to the report of the study Lead Burden of Sydney Schoolchildren’ (January 1979) by V. P. Garnys, R. Freeman and L. E. Smythe.

    1. If so, was his attention drawn to the findings and recommendations of the report, in particular, those which related to automotive exhaust and levels of lead.
    2. In view of the findings of this study on the adverse effects of lead in petrol on the health of school children what action will be taken or has he taken to encourage the reduction of lead levels in petrol.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. As you may be aware, the issue of the effect of lead additives in petrol on health is the direct concern of my colleague, the Hon. R. J. D. Hunt, Minister for Health, and of his State counterparts. The National Health and Medical Research Council (NH & MRC), which advises the Commonwealth and State Governments on all matters of public health, is currently giving priority attention to lead issues, particularly to the levels of lead which are of health concern. I understand that the NH & MRC may be presenting a report on this matter towards the end of this year.

The Australian Transport Advisory Council (ATAC) Committee on Motor Vehicle Emissions (COMVE) is studying the cost effectiveness and energy implications of reducing or eliminating lead in petrol, fuel economy, and vehicle emission control standards to assist the development of appropriate future policies.

Lead issues will form an important and integral pan of future motor vehicle emissions strategies in terms of the protection of health and the environment and of energy costs and efficiency. I can assure you that the Government is committed to the protection of the health of the Australian people. It will give proper consideration to the range of advice available on lead matters.

Taxation: Pay-As- You-Earn Revenue (Question No. 4636)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 13 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that in the 1977-78 taxation year, wage and salary earners subjected to PA YE taxation, paid $62.8 per cent of total income tax revenue; if so, was this an increase over the figure for the previous income tax year.
  2. What was the revenue in each case.
  3. If there was a percentage increase was it due to tax avoidance activities; if not was it due to the Government’s taxation policy.
Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Total income tax collections in 1976-77 and 1977-78 were:
  3. The increase in the percentage of net PAYE to total income tax in 1977-78 is attributable to a number of factors. Two of the more significant of these factors are reflected in the table in (2 ), namely the very slow growth in primary producer income and business and property income in 1976-77 (which contributed to the relatively low level of collections in 1977-78), and the reduction in refunds in 1977-78 as a result of the introduction of the so-called Hayden scheme in 1975-76 (1977-78 being the first year in which the full-year effect of that system was reflected in refunds).

Foreign Government Dossiers on Australians (Question No. 3309)

Mr Dawkins:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 1 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) Do foreign governments represented in Australia have the consent ofthe Australian Government to maintain dossiers on Australian citizens resident in Australia.
  2. If so, can he say (a) under what circumstances and conditions this activity is permitted, (b) what safeguards exist to protect Australian citizens from infringements of their privacy and other civil liberties and (c) whether the Australian Government or any of its agencies assist foreign governments with this activity.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Collection of information within Australia about Australians is not prohibited as long as it is carried out in a lawful way. Whether this constitutes the maintenance of ‘Dossiers’ depends on the interpretation of that word which tends to be used these days for emotive impact.

  2. (a)See reply to ( 1 );

    1. b ) The laws of Australia;
    2. The Australian Government may exchange information relating to Australian citizens with some foreign Governments pursuant to international conventions, such as those dealing with narcotics and hijacking, and under Australian law. Co-operation also takes place between lawenforcement agencies. This has been a continuing practice of Austraiian Governments over many years and takes account of the need to protect the civil liberties of Australians.

Malawi (Question No. 4026)

Mr Dobie:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 28 May 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Can he state what general elections have taken place in the Republic of Malawi since its establishment as an independent country within the Commonwealth of Nations in 1964.
  2. If so, what percentage ofthe electorate voted and was there a genuine choice of candidates from differing political parties at each election.
  3. When did Australia establish diplomatic relations with that country.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) General elections were held in the Republic of Malawi in 1978.
  2. ) Voting took place in 42 constituencies out of 87, many candidates being unopposed. Voter turnout in the 42 constituencies was about 3 5 per cent.

The elections were contested only by the Malawi Congress Party, Malawi’s sole political party since 1966.

  1. Australia has not established diplomatic relations with Malawi. However, Malawi is a member of the Commonwealth.

Tanzania (Question No. 4030)

Mr Dobie:

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

  1. 1 ) Can he state what general elections have taken place in the Republic of Tanzania since its establishment as an independent country within the Commonwealth of Nations in 1961.
  2. If so, what percentage of the electorate voted and was there a genuine choice of candidates from differing political parties at each election.
  3. ) When did Australia establish diplomatic relations with that country.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) General elections were held in the United Republic of Tanzania in 1 965, 1 970 and 1 975.
  2. In the 1965 elections, voter turnout was 78 percent; in 1970, 70 per cent; and in 1975, 82 per cent All three elections were contested by the Tanganyika African National Union (the then sole party on mainland Tanzania) and the Afro-Shirazi Party (the then sole party in Zanzibar). In 1977 the Tanganyika African National Union and the AfroShirazi Party combined to form what is now the sole legal political party in Tanzania, the Chama Cha Mapinduzi
  3. Australia established diplomatic relations with Tanganyika in 1962. In 1964, Tanganyika united with Zanzibar to form the United Republic of Tanzania.

Public Service: Industrial Action (Question No. 4052)

Mr Giles:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 30 May 1 979:

With respect to the strike by 3rd division members of the Commonwealth Public Service, called by the ACOA in the ACT on Tuesday, 29 May 1979, for each Department and Statutory Authority in the ACT: (a) how many members of the 3rd division participated in the strike, (b) what percentage of members of the 3rd division participated, (c) how many members of the 2nd division participated, (d) how many members of the 4th division participated and (e) what was the decrease in Government expenditure consequent upon the withholding of pay from strikers.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

Following ACOA’s direction that staff ‘be “absent from work” on Tuesday, 29 May 1979, to protest against retrenchment legislation before Parliament’, the Public Service Board, on 28 May 1979, informed all departments and authorities of action which in the Board’s view should be taken in relation to absences, viz. as a matter of principle leave designed for other purposes should not be used to permit staff to receive pay while engaging in industrial action; staff on unauthorised absence should forfeit their pay; where staff apply for leave the normal processes should apply and genuine applicants should not be penalised. All applications for leave should be considered against the need to maintain adequate staffing levels; retrospective leave cover for the day should not be given and a medical certificate should be required for a single day’s absence on sick leave. Requirements for early notification and forfeiture of pay for absence because of alleged illness or for other reasons should be strictly observed.

The purpose of this advice was to provide a basis for consistent and equitable treatment of staff, recognising that applications for recreation leave, leave without pay and approved absences under flexible working hours arrangements are all within the powers of Chief Officers of departments and authorities to grant. The number of staff who may have utilised authorised leave to observe the ACOA direction is not known. So far as it is available, the information requested is shown in detail in the following table. Information in respect of part (d) of the question is not provided since officers of the 4th division are not eligible for ACOA membership.

Aboriginal Wages (Question No. 4218)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 6 June 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has counsel for the Queensland Director of Aboriginal and Islander Advancement disputed in court that payment of $74 per week for work entitling employees to an award wage of $ 1 35.82 as building workers was in breach of Federal law passed in 1975.
  2. Will the Minister support any proposal by Aborigines that back pay, due to them for the 6 months before proof of underpayment, might be given to their community in the form of land titles to the whole of their gazetted and/or traditional land.
  3. Will the government give adequate self-development funds to genuinely autonomous Queensland communities and deduct corresponding amounts from Federal grants to Queensland over a period of years corresponding to the period during which Aborigines have been underpaid by Queensland.
Mr Viner:
LP

-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (1)1 understand the honourable member is referring to the recent appeal case before the Industrial Court of Queensland concerning the payment of under award wages to Aboriginals employed on the Yarrabah Aboriginal Reserve near Cairns, by the Director of the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Islander Advancement. An examination of the transcript in that case discloses that counsel for the Director did not ‘dispute in court that payment of $74 per week for work entitling employees to an award wage of$ 135.82 as building workers was in breach of Federal law passed in 1 975 ‘. The appeal which was allowed on 29 May 1979 was decided on the interpretation of the relevant Queensland law.

  1. I am not aware of any such proposal.
  2. No. But the Government will continue to support Aboriginal community initiatives in Queensland within the constraints of available finance and other priorities.

Education: Motor Vehicles (Question No. 4286)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 7 June 1979:

  1. How many (a) motor cars and station wagons by make and tare, (b) trucks and other commercial vehicles by make and mass and (c) motor cycles by make, are operated by the Depanment of Education and statutory authorities and business undertakings under the Minister’s control.
  2. What is the average fuel consumption (kilometres per litre) of each type and make of motor vehicle referred to in pan (I).
Mr Staley:
LP

-The Minister for Education has provided the following reply to the honourable member’s question:

I draw the honourable member’s attention to the reply to Question No. 4299 (Hansard, 11 September 1979, page 972).

Social Security: Motor Vehicles (Question No. 4292)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 7 June 1979:

  1. How many (a) motor cars and station wagons by make and tare, (b) trucks and other commercial vehicles by make and mass and (c) motor cycles by make, are operated by the Department of Social Security and statutory authorities and business undertakings under the Minister’s control.
  2. What is the average fuel consumption (kilometres per litre) of each type and make of motor vehicle referred to in part(1).
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

I refer the honourable member to the answer to Question No. 4299 provided by the Minister for Administrative Services. (See Hansard, 1 1 September 1979, page 972).

Aboriginal Affairs: Motor Vehicles (Question No. 4309)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 7 June 1979:

  1. How many (a) motor cars and station wagons by make and tare, (b) trucks and other commercial vehicles by make and mass and (c) motor cycles by make, are operated by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and statutory authorities and business undertakings under the Minister’s control.
  2. What is the average fuel consumption (kilometres per litre) of each type and make of motor vehicle referred to in part (I).
Mr Viner:
LP

-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

See answer to Question No. 4299, Hansard of 1 1 September 1979, pages 972, 973.

Imported Flowers (Question No. 4345)

Dr Klugman:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 21 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) Are flowers imported into Australia.
  2. If so, what steps are taken to prevent insect pests being introduced into Australia on flowers.
  3. Is he completely satisfied that these steps will prevent the introduction of new plant diseases into Australia.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Imported cut flowers are inspected on arrival in Australia. If live insect pests or mites are detected on the cut flowers, fumigation with methyl bromide is ordered. If live snails or slugs are present in numbers, the import is not permitted.
  3. The above precautions will take care of live insects associated with cut flowers. In addition, examination is made for evidence of disease. If disease is found, appropriate treatment or destruction is ordered. As well, only cut flowers not capable of growing are released. For some flowers, a treatment to make them not capable of growing is required.

I am satisfied that the foregoing inspections and treatments provide adequate safeguards to preclude inspects and diseases becoming established by means of imported cut flowers.

Nabarlek Environmental Impact Study (Question No. 4348)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) Will the Minister present the departmental assessment of the Nabarlek environmental impact study.
  2. ) What has the Department of Aboriginal Affairs done to make good the criticism in that assessment of the lack of information in the study regarding the impact of the mining venture on Aboriginal people.
Mr Viner:
LP

-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) No.
  2. The Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies has been commissioned to establish baseline data on the social environment and monitor the social impact on Aboriginals living in the Alligator Rivers Region. In addition, Departmental staff have been located in the Alligator Rivers area. This is related to the lack of available data in these fields.

Tobacco Products: Consumption and Advertising (Question No. 4377)

Mr BARRY JONES:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Can he say what was the annual per capita consumption of tobacco in (a) Australia, (b) Great Britain, (c) the United States of America, (d) France and (e) Italy in each of the last 10 years.
  2. If so, in what years for each of these countries was direct television advertising of tobacco products ended.
  3. What effect has the cessation of television advertising had on the per capita consumption of tobacco.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. (a) Official statistics are not available for per capita tobacco consumption in Australia. (b)Great Britain
  1. (a) Australia: Phased out over three years concluding on 1 September 1976; (b) Great Britain: Ceased in August 1965; (c) United States of America: Ceased for cigarettes on 1 January 1971. Other tobacco products were not affected; (d) France: Has not been a practice; (e) Italy: A law banning all advertising of tobacco products was passed in 1 962.
  2. 3 ) It is not possible to isolate the effects of the cessation of television advertising on the consumption of tobacco products.

Housing Finance (Question No. 4378)

Mr BARRY JONES:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 1 August 1979:

What are the ruling rates of interest for housing society investors and borrowers and bank housing loan rates in (a) Australia, (b) Canada, (c) the United States of America and (d) the United Kingdom.

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

The table below sets out the ruling rates of interest for housing society investors and borrowers and bank housing loan rates, or their local equivalents in the country concerned, at June 1979.

  1. Effective rate charged by commercial banks on conventional mortgages for purchases of new homes.
  2. Recommended rates of UK Building Societies Association, which are usually quoted as net of income tax, are shown here adjusted to a basis gross of income tax and thus should be regarded as approximate only.
  3. In the UK national savings banks and trustee savings banks do not provide housing finance, and only recently have some trading banks entered the business. The latter provide finance from £20,000 upwards at a rate of around Vh to 3 percentage points above the Minimum Lending Rate (which was set at 14 percent on 12 June 1979). lt is stressed that different institutional structures and variations in data availability and coverage between countries make it difficult to draw conclusions from international comparisons of this type. By way of example, in the United States the interest payable on passport savings accounts by savings and loan associations (which have a broadly similar function to building societies) is set by statutory regulation at a maximum 5.25 per cent although they also borrow at higher interest rates through other deposit instruments. Another such example is in the United Kingdom where banks generally have not provided housing finance. However, as mentioned above, some trading banks have recently entered the market.

Overseas Posts: Financial Control (Question No. 4381)

Mr BARRY JONES:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 2 1 August 1 979:

  1. Which Embassies, Consulates-General and Consulates in North, Central or South America are under the financial jurisdiction of his Department’s representative in Washington.
  2. What are the advantages of such a system of financial control.
  3. How does the system operate in practice, eg what minimum sums are referred to Washington.
  4. Have representations been made to allow Australian diplomatic posts to conduct their financial operations on an imprest system as in South East Asia; if so, what consideration has been given to these representations.
Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. The Accounting Office located with the Australian Embassy at Washington exercises financial oversight of and provides accounting services to the following Australian diplomatic missions:

Embassies: Washington ( USA), Mexico City (Mexico )

High Commissions: Ottawa (Canada), Kingston (Jamaica)

Consulates-General: New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco (USA), Toronto and Vancouver (Canada)

Mission: Australian Mission to the United Nations, New York

Consulate: Honolulu (USA)

  1. The advantages of the existing system, as compared with the imprest system referred to in part (4) of the honourable member’s question, are:

    1. The Accounting Office provides a co-ordinated accounting service which: maximises the use of the Commonwealth’s cash balances: enables transactions to be brought to account against appropriations without delay; avoids the need for the Department of Foreign Affairs to make payments and receive moneys on behalf of other departments and authorities and to render accounts to those departments and authorities in Australia for repayment to the Department of Foreign Affairs (in 1978-79 expenditure chargeable to appropriations of the Department of Foreign Affairs was only 5.3 per cent of the aggregated expenditure of the Commonwealth in the locations referred to in (1) above).
    2. Because of the aggregated volume of accounting transactions, automatic data processing facilities are applied to the task of controlling funds, maintaining ledgers, preparing cheques, scheduling transactions and preparing payrolls.
    3. Accounting for and servicing of loans raised by the Commonwealth are facilitated.
  2. The type of payments made by posts through imprest accounts, rather than by the Accounting Office, is approved by the Accounting Office Director in the light of local conditions in the area concerned and other relevant considerations such as urgency of payment; the size of individual payments is not of itself a determining factor. Expenditure from the post imprest accounts is reimbursed by the Accounting Office which records the transactions in the Commonwealth ‘s ledgers.
  3. The Department of Foreign Affairs has recently proposed that all payments in respect of the posts at Mexico City and Kingston should be made by the posts through imprest accounts, with the imprest accounts being reimbursed from the Department in Canberra. This proposal is presently being examined.

International Labour Organisation Conventions (Question No. 4404)

Mr BARRY JONES:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 22 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) Which States have now agreed to the ratification of International Labour Organisation Conventions No. 64- Contracts of Employment (Indigenous Workers), 1939; No. 65- Penal Sanctions (Indigenous Workers), 1939; No. 104- Abolition of Penal Sanctions (Indigenous Workers), 1955; and No. 107- Indigenous and Tribal Populations, 1957.
  2. ) What steps are being taken to secure the agreement of those States which have not agreed in each case.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) It is basic to Australia’s approach to the ratification of any ILO Convention, the subject matter of which is within the joint legislative competence of the Commonwealth, State and Territorial Parliaments, that the agreement of all relevant jurisdictions be obtained; and that it has been demonstrated that law and practice in all jurisdictions comply fully.

The following table sets out details of the States which have agreed to ratification and in which it is clear that law and practice are in accordance with the requirements of the Conventions to which the honourable member has referred.

  1. 2 ) The Com monwealth consul’* on an ongoing basis with the State and Territorial authorities in relation to unratified ILO Conventions. Detailed examinations have been carried out on all the Conventions mentioned by the honourable member and the relevant authorities are requested regularly to report progress in their respective jurisdictions towards compliance with the requirements of the Conventions. .

Minister for Trade and Resources: Photographs (Question No. 4427)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 22 August 1 979:

How many of his photographs are displayed in Australian government offices (a) overseas and (b) in Australia.

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

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

It is customary to display photographs of the Minister for Trade and Resources at the sixty-nine overseas posts where the Department of Trade and Resources is represented. However, it is not usual practice to display photographs of the Minister at the Department’s offices in Australia. I do not propose to determine the precise number of photographs displayed because of the cost that would be involved in obtaining the information.

Health: Migrant Programs and Policies (Question No. 4442)

Dr Cass:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 22 August 1 979:

  1. 1 ) For what programs and policies concerning immigrants has his Department been responsible in each year from 1970 to date.
  2. What was the expenditure on each program and policy.
  3. What proportion of his Department’s administrative expenses are estimated to cover the programs and policies.
  4. On what dates did the transfer of responsibility for programs and policies referred to in part ( I ) to or from his Department take effect.
  5. To which or from which Departments were these transfers of responsibilities made.
  6. Why were these transfers made.
  7. With what other Federal or State Government Departments or authorities does his Department share responsibility for the programs and policies referred to in part (I).
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The Department of Health is not responsible for any programs and policies in regard to prospective migrants. However it does medically examine migrants and reports on whether they can satisfy the medical standards for entry to Australia. These standards are developed by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs after consultation with the Department of Health. There have been no major changes in medical standards since 1 970.

In respect of post-arrival services for migrants, the Department is responsible for implementing two recommendations of the Galbally Report viz:

  1. Recommendation 22- development and dissemination of information on health care in community languages.
  2. Recommendation 39- employment of additional ethnic health workers.

As well, the Department contributes generally to the implementation of Recommendation 43- special problems of migrant women.

In addition, the honourable member will be aware of my announcement on 22 August 1979 of the Government’s initiative concerning the employment of additional interpreters and translators in health services that is being implemented by my Department.

  1. and (3) Assistance is available to the States and the Northern Territory under the Community Health Program to employ the additional ethnic health workers and the additional interpreters and translators mentioned. Expenditure in 1978-79 in respect of the former initiative is not yet available. In the current financial year, $ 1 10,000 has been appropriated to meet 100 per cent ofthe cost of these ethnic health workers; $700,000 will be provided over a three-year period. In 1980-81 and 1981-82 the Commonwealth will meet 75 per cent of the cost. Financial assistance for the employment of additional health interpreters and translators was announced in the .1 979-80 Budget hence no expenditure has yet been incurred. However an amount of $2.4m is to be provided, of which $940,000 has been appropriated this financial year to meet 100 per cent of the cost. In the following two financial years, the Commonwealth will meet 75 per cent of the cost.

Expenditure associated with the other activities mentioned in ( 1 ) is by way of salaries and overhead expenses. No dissection is available to provide accurately the information requested over the past 10 years. However, as a guide, the cost of employing 16 people, some full time and others part time, on the above tasks, at current salary levels, plus an overhead for on-costs, approximates $0.5m. This amount represents 0.64 per cent of my Department’s proposed administrative expenses in 1 979-80. (4), ( 5 ), (6) and ( 7 ) See ( I ) above.

Wildlife Conservation (Question No. 4465)

Mr Cohen:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 22 August 1979:

Why is it taking so long to promulgate the regulations under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 which will bring into operation the:

Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage,

Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat, and

Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals, which came into force on 12 December 1975, 21 December 1975 and 1 1 March 1978 respectively, when the regulations were promulgated to bring the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora into operation on the same day as that Convention came into force, 27 October 1976. (Hansard, 8 May 1979, page 1973).

Mr Groom:
LP

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

  1. The Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage came into force on 19 December 1975. Countries which are parties to the Convention are required to take appropriate legal measures towards the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and rehabilitation of their cultural and natural heritage. Australia has fulfilled her obligations under the Convention by the passage of the Australian Heritage Commission Act in 1975 and the creation of the Australian Heritage Commission.
  2. The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat has been examined by legal officers in concerned departments and it is considered that the Convention does not require regulations under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975. The Convention imposes responsibilities which may be met either administratively or by action under existing legislation.
  3. Drafting instructions for the preparation of regulations to implement the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals were sent to the Attorney-General ‘s Department on 7 August 1 978. Regulations have not yet been drafted.

Aboriginal Affairs: Abolition of Training Allowance (Question No. 4488)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 28 August 1979:

What steps were taken to ensure that former pastoral employees had adequate income to nourish their families since abolition of the training allowance in 1 973-74.

Mr Viner:
LP

-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

Training allowances were paid to Aboriginals in communities managed by government and by missions in the Northern Territory and not to Aboriginal workers in the pastoral industry.

Production Costs: Manufacturing (Question No. 4510)

Mr Willis:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 29 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) What proportion of the production costs of the manufacturing sector are employment costs.
  2. What proportion of total production costs are due to the pay (including cash, prerequisites and allowances) of managerial, executive and other staff not employed under awards.
Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. I ) An analysis of the costs of employment in relation to total production costs is available from input-output tables prepared by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The latest year for which input-output statistics have been published is 1974-75. Information in respect of that year is provided in the following table:
  1. Information about the proportion of total production costs of the specified industries due to the pay of managerial, executive and other staff not employed under awards is not available.

Production Costs: Banking and Insurance (Question No. 4511)

Mr Willis:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 29 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) What proportion of the production costs of banking and insurance are employment costs;
  2. What proportion of total production costs are due to the pay (including cash, perquisites and allowances) of

managerial, executive and other staff not employed under awards.

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

I refer the honourable member to my answer to Parliamentary Question No. 45 10 in today’s Hansard.

Production Costs: Retailing (Question No. 4512)

Mr Willis:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 29 August 1979:

  1. I ) What proportion of the production costs of retailing are employment costs;

    1. What proportion of total production costs are due to the pay (including cash, perquisites and allowances) of managerial, executive and other staff not employed under awards.
Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

I refer the honourable member to my answer to Parliamentary Question No. 45 10 in today ‘s Hansard.

Production Costs: Mining (Question No. 4513)

Mr Willis:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 29 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) What proportion of the production costs of mining are employment costs.
  2. What proportion of total production costs are due to the pay (including cash, perquisites and allowances) of managerial, executive and other staff not employed under awards.
Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

I refer the honourable member to my answer to Parliamentary Question No. 45 10 in today’s Hansard.

Unemployment Benefit (Question No. 4517)

Mr Willis:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 29 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is any income earned by an unemployed person over $6 a week confiscated through an equal reduction in unemployment benefit.
  2. Does this confiscation have any effect on the incentive for unemployed persons to seek part time or casual work.
  3. Would the incentive for unemployed people to seek pan-time or casual work be increased if the income limit was raised to at least $20 per week. (l)and(2)-
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. I ) The maximum rate of unemployment benefit applicable to a married person, a person who has attained the age of 2 1 years or a person under 2 1 years of age with no parent in Australia, is directly reduced by income in excess of $6 a week. - (2) and (3) Entitlement to unemployment benefit does not depend solely on the operation of the income test. An unemployed person must also be capable of undertaking and willing to undertake, full time work. He must be registered for full time work with the Commonwealth Employment Service and be making efforts on his own behalf to obtain work. He will be expected to accept casual, short-term, temporary and pan-time work provided it pays the appropriate award or going rate.

Whether the income test reduces incentive to work is largely a matter of personal judgment because factors other than monetary return are often important influences on a person ‘s decision to accept work.

Cement Products Factory (Question No. 4521)

Mr Willis:

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 29 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) What was the turnover, average employment, and net value added by production at the Government-owned factory, Cement Products, in Canberra during each of the last 5 financial years.
  2. What was the value of sales and costs of production at the factory during the last 5 years.
  3. 3 ) For what reasons was the factory closed.
  4. Was suitable alternative employment found for all employees at the factory.
Mr Groom:
LP

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

  1. The Cement Products Factory was established in 1945 to supply cement and concrete products not available or not capable of being provided from local commercial enterprises. Products provided included non-standard items comprising water meter covers, sump beams and sections.

With the growth of the Australian Capital Territory over the past several years, the situation changed and the original conditions upon which the factory was established were no longer valid and the decision was made to cease operations.

  1. Yes. The four employees remaining at the time of closure were redeployed within the Department’s work force.

HMAS ‘Melbourne’ (Question No. 4548)

Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 August 1979:

  1. I ) What incidents involving HMAS Melbourne have (a) resulted in damage to (i) the ship, (ii) its equipment or other vessels and (iii) aircraft and (b) resulted in loss of life since the Melbourne entered service with the Royal Australian Navy.

    1. What was the official finding as to the cause of each incident.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

HMAS Melbourne commissioned at Barrow-in-Furness, England, on Friday 28 October 19SS under the command of Captain G.G.O. Gatacre, D.S.O., D.S.C. and Bar RAN.

1 ) and (2 ) The information required is contained in the following tables.

Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement: Rental Rebates (Question No. 4553)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 30 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) In addition to the formal requirements of statistical returns from the States, what working parties, procedural studies and evaluation reports were undertaken for the purpose of implementing sub-clause 18(2) of the 1978 Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement in relation to the establishment of a uniform approach to the calculation of rental rebates.
  2. Will these reports be made available to the Parliament; if not, why not.
Mr Groom:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) A conference of Commonwealth and State Housing Ministers in April 1978 established a working party of officials to give effect to the requirement of clause 18 (2) of the 1978 Housing Agreement. Later the same month the working party met to discuss the approach towards alleviation of hardship for those not able to afford ceiling rents fixed for housing authority dwellings, and to consider the principles involved in calculating rental rebates.

A working party paper reporting on progress and identifying the general principles which should be considered in the development of a uniform system of rental rebates was presented to a conference of Commonwealth and State officials in November 1978.

  1. Rental rebate policies will be covered in the 1978-1979 Annual Report to Parliament required by the Housing Assistance Act 1978.

Alice Springs Aboriginal Housing Project (Question No. 4562)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 30 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a petition drawn up by Mr Ted Skerse, senior partner of Dean Mildren and partners, directed to the Northern Territory Chief Minister, requesting termination of an Alice Springs Aboriginal Housing project in favour of constructing a separate village for the proposed Aboriginal tenants.
  2. If so, does the petition claim that the proposed tenants are: unemployed; unacquainted with the work ethic; incapable of removing unsanitary, putrid, domestic garbage and litter; ignorant of hygiene, by-laws and reasonable urban behaviour: subject to alcoholism; accustomed to extended families of scores of humans and canines; noisy, untidy in the streets; not desirous of coping with the responsibilities and stresses of urban living and therefore unhappy in urban housing; and that the proposed tenants damnify the non-Aboriginal petitioners of the neighbourhood who are different in all such respects; who are unable to maintain surveillance of their properties in working hours; are required to withstand the ravages of tax collection and provide essential services at all hours and who will lose sleep, health, the beauty of the town and the value of homes in which they have invested life savings, if the project proceeds.
  3. Have the petitioners been advised of the falsity and defamatory nature of those allegations.
  4. Has the Northern Territory Government acceded in large part to the petition despite allocation of Federal funds for the project.
  5. What consultation has occurred with prospective tenants before taking this action.
  6. Was the legal firm which drafted the petition retained by the Northern Land Council at $96,000 during 1978 and did it further engage as senior counsel for the NLC, Mr Eric Pratt for $30,000 in 1978.
  7. Has the same legal firm increased contract work with (he Aboriginal Legal Service since recent ALS committee changes and the informal appointment of a new Director on proposed terms drafted by the same firm.
  8. Are the minutes of the last annual meeting and the terms of the proposed agreement available to Aboriginal Legal Service members.
Mr Viner:
LP

-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 have seen a copy of a petition to the Northern Territory Chief Minister which was circulated in Alice Springs earlier this year. A Press report in the Centralian Advocate of 7 June stated that Mr Ted Skuse ‘declined to confirm or deny he was the author of the petition’. I understand that Mr Skuse is a partner in the legal firm of Mildren, Skuse and Partners, Alice Springs, but has no connection with the firm of Mildren and Partners, Darwin.
  2. Yes.
  3. I understand that the assertions in the petition were discussed at two public meetings in Alice Springs last June and that a document setting out some of the facts about the special Aboriginal housing program of the Northern Territory Housing Commission in Alice Springs was circulated at the meeting on 9 June. I have also seen reports of statements by Aboriginal organisations in Alice Springs, commenting on what were described as ‘untrue and insulting things’ written about Aboriginal applicants for Commission housing in the petition.
  4. I am informed that the Northern Territory Government has reduced the initial special housing program in Alice Springs, which is to be funded by grants from my Department, from IS to 10 houses and has decided that houses built under this program will not be located adjacent to privately owned houses in Alice Springs.
  5. I am not aware of any prior consultation with ‘prospective tenants’ before these decisions were taken. There is a list of Aboriginal applicants for housing commission houses in Alice Springs but I am informed that no decisions have been made on the allocation of the houses now under construction as part of the special program.
  6. See ( I ) above. The firm of Mildren, Skuse and Partners, Alice Springs, has not been engaged by the Northern

Land Council, but the Council has retained the firm of Mildren and Partners, Darwin.

  1. I am informed that the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service is not contracting work to the firm of Mildren, Skuse and Partners, Alice Springs, but that firm was engaged earlier this year to draft a contract of employment for the director of the CAALAS.
  2. The CAALAS has advised that members may have access to minutes of meetings and the Director’s contract of employment on request at the offices of the CAALAS.

Aboriginal and Islander Employment (Question No. 4563)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 30 August 1 979:

How many (a) Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders and (b) others were employed at each level in (i) the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and (ii) organisations deriving their major public funding from the Department in (A) 1972-73, (B) 1975-76 and (C) 1978-79.

Mr Viner:
LP

-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Details of the number of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders employed at each level in the Department are not available for 1 973. The figures for June 1 976 and 1 979 are as follows:
  1. Figures are not available for the number of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders and others employed by all organisations deriving their major public funding from the Department in 1972-73 and 1975-76. The figures for Aboriginal organisations receiving grants from the Department in 1978-79 are 5,606 Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders and 688 others. Comparative figures are available for two organisations, Applied Ecology Pty Ltd and Aboriginal Hostels Pty Ltd for 1976 and 1979:

Military Disciplinary Code (Question No. 4572)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 1 September 1979:

  1. Will the revised military disciplinary code be implemented.
  2. Has there been a 5-year delay in consideration of the draft code presented to the Parliament by the Government; if so, why.
  3. If the Government has decided not to proceed with revision of the code (a) what is the reason and (b) is he satisfied that the legal rights of servicemen are adequately protected by the existing code.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) It is certainly my intention to proceed with proposals for uniform disciplinary legislation for the three Services.
  2. and (3) No proposals relating to the uniform disciplinary legislation have yet been submitted to Government. It may be of assistance to the honourable member if I outline for him the recent history of this matter.

A report by a Departmental working party established to consider uniform disciplinary legislation for the three services was presented to the then Minister for Defence in December 1973.

On 2 April 1974 the working party’s report was tabled in the Parliament by the Minister for Defence. This report contained a draft Defence (Discipline and Justice) Bill, prepared by the working party.

When tabling the report the Minister stated that it had not been considered by the Government; that he and the Attorney-General had some reservations on the treatment given by the working party to some of the issues raised in the report; and that the report was being tabled to enable interested persons to study the draft provisions and submit any comments they wished to make.

The working party later considered the matters raised by the Ministers together with numerous other comments received, particularly from members of the Defence Force. It submitted a further report in January 1 975 to the then Minister for Defence.

The present position in this matter is still as indicated in my answer to Question No. 3139 asked by the honourable member on 20 February 1979 in Hansard of 7 March 1979 at page 758.

Ansett Transport Industries Ltd: Annual Report (Question No. 4585)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 18 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Did he delay the presentation of the Annual Report of the airline activities of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd for 1977-78 for over 6 months so as to present it together with the Annual Report of Trans-Australia Airlines.
  2. If so, was this a departure from established practice and what were his reasons for doing so.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) See my answer to Question on Notice No. 4123 Part (3). It was of course not possible to table the Ansett Transport Industries Ltd report on its airlines activities for 1977-78 until Parliament was sitting. At that stage it was anticipated that the report of the Australian National Airlines Commission would also be available shortly. As events occurred this did delay the presentation of the report somewhat but nowhere near 6 months.
  2. There is no established practice in relation to the tabling of these reports.

Northern Land Council (Question No. 4593)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 1 1 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Can the Minister say whether members of the Northern Land Council on one or more occasions attempted to replace the chairman of the Council; if so, has the Minister’s attention been drawn to allegations that the chairman avoided the issue by breaches of regular meeting procedure.
  2. Is the Minister able to say whether the chairman is alleged to have dismissed an employee of the Council without due authority.
  3. Can the Minister say whether the chairman satisfied the Council that he had met the requirement of land rights law, that traditional owners should fully understand the Ranger agreement before signing; if so, are the relevant resolutions of the Council recorded electronically and will a transcript be made public
  4. Did the Minister’s immediate predecessor intervene to exclude employees at Maningrida against the expressed wishes of the community.
  5. What guidelines and rules govern the Minister’s decisions or those of the Depanment of Aboriginal Affairs to intervene in Aboriginal self-management where it may conflict with government policy.
Mr Viner:
LP

-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, a Land Council may, at any time, by resolution, elect a new Chairman. No such resolution, nor any vacancy in the office of Chairman, has been brought to my attention.
  2. I am not aware of any such allegation.
  3. It is the responsibility of a Land Council, rather than that of its Chairman, to satisfy itself that the traditional Aboriginal owners of any Aboriginal land understand the nature and purpose of any proposed action in connection with that land. Inquiries about resolutions of the Northern Land Council might be addressed to the Council itself.
  4. No. Mr Viner announced on 16 January 1978 that grants to the Maningrida Council were being terminated because the Council had not been meeting or exercising effective control of community affairs for many months. He indicated that the cessation of grants would mean that the services of all employees of the Council would be terminated.
  5. General guidelines for the administration of programs of the Depanment of Aboriginal Affairs are provided in the Ministerial Directive each year and the Department’s Financial Rules outline what is required of organisations receiving grants. Officers of the Depanment are expected to offer advice and help to Aboriginal organisations and to ensure that they comply with conditions of grants, including observance of the financial rules.

Aboriginal Self -management (Question No. 4605)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 12 September 1979:

What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that (a) Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders are trained to take over management of their communities in Queensland without inhibitions due to control by others of their domiciles, movements, transport, communications, employment, political activity or equal access to public amenities, ( b ) Aboriginal and Islander communities have similarly unfettered rights to (i) negotiate terms of entry to their land by mining interests, (ii) expand Federal Government grants with responsibility to Federal sources of State intervention and (iii) acquire joint ownership of pastoral or other leases or freehold land directly or through a Land Council or Federal authority as freely as other Australian or foreign interests do or to have reasons for refusal given to them or Federal authorities and (c) those aspects of Queensland law which breach Federal laws or international conventions on human rights are overridden and State Officials who breach these laws or conventions are punished.

Mr Viner:
LP

-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

The Queensland Government retains responsibility for Aboriginal and Island Reserves, including the development of the management responsibilities of Aboriginal and Island Councils in accordance with its stated policy that these Councils should progressively assume normal local government responsibilities. It also retains responsibility for the regulations of exploration and mining on reserves. The Commonwealth Depanment of Aboriginal Affairs provides direct grants and other assistance to reserve communities in Queensland in response to their requests. The Depanment is also co-ordinating the provision of a variety of training courses for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders in Queensland and these include some courses designed to meet the needs of Aboriginals and Islanders in reserve communities (and at Aurukun and Mornington Island) for training in such fields as management, meeting procedures, clerical skills and community work:

February/March- 4 week course for Councils and Cooperatives clerks in the Torres Strait;

May /July- 13 week course in management skills at Mornington Island;

September- 2 day course for Mornington Shire Councillors

Other courses planned or under consideration include: 12 week course for resident Aboriginal community workers; 8 week course for Island Councillors; courses in bookkeeping.

The Aboriginal Land Fund Commission has purchased areas of freehold land and some leasehold land for communities in Queensland and policy on the transfer of pastoral leases is being discussed between the Queensland and Commonwealth Governments.

Commonwealth laws have been enacted to override certain provisions of Queensland legislation affecting Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. As indicated in previous statements on this subject, these laws are available to be used by Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders who wish to do so and the Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Legal Service is able to provide advice and assistance.

International Year of the Child Sand Castle Competition (Question No. 4639)

Mr BARRY JONES:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 13 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Further to the Minister’s answer to question No. 4383 on the International Year of the Child sand castle competition (Hansard, 1 1 September 1979, page 981), was the decision to participate submitted to the Minister for approval.
  2. Was the escort referred to in part (7) of the Minister’s answer as having accompanied the 6 selected contestants an employee of the Depanment of Social Security; if so, what was the person’s name.
  3. Were Commonwealth public servants and/or diplomatic personnel used in a supervisory capacity for the competition; if so, who were they and how much time was involved.
  4. Has the cost of the services of Commonwealth employees and the cost of trans-Pacific telephone calls been taken into account in calculating the total cost to the Australian Government of $950 involved in the Australian participation.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) Yes; the proposal to participate was examined initially by the IYC Events Task Force, a committee which included representatives of all State Ministers responsible for IYC as well as representatives of the Commonwealth and Territory Ministers and the National Committee of Non-Government Organizations. This body recommended to the Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers that Australia should participate, and that two escorts should accompany the children. The Ministers unanimously endorsed this recommendation at a meeting in Adelaide on 9 February 1 979.
  2. Yes; Miss Elizabeth Lucas.
  3. No. Miss Lucas and an officer on the staff of the Australian Embassy in Mexico supervised the Australian children while in Mexico.
  4. No. The cost of the services of Australian employees acting in the ordinary course of their duties and their incidental telephone calls were regarded as general overheads.

Aboriginal Self -management (Question No. 4663)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 18 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to reports in the North Queensland Messagestick of September 1979 attributing certain comments to Mr C. Porter, Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Islander Affairs Advancement.
  2. Has the Government legislated and undertaken to give self-management to Aboriginal communities on State reserves which demonstrate a two-thirds consensus in favour of this action.
  3. Has such a consensus been twice demonstrated by over two-thirds of the resident electors of Yarrabah electing Councillors on a platform of independence from the State Aboriginal Act.
  4. If so, is the Government’s delay in meeting its obligations motivated by a desire to negotiate and obtain agreement first with the Queensland Government and later with the Reserve Council.
  5. In view of the consistent spurning of the letter and spirit of Federal law and policy by the Queensland Government and the remarks of Mr Porter about the impermanence of the Federal Government, will the request of Yarrabah Council be met before Parliament rises in 1979 or ever while the present State and Federal Governments remain in power.
  6. Will the Minister now disclose to Yarrabah Council the legal advice given to him on his power to remedy breaches of Federal law by the Queensland Government and provide adequate funds to the Council and the Aboriginal Legal Service in Queensland to expedite as far as possible the presentation of their case to Governments and Courts; if not, why not.
Mr Viner:
LP

-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Reserves and Communities Self-management) Act 1 978 does not refer to ‘a two-thirds consensus in favour’ of self-management. It provides for the declaration of reserves and communities as ones to which the Act applies where the Council for a reserve requests the Minister to make such a declaration or where the Minister is satisfied that a substantial majority of the adult Aboriginals resident on the reserve wish to manage and control their own affairs in the manner provided for by the Act.
  3. The Council of the Yarrabah Reserve made a request in January for declaration under the Act but at the same time asked that I negotiate with the Queensland Government for land tenure.
  4. and (S) In my statement of 11 September 1979, I indicated that talks are to be held in Brisbane to develop proposals to be put to the Yarrabah community and discussed with the Council in November when Commonwealth and State Ministers will visit Yarrabah.
  5. I am not aware of any such request having been put to me by the Yarrabah Council, I have sought no legal advice on ‘power to remedy breaches of Federal Law by the Queensland Government ‘ and I am not aware of any request by the Council or the Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service for additional funds for ‘the presentation of their case to Governments and courts ‘.

Defence Housing: Group Rent Scheme (Question No. 4680)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 September 1979:

What has been the (a) average rent for defence service housing stock under the group rent scheme on a year by year basis since the scheme’s inception and (b) the percentage increase from year to year.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. and (b) The group rent scheme was introduced in April 1976 with a rent scale for six housing groups ranging from $15.00 to $61.00 per fortnight. The average rent derived as a simple arithmetical average based on the composition of the groups was $38.28 per fortnight.

The rates were increased in June 1977 and a seventh group introduced. The scale of rates then ranged from $19.00 to $88.00 per fortnight with an average of $53.50 per fortnight. This was an increase of 39.75 percent.

The rents were again increased in July 1978 to the present range of $20.00 to $96.00 per fortnight. The average increased to $59. 1 2 a rise of 1 0.5 per cent.

Members and Senators: Terms of Office (Question No. 4692)

Mr MacKenzie:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 19 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the average term of office of (a) Members and ( b) Senators since (i) federation, (ii) 1 930 and (iii) 1 950.
  2. What proportion of (a) Members and (b) Senators attained at least 20 years service (including broken periods of service since (i) federation, (ii) 1 930 and (iii) 1 950.
  3. Is he able to say which democracies in the world impose a fixed term of office for Parliamentary representatives and what the terms and conditions are in each instance.
Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. and (2) The details which the honourable member seeks are not readily available from records in my Department or in the Australian Electoral Office. Information about the terms of office of Members and Senators is published in the Australian Parliamentary Handbooks. However, I would not feel justified in directing the allocation of the considerable time and resources which would be involved in extracting that information from published sources on behalf of the honourable member.
  2. As far as can be ascertained Norway and the United States are the only Western liberal democracies which impose a fixed term of office for parliamentary representatives, that is, democracies in which the parliament cannot be dissolved before the expiry of its term and in which the Parliament cannot extend its term of office.

Norway

The Norwegian Parliament, the Storting, is elected as a single unit for a term of four years, one quarter of its members are then elected by the whole house to serve as members of the Upper House the Lagting. The remainder form the Lower House, the Odelsting

The Storting assembles every year on the first week day in October and sessions continue until June the following year.

United States

Elections for Members of the House of Representatives are held in November of even-numbered years. The term of office of Members commences at noon on 3 January of the year immediately following the election and expires two years later.

The Congress, consisting of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, is required to meet in regular session at noon on 3 January of each year.

International Hotel at Mascot Airport (Question No. 4693)

Mr Jull:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 9 September 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Has an application been received for the construction of an international hotel at Mascot, NSW, adjacent to the international and domestic airports; if so, where is the new hotel to be located.
  2. ) What is the proposed size of the new hotel.
  3. What is its projected opening date.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (I), (2) and (3) My Department has no current application for the erection of an international hotel at Mascot, but I understand that there have been recent press reports of a proposal to construct such a building in Marsh Street, Arncliffe, on vacant privately-owned land near the International Terminal area of Sydney airport.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 9 October 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1979/19791009_reps_31_hor116/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant