House of Representatives
7 November 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 2679

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

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 upon 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 Burns, Mr Ewen Cameron, Mr Jartnan, Mr Roger Johnston, Mr Martyr, Mr Scholes, Mr Short, Mr Shipton and Mr Yates.

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 t housands 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 Dr Cass, Mr Holding, Mr Hurford, Mr Jarman, Mr Keith Johnson and Mr Shipton.

Petitions received.

Education

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

The Petition of certain citizens of NSW

Respectfully showeth:

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

Government Schools bear the burden of these cuts, 1 1.2 per cent while non-Government schools will receive an increase of 3.4 per cent.

We call on the Government to again examine the proposals as set out in the guidelines for Education expenditure 1980 and to immediately restore and increase substantially in real terms the allocation of funds for education expenditure in 1980 to Government schools.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Anthony, Mr Connolly, Dr Klugman, Mr Ruddock and Mr West.

Petitions received.

Pornographic Publications

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

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

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Anthony, Mr O’Keefe and Mr Ruddock.

Petitions received.

Royal Commission on Human Relationships

To the Honourable 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, et cetera. (Note: Refer quotations reverse side)
  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 pan 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 Ewen Cameron, Mr Fisher and Mr Peter Johnson.

Petitions 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 limit to the capacity of Australia’s drug manufacturing industry in Australian hands.

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 Serum Laboratories, Commonwealth Banking Corporation, Trans Australia Airlines, Qantas, 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 and the Fawnmac group of drug companies would be contrary to the Nation’s interests. Fawnmac still makes a profit of about half the proposed sale price in a year and cost the Australian government several times the proposed sale price. It provides the Pharmaceutical Benefits pricing negotiators within the Health Department with inside information on drug manufacturing costs and so prevents collusive monopolistic pricing by major transnational drug firms. It complements the resources of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories to make both Government owned drug firms more efficient and competitive by co-operation.

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 the Fawnmac group of companies.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Everingham.

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 operating 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 and Mr Scholes.

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 Aldred and Dr Everingham.

Petitions 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 Fisher and Mr Short.

Petitions received.

Broadcasting and Television

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 television and radio

  1. a ) affect our social and moral environment,
  2. are family media watched and heard by many children at all times, and
  3. present too much explicit violence and sex, they therefore need stronger control than other media and the existing standards need stricter enforcement in both national A.B.C., and commercial sectors.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the Australian Government will amend the Broadcasting and Television Act, in relation to both national and commercial broadcasters, to legislate

  1. for adequate and comprehensive programs in the best interests of the general public,
  2. for a “Dual System of Regulation” enforced by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal by internal regulation and external control,
  3. for an independent consumer body to represent the best interests of the general public, and
  4. for immediate and effective penalties to be imposed for breaches of program and advertising standards.

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

Petition received.

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal

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

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully say we are concerned about the lack of public participation allowed in the decision making of the Broadcasting Tribunal.

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

  1. Janet Strickland Chairperson

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

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

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 undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the unprecedented SO per cent increase in fees for mobile ship-to-shore boat radio licences and the 1 00 per cent increase in fees for life saving ship station radio licences is unjustified and discriminatory because the increases act as a disincentive for boat owners to obtain such radios thereby imperilling safety at sea while CB operators in motor vehicles still pay only $25 for their licence and can have up to five radios on the one licence for unlimited use.

Your petitioners call on the Government to reduce fees for these licences and to revise the regulations concerning boat radios.

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

Petition received.

Taxation Deductions: Donations to Charities

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that despite repeated calls for taxation relief, charities which give expressly foreign aid are still not tax deductible. While donations to the National Party in Queensland through advertising in its magazine ‘Outlook’ are an allowable tax deduction.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that in the year of the child, this house will see fit to amend the income tax assessment act by extending the number of charities, donations to which allowable tax deductions, to include World

Vision, UNICEF, Save the Children, Austcare, Forster Parents Plan of Australia, and other foreign aid charities in order to achieve taxation justice for these charities and assist them in their fund raising campaigns.

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

Petition received.

Australian Bill of Rights

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:

Their grave concern and regret that

  1. Queensland is approaching the status of a one-party state,
  2. members of the Queensland parliament have been denied basic deomocratic rights in accordance with Westminster principles of Parliamentary Democracy, and
  3. Queensland opposition members have been denied balanced facilities resources and speaking time in the Parliament, and more recently have been denied a basic Parliamentary right to question aspects of industrial legislates currently before The Queensland Legislative Assembly.

And your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will request the Government to take the appropriate action to establish a Bill of Rights describing and protecting basic political and human rights of all Australians, including a clear description of the proper principles and functions of our Parliamentary system, both State and Federal.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will request the Government to introduce a Bill of Rights to describe and protect political and human rights.

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

Petition received.

Australia-Japan Fishing Agreement

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 agreement between the Commonwealth and Japanese Governments granting Japanese long line fishing boats access to Australia’s recently declared two hundred mile fishing zone for a fee of $1.4 million will seriously imperil the world’s largest population of Black Marlin which inhabit the North Queensland waters and consequently endanger the invaluable tourist and ancillary industries in that area which depend on big game fishing.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will declare:

  1. How many Japanese long line boats will be allowed to enter the Australian fishing zone in the year of the agreement;
  2. How many tonnes of Black Marlin the Japanese will be allowed to catch;
  3. What is the composition of the overseas interests, referred to by the former minister in his ministerial statement of September 25, which have expressed interest in carrying out feasibility fishing projects;
  4. Whether the Japanese-Australian Fishing Agreement includes provision for a portion of the foreign catch to be processed in Australia;
  5. What assurances on access to the Japanese market for Australian fish and fish products have been given by the Japanese;
  6. What was the basis for the calculation of the fee which the Japanese will pay for access to the AFZ;
  7. Where any guarantees given by the Japanese for the protection and conservation of Black Marlin numbers in the AFZ:

And asks that the government undertake not to re-issue the licences to the Japanese fishermen next year when the terms of access are again reviewed.

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

Petition received.

Unemployment Benefits

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

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the city of Nunawading in the electorate of Deakin respectfully showeth:

Whereas:

  1. The number of positions available throughout Australia is insufficient to provide the opportunity for fulltime employment for several hundred thousand Australians including School Leavers who have as yet been unable to avail themselves of work experience.
  2. b ) The provisions of the Social Security Act be so modified as to permit all such persons to engage in part time employment without suffering the immediate disincentive of loss of Social Security support (Dole Money). The proposed modification to the Act to permit incomes at least to the Henderson ‘Poverty Level’ and to taper off in such manner as to maintain incentive to work.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia per medium of the Minister for Social Security give all directions to ensure that necessary action be taken without delay.

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

Petition 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) equivalent 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 person 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, in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Les Johnson.

Petition received.

Foreign Ownership of Australian Resources

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 has been an escalation of foreign ownership and control of Australian industries and resources to the detriment of the National interest. We view with deep concern that (i) over55 per cent of the profits of all companies in Australia is payable overseas, (ii) that the Foreign Investment Review Board in the last 3 years has passed over 3,500 applications for the takeover of Australian companies and has rejected less than 25, (iii) that proposals for an effective resource tax on super profits made by foreign companies in Australia have been dropped, (iv) that foreign investment guidelines have been changed to favour foreign companies ahead of Australian owned companies for new ventures and takeover bids.

Your petitioners humbly pray that the Australian Government reverses policies which place Australian resources, particularly Australia ‘s mineral energy resources, under foreign ownership and control.

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

Petition received.

Pensions

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 CPI 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 CPI/pension adjustments in the future.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. byMrShipton.

Petition received.

Commissioner for Community Relations

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

The humble petition of the electors of the Division of Cunningham respectfully showeth:

That we the undersigned residents of the Illawarra region protest against plans now before the Federal Parliament to set up a Human Rights Commission and restrict the work of the Commissioner for Community Relations, (the Hon.) A. J. Grassby. The work of the Commissioner is essential for the building of a harmonious multicultural society in Australia.

The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 which is administered by Mr Grassby provides for equality of opportunity for all ethnic and racial groups in every aspect of Australian social life. The Act was passed unanimously by all political parties in 1 975 and does not need to be changed.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the work of the Commissioner for Community Relations be not restricted as provided for in the terms of the Bills currently before Parliament.

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

Petition received.

Nuclear Disarmament

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the very survival of mankind is at stake, with the stockpile of nuclear weapons able to kill every person on earth 24 times over and with conventional arms of increasing sophistication having enough destructive power to destroy most life on earth.

Noting that, while millions starve, expenditure on the arms race is $1000 million per day for the World and $7 million per day for Australia; and noting that the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) has listed ‘peace and disarmament’ as a theme for the International Year of the Child; and further noting that a reduction in expenditure on arms could contribute in both developed and developing countries to the eradication of hunger and disease and to the provision of more adequate housing, education, health services, economic security and social welfare for all people:

In the interests of children in Australia and around the world, particularly in developing countries, and as a matter of highest priority during the International Year of the Child,

We call upon the Australian Government to give political leadership both nationally and internationally in working towards

  1. 1 ) general and complete disarmament under effective international control;
  2. ) the establishment of the Pacific and Indian Oceans as nuclear-free zones; and
  3. the disbanding of all nuclear bases.

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

Petition received.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will respond in the sense that there should be no indication of the attitude of the member who presents the petition as to whether he is for or against the petition. That is not, I think, in the interests of the House. I should indicate that I have called a meeting of the House of Representatives Standing Orders Committee for next Tuesday. The notices have gone out. At that meeting of the Standing Orders

Committee the question will be reviewed as to when petitions ought to be reported to the House and the manner in which they ought to be reported to the House. What the honourable member for Shortland has said today will be taken into account together with matters raised by other honourable members yesterday.

Mr Morris:

– Again speaking with your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I wish to clarify a point. I make it very clear that I was not expressing my view, as your remarks seemed to imply. I was making the point that people listening to the proceedings have no indication of the view expressed in the petition. They do not know whether it is their petition or somebody else’s petition.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I take the point. I apologise to the honourable member for Shortland. I did misunderstand him. He has made the situation clear. That matter will be considered by the Standing Orders Committee.

page 2684

RURAL UNEMPLOYMENT

Notice of Motion

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That this House-

recognising that in Innisfail there are 171 registered unemployed young people for every job vacancy, Ayr 159, Atherton 238, Nambour 120, Warwick 91, Cairns 64, Mackay 61, Bundaberg 58, Toowoomba 82 and Rockhampton 52; is of the opinion that the Liberal-National Country Party Government has failed to create jobs in Queensland provincial cities and other rural areas throughout Australia, and

accordingly calls upon the Government to provide immediate financial assistance to State and local government for youth job creation, training and retraining schemes in Queensland.

page 2684

INTRODUCTION OF PETITIONS

Notice of Motion

Mr LUSHER:
Hume

-I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That the House revert to the original method of introducing petitions.

page 2684

AUSTRALIAN OPERA

Notice of Motion

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That, notwithstanding the inquiry to be chaired by Dr K. R. McKinnon into the funding of opera in Australia, in the opinion of this House a judicial inquiry should be held into the recent operations of the Australian Opera, the specific terms of reference to include:

1 ) The extent of Commonwealth funding for the Opera and the Opera Orchestra and the beneficiaries of this funding;

The existence of and/or extent of tax avoidance schemes for the benefit of members which involve the export of moneys to Switzerland and other foreign countries under circumstances that minimise liability for taxation;

Financial relationships between performers and Board members;

The propriety of allowing an organisation which is a beneficiary of Commonwealth funding, based on taxation, to permit possible tax avoidance; and

The reasons for the removal of successive General Managers, the terms and conditions of their employment, including prohibition of the right to discuss matters of public policy concerning the Opera.

page 2685

COAL FREIGHT RATES

Notice of Motion

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That this House-

Notes that the spot tonnage rate for sea-freight of coal from Australia to Europe has trebled to approximately $32 per tonne in the past year;

Observes that Australia is wholly dependent on foreign shipping for transport of its coal exports;

Further notes that the use of Australian crewed vessels in the coal export trade would provide cheaper, long term stable freight rates, reduce overseas payments for transport invisibles and create new jobs and career opportunities for unemployed Australians;

Recognises that several Australian companies are desirous of placing ships in the Australian coal export trade within a short period; and

5 ) Is of the opinion that in the national interest immediate steps should be taken to facilitate the expanded participation of Australian owned or controlled ships manned by Australians in the international shipping trades.

page 2685

TARCOOLA-ALICE SPRINGS RAIL LINK

Notice of Motion

Mr WALLIS:
Grey

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

That this House-

Notes the construction of the Tarcoola-Alice Springs rail line has reached the South Australian-Northern Territory border and is scheduled to reach Alice Springs by late 1980;

Recognises that this history making national project was undertaken by the last Labor Government and that the first sod in construction work was turned by Prime Minister Whitlam in April 1975;

Congratulates the Australian National Railways Commission and its employees on the rapid and efficient rate of construction of the new rail link; and

Is of the opinion that urgent consideration be given to continuing construction of the rail line beyond Alice Springs to Darwin.

page 2685

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2685

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION: ROYAL COMMISSION INTO DRUGS

Mr Lionel Bowen addressing a question to the

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I am not prepared to allow the question to proceed. It deals with a named person and is in terms which are derogatory. It is a matter, therefore, that should go on the Notice Paper.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-It is a matter of record.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I accept that it is a matter of record but that does not remove it from the categorisation which I have given; that is, that it is derogatory of the named person.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Could I make a submission to you on a point of order?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will hear the point of order.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I have referred to a court case. It is public knowledge. It could have been reported in any newspaper in Australia. To that extent I would not think that we are doing any further damage to a person by referring again to what is already known and what could have been made public in any newspaper or on television. I fail to see the distinction. This is a matter of public interest. It relates to a government department. Evidence has been given to a royal commission. I am quoting from the transcript and giving the page reference. If I may ask the question, Mr Speaker, you will see the relevance of it. It does no damage to the person concerned but is aimed directly at the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will hear the rest of the question.

Mr Lionel Bowen having completed the question;

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will adhere to the ruling I have given. I do not want to prevent a question to the Minister in relation to the Minister. That would be wrong. On the other hand, I think that the purpose of the Standing Orders is to protect an individual who does not have the opportunity in this House to protect himself.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I will not press it against the individual himself. It relates to the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

-In those circumstances I suggest that the honourable member reframe his question.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I will reframe it. I refer to the request -

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable gentleman to resume his seat. I will call him again after he has reframed the question.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I can reframe it now.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will hear the honourable gentleman.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I refer to the request from Mr Hampson, counsel assisting the Royal Commission into Drugs, to the Minister and his Department for a submission that would enable the Commission to establish the ‘efficiency and effectiveness’ of the Narcotics Bureau. I also refer the Minister to pages 16086 to 16088 of the Commission’s transcript of evidence on 19 September 1978 in which both the Commissioner and counsel assisting the Commissioner expressed dissatisfaction with evidence given by his Department. I also refer to a document submitted by his Department entitled ‘Drug Seizures and Prosecutions- Australian Narcotics Bureau’. Does the Minister agree that the evidence given and the document submitted amounted to a misleading of the Royal Commission? Was he aware of that deception? Was he aware that his permanent head had sought deliberately to mislead the Royal Commission as stated by Mr Hampson? If so, what did he do to correct the situation?

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

– I must say at once that I do not believe that the permanent head of my Department would deliberately seek to deceive the Royal Commission or deliberately seek to misrepresent facts to me. Secondly, it is important to place on the record that both at the beginning of the Royal Commission and on several occasions during the period of the Royal Commission I did impress upon the permanent head of my Department the fact that there was to be close co-operation with the Royal Commission and that we were to provide whatever information, orally or in writing, was requested. In short, the clear instruction from me to my Department was that there was to be full co-operation with the Royal Commission.

page 2686

QUESTION

TULLAMAKINE AIRPORT

Mr SHIPTON:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA

-I ask the Minister for Transport a question about Melbourne’s splendid but under-utilised international airport at Tullamarine. The Minister is doubtless aware that the international usage of Tullamarine, as measured by aircraft movements, is less than half that of Sydney. In view of the peaking of flights into Sydney in the early morning immediately after the curfew is lifted at that airport, will he continue to press his Department to encourage airlines to schedule more of their flights into Melbourne as the first port of entry into Australia? Additionally, can he assure me -

Mr Morris:

– Why do you hate Brisbane?

Mr SHIPTON:

-I will invite the honourable member to Melbourne any time he would like to come and I am sure that the honourable member for Melbourne would invite him also. Additionally, can the Minister assure me that any international airline that wishes to fly to Melbourne can do so?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the Minister for Transport to present an objective view.

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

– It will be a quite objective view, Mr Speaker. I am able to confirm that the number of international flights into Sydney is much greater than the number into Melbourne. That is something I have never understood, having regard to the beauty of both places. The last weekly figures I have seen show that there were 180 international flights into Tullamarine. That compares rather unfavourably with the total of 363 flights into Sydney. The Treasurer has suggested that market forces ought to be allowed to operate in these matters. I can tell the honourable member quite seriously that recently the Department wrote to all international airlines encouraging them to use Tullamarine. There has been quite a response to that over a period. That is why there has been a build-up over the last couple of years in the number of flights into Melbourne. I will certainly take notice of the honourable member’s quite responsible representations on this issue and encourage my Department to go around again.

page 2686

QUESTION

NARCOTICS BUREAU

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs a question supplementary to that asked of him by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The Minister will recall saying in his answer that he instructed the Narcotics Bureau to extend full co-operation to the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs, headed by Mr Justice Williams. Was that full co-operation extended? More specifically, did Mr Justice Williams make any complaint to the Government about difficulties in obtaining information or the forthcomingness of witnesses from the Bureau who appeared before the Royal Commission? Did he make any complaint about the compilation and presentation of evidence by Bureau witnesses before the Royal Commission? Is the Minister satisfied that those witnesses from the Bureau who appeared before the Royal Commission in all cases appeared unfettered, unrestricted and uncautioned in any way by senior officials of the Bureau?

Mr FIFE:
LP

– I repeat what I said a moment ago. I issued clear instructions that there was to be full co-operation with the Royal Commission, both in relation to the tendering of oral evidence and written evidence and in relation to any other material that might have been sought by the Royal Commissioner. I also point out to the House that some of the evidence was given in private. Obviously I am not aware and could not be aware of that evidence. Therefore, there would be no capacity to make any assessment as to whether it was considered adequate or inadequate. Obviously a lot of the information has been provided on the public record. That material is available to all honourable members, and indeed to the public. So far as the Royal Commissioner’s observations are concerned in relation to the adequacy or otherwise of the evidence, and whether he believes that the officers of the Department and the Bureau have cooperated, I suggest to the House that we should await the final report because if the judge believes that there was a lack of co-operation on the part of the Department or the Bureau I would expect that he would cover that in the report.

page 2687

QUESTION

METRIC MEASUREMENT

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Is the Minister for Administrative Services aware that his Department is in the midst of disposing of large parcels of land in my electorate, in other areas of Queensland, and possibly elsewhere in Australia, which formerly were purchased for Defence Service Homes Corporation purposes? Is the Minister aware that I wrote to the Minister for metrics drawing his attention to the fact that the land was being advertised with a metric description, yet only recently he advertised his Victorian property for sale in imperial measurements? He has since told me to take it up with the Minister for Administrative Services. Is the Minister aware that the metrics Minister used an imperial description in order that people would understand what he was selling? Will the Minister request his Department to readvertise the government land in question in imperial measurements, as did the metrics Minister, to ensure that the taxpayers obtain the greatest possible interest and financial return on the land offered.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I am not aware of all the facts- I am sure they are facts- that the honourable member for Fadden has given us. I have not had any discussions with the Minister for Science and the Environment on this matter in recent times. Mr Speaker, I have to confess to you, to the House and to the honourable member, that I am as completely confused as he is. I cannot understand why we cannot advertise in, say, acres and talk about hectares but put them in brackets. In my own State of South Australia -

Mr Lynch:

– What is the measurement for height?

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

-I do not even know the measurement for height. In my own State it is illegal, in fact, to advertise using the two different sorts of measurements. We have become accustomed to this. For example, if one wishes to obtain the services of a fireman in South Australia one has to advertise for a fire-person.

page 2687

QUESTION

NARCOTICS BUREAU

Mr ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs been drawn to that section of the report on the drug inquiry by the New South Wales Royal Commissioner, Mr Justice Woodward, which strongly criticised the Commonwealth for its lack of operation?

Government members- Oh!

Mr ARMITAGE:

– Well, it is serious. Did the Minister authorise, as the only means of evidence by the Federal Narcotics Bureau to the New South Wales Royal Commission into Drugs, written answers submitted through a Commonwealth solicitor? Did the Minister approve a policy which Mr Justice Woodward described as the Bureau ‘avoiding giving evidence’, which gravely hampered and restricted this Commission’s inquiries into heroin trafficking’? If the Minister did not authorise this policy, who did?

Mr FIFE:
LP

– It is a fact that very early in the period of both the Commonwealth and New South Wales royal commissions into drugs an arrangement was established by the two commissions, and certainly approved by this Government, for information to be passed from the Commonwealth to the State Royal Commission if information was sought. It is important to remind people, particularly honourable members opposite, that at that time the Commonwealth Government indicated that it believed there ought to be one royal commission inquiring into all drug and drug related matters throughout Australia. The Commonwealth expressed that view publicly and also in correspondence with the Premiers. The Commonwealth sought a situation in which there would be one royal commission and one royal commissioner looking into all these matters right across Australia.

We sought a situation whereby that commissioner would have a commission from the Commonwealth and also a commission from each of the State governments. Four State governments agreed to provide a commission.

Those States were Queensland, Victoria, Western Australia and Tasmania. New South Wales decided to set up its own royal commission and, of course, South Australia had a royal commission running at that time in relation to certain aspects of the drug problem. Because the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs had been established, the Commonwealth believed that the method referred to by the honourable member for Chifley was the best way to provide information to the State Royal Commission.

page 2688

QUESTION

PERMISSIBLE LEAD LEVELS

Mr Ian Robinson:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP

-I ask the Minister for Health a question which refers to lead levels. Did he indicate recently that towards the end of October he expected to receive advice from the National Health and Medical Research Council on this important topic of lead levels and its relationship to health? Has the Minister received such information and is he in a position to inform the House on this matter?

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

– I have received a statement from the National Health and Medical Research Council regarding the report to which the honourable member for Cowper has referred. It indicates that the total intake of lead, whether derived from water, air, food or other ingested substances, remains of concern. It also indicates that further efforts to effect overall reductions are required. The Council recommends that 30 micrograms of lead per 100 millilitres of blood in the Australian population be taken to represent a level of concern. A geometric mean level of 15 micrograms of lead per 100 millilitres of blood would ensure that the majority of the population at risk would not exceed this level. The Council accepts that 20 per cent of the total body lead burden could be contributed by lead in air, particularly in areas subject to heavy pollution. Consequently, of the geometric mean level of 15 micrograms of lead per 100 millilitres of blood, up to three micrograms of lead per 100 millilitres of blood could be attributed to lead derived from the air.

Mr Baume:

– What is it in real measurements?

Mr HUNT:

– I concede that this sounds rather complicated but this is how the report has come to me. To ensure that the uptake of” lead from air is not excessive, the Council recommends that the maximum permissible level of lead in air in the urban environment should be 1.5 micrograms of lead per cubic metre of air, averaged over three calendar month periods. I intend to place a copy of the report in the Parliamentary Library. The NHMRC has indicated goals, not standards, and the goals will be subject to further review in the light of other material that could come to hand. The Government will be studying the implications of this report presently in regard to its energy policy.

page 2688

QUESTION

ILLEGAL IMPORTATION OF DRUGS

Dr CASS:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

-Has the attention of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs been drawn to the finding of Mr Justice Woodward in his report to the New South Wales Government that the Bureau of Customs has intercepted ‘probably less than 10 per cent’ of the heroin illegally imported into Australia each year? Is he also aware that Mr Justice Woodward referred to what he calls the ‘relative ease’- those are the Judge’s words- of importing heroin into this country? Is he aware that Mr Justice Woodward said that new Federal Government checks were unlikely to affect significantly the flow of heroin into Australia? In the light of these findings, does the Minister still insist, as he told the House last night, that the Federal Narcotics Bureau ‘is an organisation which has achieved considerable success over the years ‘?

Mr FIFE:
LP

-The New South Wales Royal Commissioner’s report has only just been tabled in the New South Wales Parliament and I have not yet had an opportunity to study it. However, my attention has been drawn to certain published statements purporting to come from that report. The Commonwealth has obtained, or is in the process of obtaining, copies of the New South Wales Royal Commissioner’s report. I give the House an undertaking that that report will be very carefully studied. It will be carefully studied in every respect but, in particular, it will be studied in relation to any reference that is made to a Commonwealth area of responsibility. If the New South Wales Royal Commissioner has been critical of some aspect of Commonwealth administration or if he suggests remedial action in relation to Commonwealth administration or involvement, those suggestions or assertions will be very carefully considered. Like the Premier of New South Wales, we will not be rushing into immediate decisions in relation to the contents of the New South Wales Royal Commissioner’s report.

The decision announced last night by the Deputy Prime Minister indicates this Government’s desire to react quickly and to make changes in accordance with the recommendations of the Commonwealth Royal Commission. It is obvious, of course- I said this last night and I repeat it now- that the Commonwealth established the Royal Commission to inquire into all aspects of drug trafficking and drug-related matters because it was concerned about the position that had developed and it was concerned to take whatever action was necessary to improve the position. I also repeat something I said yesterday in relation to the interim report. Because time was moving on and because of the growing criticism that was being levelled at the Narcotics Bureau, the Government felt that it needed to review the lines of communication between the Government and the Bureau and the Bureau’s responsibility. Because the Royal Commission had been in operation for so long and because the Bureau’s operations and responsibilities were within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission, the Government believed that it should not take any action without having the advice of the Royal Commissioner. It was for that reason that the Government sought an interim report. The Royal Commissioner obliged and provided that interim report. That report has been received and acted upon promptly by the Government.

page 2689

QUESTION

TRADE WITH UNITED KINGDOM

Mr YATES:
HOLT, VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Treasurer. Despite the United Kingdom’s joining the European Economic Community, is the Treasurer aware that the United Kingdom has now decided to abandon exchange control and other matters which will affect trade between Australia and the United Kingdom? Will the changes be of any advantage to Australia in view of the balance of payments position? As there is a sort of chop war going on at present over lamb chops, will the Australian Government and the Australian farmers help the United Kingdom in the lamb chop war with the French?

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

– My attention has, of course, been drawn to the decision of the United Kingdom Government, announced about two weeks ago, to abolish all exchange controls operating in respect of the outflow or inflow of funds out of or into the United Kingdom. I regard that decision by the British Government as a very bold and courageous break with regulation. I think it highlights the need for any government periodically to ask itself whether regulations introduced decades ago are any longer serving the purpose for which they were originally introduced. I say to the honourable gentleman and to the House that that is one of the driving forces behind the Government’s decision to establish an inquiry into the Australian financial system. We have not looked in earnest at our system for the past 40 years. The time has long since come for that to occur.

Specifically the honourable gentleman wants to know whether that decision will be of any help to Australia. Australia has always been, as he would know, a favoured place for British investment. I would think that there is a strong possibility that the decision will result in an increase in portfolio investment in Australia by the United Kingdom. Just how much investment will result I find impossible to quantify in any way. I believe that the consequences of the decision will be beneficial not only in relation to the United Kingdom economy but also, more particularly, in relation to the level of British investment in Australia.

In regard to the chop war, which I gather is a reference to the apparent breach of the covenants of the European Economic Community by France in relation to exports of United Kingdom lamb, and which relates in some way to the unwillingness of the French Government to acknowledge the arrangements the Community has made regarding New Zealand lamb, ministerially I had better stay out of that war. I will refer the honourable gentleman’s question to my colleague, the Minister for Special Trade Representations, who knows some of the ins and outs of chop wars in Europe.

page 2689

QUESTION

NARCOTICS BUREAU

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I ask the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs whether the Bureau of Customs, in its submission in November 1977 to the Williams Royal Commission, acknowledged a staff turnover of almost 25 per cent in the Narcotics Bureau. Did the interim report tabled in Parliament yesterday indicate that more than 50 per cent of police officers recruited by the Bureau had resigned since 1970? Did the head of his Department, Mr Besley, tell the Royal Commission that he was unsure whether any investigation had been made of the high staff turnover within the Bureau? When did the Minister become aware of this staff loss and what did he do to correct it, in view of the clear warning it gave of poor morale and administrative inefficiency within the Bureau?

Mr FIFE:
LP

– A great deal of the information contained in the honourable member’s question is, of course, on the public record. One would need the papers concerned to be able to confirm the accuracy of his remarks, but I accept that the information that the honourable member has supplied is accurate for purposes of the question. Let me say again to you, Mr Speaker, and to the House that the Government was aware of the need for changes and upgrading generally in law enforcement. At the beginning of 1978, soon after the Royal Commission was established, I announced on behalf of the Government a series of new initiatives that would be taken. I emphasised at the time that those new initiatives were not to be seen as the Government’s final answer to the needs in this area. We said that maybe changes would need to follow the close and detailed investigation by the Royal Commissioner. I regard the transferring of the responsibilities of the Narcotics Bureau from the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs to the Federal Police as being a major change. For that reason that kind of decision, if it was to be taken, should properly await a full examination of all that was involved in the Royal Commission.

In regard to staffing, I was aware of the problems in the Bureau, particularly in relation to numbers. I remind the House that the Bureau was formed in 1969. It was a new initiative by the then Government to come to grips with the problems of the day. The Bureau has been developed over a period under successive governments. When I became the Minister responsible the number of staff was around ISO; it might have been 154 or 155, but it was around 150. Notwithstanding the staff ceilings that are in effect throughout the Public Service generally, I sought the approval of the Government to increase substantially, in terms of relative numbers, the staff within the Narcotics Bureau. The staff was increased by approximately 50 to try to overcome in some measure the staff problems that were being experienced. I repeat what I said earlier: We believe that any major reorganisation of the Commonwealth’s efforts in drug law enforcement had to await the outcome of the Royal Commission.

page 2690

QUESTION

COAL

Mr BRAITHWAITE:
DAWSON, QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for Trade and Resources aware of the symposium on world coal prospects held in Poland last month by the United Nations? Can he tell the House what future that symposium has opened up for Australia’s steaming coal industry?

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

– Because of the growing world concern about energy supply, the United Nations held a special symposium last month in Poland, where some 360 delegates from 45 countries around the world, including Australia, presented papers. Most of the conference ‘s attention centred on steaming coal. Some staggering figures came out of this conference. People at the conference talked about a renaissance for steaming coal, about a new demand being created because of oil prices and the uncertainty of supply. They spoke in terms of the demands of countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development increasing from 519 million tonnes in 1976 to a potential of 1,400 million tonnes or more by the year 2000. This sort of increase is very much in Une with the International Energy Agency figures which projected that Australia would increase its steaming coal exports from virtually nil at the moment to about 120 million tonnes by the year 2000. I believe that if we can respond to the situation by developing mines and the necessary infrastructure to be able to handle such large tonnages, those figures could be conservative.

Enormous interest is being shown by countries all around the world in developing Australia’s steaming coal resources. For this development to take place a number of things will have to happen. Firstly, I believe the price will have to be at a higher level than exists at the moment. Mines cannot be developed at present prices because there is not sufficient attraction in the returns to miners for them to put in the massive capital that is necessary to undertake this development. However, I believe that the international price situation will respond. It will be necessary also to have very close co-operation between the Commonwealth and the States in looking at how we are to meet the requirements for railroads, port handling facilities and ports to handle these very large tonnages. I re-emphasise that the world is looking a second time at steaming coal as being a major source of energy for power generation and for many other industrial purposes.

page 2690

QUESTION

NARCOTICS BUREAU

Mr WALLIS:

-When did the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs first become aware of the letter dated 23 June 1978 from Mr C. E. K. Hampson, counsel assisting the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs, to Mr M. A. Besley, the Secretary to his Department? Did the Minister discuss this letter before Mr Besley gave evidence before the Commission on 19 and 20 September 1978? Did he discuss with Mr Besley the evidence which Mr Besley might give to the Commission? Did he approve of the strong defence by Mr Besley of the Narcotics Bureau in his evidence to the Commission?

Mr FIFE:
LP

– For the information of the honourable member for Grey and other honourable members, I repeat what I said last evening in relation to this matter. I indicated in my statement yesterday that the letter referred to was brought to my attention. I also saw the departmental submission which was provided to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs in response to the letter before the submission was presented in evidence to the Commission by the Secretary of my Department. The Secretary of the Department had provided a brief to me outlining the action which the Department had taken and which it proposed to take concerning the matters raised by the Royal Commission,

Bearing in mind that Mr Hampson ‘s letter contained generalised statements about the Narcotics Bureau and did not refer to any specific evidence or the source of such evidence that the Commission may have received, the departmental submission endeavoured to answer the assertions made by the Royal Commission. One would presume, of course, that the role of the Royal Commission was to assess the departmental evidence against evidence that it received from other sources. I have no doubt that it did that. The Royal Commission’s considered opinion on this issue was made available to the Government in its interim report. The departmental submission is, of course, a public document. So all that information is available to the honourable member for Grey and, indeed, to other honourable members.

page 2691

QUESTION

SUGAR EXPORTS

Mr DEAN:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Special Trade Representations. I refer to the report of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade sugar panel, set up at the request of Australia, which was presented to the GATT Council last night in Geneva. Can the Minister advise what conclusions were reached to investigate European Economic Community sugar export practices?

Mr GARLAND:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Resources · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The European Economic Community has a system of greatly subsidising the exports of a number of products which affects the markets of many countries. This practice is of most concern to Australia in respect of dairying and sugar. As honourable members know, the EEC declined to join the International Sugar Agreement although there is some evidence that the United States of America may shortly do so in spite of the failure of a Bill to pass through Congress the other day. The Australian Government decided to set in motion a challenge to the Community’s practices in the selling of sugar and its subsidising of such sales, commencing with the request for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in Geneva to set up a sugar panel. The report of that panel was received by the GATT Council last night Australian time without dissent. In fact, many countries participating in the debate spoke against the EEC’s trading practices in respect of sugar and, for that matter, in respect of other commodities.

The report made three points which I think are of interest. It first of all said that serious prejudice had been caused to Australia, that if the EEC’s export subsidy system as it is presently operated continued it would ultimately result in its getting more than an equitable share of world trade and that it already constituted a source of uncertainty in world sugar markets and was a threat of prejudice in terms of GATT Article 16. The Government believes that this is a very serious matter for us and for world trade. It is a matter that needs constant exposure.

There is a number of other avenues where the Government can press the EEC to adjust its sugar policies in order to remove prejudice to Australia and to other efficient exporting countries.

page 2691

QUESTION

NARCOTICS BUREAU

Dr BLEWETT:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I refer the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs to the letter written by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs to the head of his Department, Mr M. A. Besley, on 23 June 1978, which letter has already been referred to. Did the letter say that there was a narrow career structure in the Narcotics Bureau, that Bureau officers were insufficiently experienced, that there was too little regional autonomy, that there were avoidable man management problems, that Sydney Harbour was wide open to drug importation and that problems posed by containers had not been faced up to? Why was it that six months later Mr Besley, under cross-examination before the Royal Commission, indicated that nothing had been done in these matters? Why did the Minister fail to act 1 8 months ago?

Mr FIFE:
LP

– Members of the Opposition have a copy of that confidential letter. I referred to it and to the matters raised by the honourable member for Bonython in the House last night. I also, of course, made reference to that letter in answer to a question from the honourable member for Grey. Let me say to this House in general terms that I understand the Opposition’s concern in relation to these drug and drugrelated matters. I am sure that every honourable member is concerned. I go further than that; I am confident that every responsible Australian is extremely concerned about this whole matter. If the Leader of the Opposition and members of the Opposition are seeking to establish that there has been some negligence on the part of the

Government, and on my part in particular, let me remind the House of a few dates because I think they are significant. I was appointed to this post in July of 1977. It was some two or three days after Don Mackay disappeared in Griffith. If members of this House or members of the public needed to be prompted to be concerned about this particular problem and to take some action, that prompting would have occurred at that time.

Within a very short period- indeed, on 19 August 1977- the Prime Minister wrote to the Premiers of the States indicating that the Commonwealth intended to move to establish a royal commission. As I said earlier, he invited the States to provide the Commonwealth Royal Commissioner with a commission so that there would be one royal commission operating throughout Australia backed by all of the governments. The decision taken by New South Wales and South Australia not to provide a commission to the Commonwealth Royal Commissioner was a matter for those governments. I regret it very much but I level no criticism at them for doing that. They are sovereign governments and they took that decision. I still think it is a matter for regret.

Mr Armitage:

– You refused to co-operate.

Mr FIFE:

– Contrary to what is suggested by the honourable member for Chifley, there was no refusal on the part of the Commonwealth to co-operate with the New South Wales Royal Commission. What happened was that we, as a government, through the Commonwealth Royal Commissioner, put in place an arrangement which we considered to be appropriate and which the Comonwealth Royal Commissioner considered to be appropriate.

page 2692

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN DAIRY CORPORATION: CHAIRMAN

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware that the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation has written to members of Parliament seeking to have Mr A. A. S. Webster reappointed as Chairman of the Australian Dairy Corporation? Can the Minister indicate what action is being taken by the Government on this matter?

Mr NIXON:
NCP/NP

– The situation in respect of Mr Webster as Chairman of the Australian Dairy Corporation is as follows: Mr Webster wrote to my predecessor, the right honourable member for New England, informing him that he proposed to resign and that he wanted that resignation to take effect from 31 December 1979.

That letter of resignation was accepted and Mr Webster subsequently issued a Press release stating why he had chosen to resign. That being the case, the Department of Primary Industry is presently preparing a list of names for me to consider for the position of Chairman of the Dairy Corporation. If it is Mr Webster’s wish to return to that position his name could, of course, be included on that list.

page 2692

MINISTER FOR BUSINESS AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

- Mr Speaker, I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving:

That this House censures the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs for his inept handling of federal narcotics administration.

It is necessary to move this procedural motion because only by having a substantive motion before the House will the House be able to debate this matter effectively. It is quite clear that the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife), in answer to a series of questions this afternoon, sought to erect a veil of vagueness and deception before the House. I can assert with confidence that the Minister’s answers -

Mr Fife:

- Mr Speaker, I indicate to the Leader of the Opposition that so far as the Government is concerned we are prepared to proceed with that proposal forthwith.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition should seek leave to propose a motion.

Mr Hayden:

– I seek leave to propose a motion.

Leave granted.

Censure Motion

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– I move:

That this House censures the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs for his inept handling of federal narcotics administration.

The interim report of the Williams Royal Commission into drug trafficking in this country is a catalogue of failure of unparalleled dimensions in relation to law enforcement and a law enforcement agency in this country. More than that, it is a devastating indictment of the incompetence of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. Let me repeat what I said earlier. The Minister today at Question Time, in a series of answers which he supplied in response to questions directed to him from this side, sought to erect a veil of vagueness and deception in this House.

Having had the opportunity to consider not only the interim report but also the attachments to that report which have not been made public, because I am limited by the restraints of confidentiality imposed by the Government I can say only that I felt distinctly uncomfortable with the nature and quality of the Minister’s answers. They were in an enfeebled state. They will not stand up on the full facts of the circumstances as known to the Minister and the Government now. The House will be aware of that when those facts are made public.

The Minister has to accept ministerial responsibility in this matter. The fact is that the Narcotics Bureau has been stigmatised by a royal commission established by the Government as, I repeat, an unparalleled failure as a law enforcement agency in this country. Accordingly, that report becomes a devastating indictment of the Minister’s administration of the Bureau. The Bureau does not have the independence, standing or authority at law or in common practice of a police force. It is a part of the Public Service. It is a part of the Minister’s responsibility. His responsibility sinks down to the lowest grades within his Department for any shortcomings or defects of a nature which concern the community as extensively and greatly as do the shortcomings of the Bureau. He is responsible. The Minister knew as early as June 1978 that there were serious shortcomings in the way in which the Bureau was functioning. Mr Hampson wrote to the head of his department in these terms:

Apart altogether from what has been properly said about the inadequate surveillance of the north of Australia, Sydney Harbour would appear to provide an obvious but not unique case where surveillance is also defective.

There is reason also for thinking that containers present opportunities for the illicit entry of goods, the problems of which have not yet been faced up to, much less grappled with.

Last night the Minister, among a number of matters to which he addressed himself in this House, sought to respond to those remarks. He said that Mr Besley in his rebuttal of that view by Mr Hampson said:

We do not have available to us a clear indication of the strength or source of the issues raised, which the submission attempts to answer. This has not made our task easy.

That is not the response to the remarks by Mr Hampson which I quoted yesterday and which I have just repeated. It is not the response of an honest man. It is not the response of a responsible Minister seeking to fulfil his accountability to the Parliament. In response the Minister should have quoted directly from the transcript of evidence from Mr Besley to the Royal Commission six months after he had received a letter from Mr Hampson in a period during which, presumably, there was no action by the Bureau or the responsible Minister- more appropriately, the irresponsible Minister. Mr Besley said this:

The Commission has commented that Sydney Harbour appears to provide an obvious but not unique case where surveillance is defective and that containers present opportunities for the illicit entry of goods.

The comments are applicable equally to other parts of the coast, such as the Whitsunday Passage, Moreton Bay and Port Phillip and to other classes of imported goods such as bulk timber cargoes, air cargoes and the generality of sea cargo.

The devastating significance of those remarks is that in his defence Mr Besley did not seek to repudiate the challenge of Mr Hampson. The implication is that he said: ‘So what? It is true of many other parts of Australia’. Six months later nothing had been done. Eighteen months after the letter from Mr Hampson we find, from the Minister’s answer to the House today, that apparently no attempt has been made to shore up this serious shortcoming in the anti-narcotics law enforcement operation in this country at the federal level. The Minister knew as far back as 23 June 1 978 of those shortcomings.

Let me move on to another matter where the Minister is responsible, or should I say ‘irresponsible’. It is one of the matters of even more grave concern. It arises from a question which was asked in the House on 6 June 1979 by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding). I shall condense it to the essential parts of the question and answer. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports asked:

When did the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs first raise with the Federal Narcotics Bureau the question of the serious allegations contained in an article in the Melbourne Sun News-Pictorial of 28 May?

The Minister replied:

I repeat that these serious allegations first came to my notice early in the morning of last Monday week when a reporter from the Melbourne Herald telephoned me at my hotel . . .

The Minister went on to say that the reporter had asked certain questions. That is the record; that is correct. But this is the significance of it on two alarming scores: First of all, on the basis of the chronology established from that answer one can next establish that the Minister knew on the Monday night he referred to, which was the Monday night before the Wednesday on which legislation proposing an extension of telephone tapping authority to the Narcotics Bureau was guillotined through this Parliament- guillotined by the Minister because at that stage the Parliament did not understand the implications or, indeed, the detail of this disclosure. The Minister sought to embark on a cover-up of a very serious dereliction of the responsibility and adequacy of operation of the Narcotics Bureau. That is the first thing. The second thing in relation to that is that he is guilty therefore of complicity in this serious matter.

The second point on this matter arises in this way: The Minister rushed that legislation through, guillotined it in the House, because he knew full well that there were serious allegations from State police forces that his Department had been penetrated to the extent that information within the Department on a number of things, including informants, was being leaked to criminal drug offenders. The Minister effectively embarked on a cover-up instead of undertaking a process designed to shore up this shortcoming and to advise the Parliament of what had happened. So what! It means that any informer available to the Bureau at that time, well before it- that is established- and it seems since, was placed in jeopardy. His life and wellbeing were at serious risk because the Bureau had been penetrated by a criminal organisation in this country which was able to obtain information. The price of that is measured in murders- the murders of a number of the people who were couriers or who were in some way associated with illicit drug operations in this country, people like the Wilsons. That is the sort of cover-up that the Minister embarked on and that is the sort of gross irresponsibility for which the Narcotics Bureau is responsible. I repeat that the Minister, instead of seeking urgently to shore up this shortcoming and deferring the legislation, rushed it through, opened up another access point to the Bureau so that even further information available to the Bureau presumably became available to the infiltrators from organised drug crime in this country.

The illicit narcotics industry in this country is an illicit industry of death. It is an industry of destruction to the mind, body and soul. Yet we have been told repeatedly in this Parliament, we have been reassured by the soothing words of the Minister, that the people of Australia can sleep easily at night because they have the protection of a faithful and effective watchdog- the Narcotics Bureau. It is a watchdog with a peculiar form of night blindness. I put it squarely to the Minister- he must have known this if he was discharging his responsibilities properly- that in fact the Bureau made very few seizures of large quantities of drugs, that in fact the Bureau was largely responsible for very small-scale operations, one presumes operations which involved addicts rather than organised crime.

I challenge the Minister to table in this Parliament statistics on seizures so that we will know the number of seizures within each quantity designation of hard drugs. I ask the Minister to indicate to us how many seizures were made for the latest year available of hard drugs, such as heroin, in excess of a kilogram. The Minister, of course, sought again in Question Time today to reassure us that the Bureau was a successful organisation and that it operated effectively. Nonsense! The organisation took the easy way out all the time and scarcely put a scratch on really organised drug crime in this country.

Let me go on. The Minister spoke in the House today, as he did last night, about co-operation and co-ordination. Last night he said that the committee he had set up has, as one of its tasks, to improve the co-ordination at operational law enforcement level and between States. He said that it has been successful to this end. That is just not true. That has been made abundantly clear by Mr Justice Williams, as it has been made abundantly clear by Mr Justice Woodward today, not only in terms of Mr Justice Woodward’s condemnation of the failure to extend co-operation to his inquiry but also his assertion that he had established on the evidence available to him, the hard facts presented, that there was an absence of co-operation between the federal authority and State law enforcement authorities.

The Minister said last night, to reassure us, that often there have been successful conspiracy prosecutions in respect of which there have been absolutely no seizures at all of drugs. I challenge the Minister to produce hard evidence on that. If the Minister wants to stand by that, I challenge him to table all of the documentation that is attached to Mr Justice Williams’s report. The Minister knows as well as I do that that is deceiving the House, that that is misleading the House. I repeat that I find myself placed in a very uncomfortable position if I am to be provided with confidential documents and then have to sit down and bite my fingers and listen to the Minister providing answers to questions and informing the House on matters allegedly of substance which I do not believe can stand up. These are some of the matters that the Minister must be made accountable for. He shares the obsessive defensiveness of the Bureau. He is bitten by the same bug when criticism comes his way. Last night he said:

I must say that officers of the Narcotics Bureau and my Department have been subjected to an almost unprecedented constant attack through the media. Allegations of corruption, leaked documents and personal attacks have been paramount.

And why not? On the basis of the Williams report, every one of them is justified. What has happened is that a multi-million dollar organised drug crime syndicate in Australia is better equipped and financed than is the Bureau. In the 1977 work value hearing at which employees of the Bureau gave evidence it was divulged that there were full time cover agents or groups only in Sydney and Melbourne. Presumably one had to undertake a logistics operation to move full time cover operatives to other parts of Australia with all of the problems that involved, not the least of which were inhibiting, suffocating Public Service restraints. For instance, agents are restricted as to where they can operate. They cannot go across regional boundaries to function in another area without Public Service approval. One presumes that if a person can get across the regional boundary he can get away scot free if he is quick enough of foot. The members of the Bureau had problems about overtime and travelling allowance.

Let me quote the situation in relation to some of these matters- for instance, training. The Minister responsible for all of these matters has done nothing to shore them up. He was advised of them 18 months ago. Six months after that the head of his Department was giving misleading evidence, stigmatised as such by the counsel assisting the Royal Commission. Still nothing was done and still there was no explanation to the House either yesterday or today as to what might have been done. The Minister’s indifference is chilling. It will fill any reasonable, concerned parent in this country with fear- fear to know that this irresponsible man has been administering one of the most significant, one of the most important, law enforcement authorities in the country.

As to the training for which the Minister is responsible, this illustrates the standard of the agency which was operating: One officer who was with the Bureau almost from its inceptionhe joined in March 1970- told a work value hearing that he had attended only one investigatory course in seven years. He admitted he was virtually one of the original members of the Bureau. The course was conducted by the Bureau itself. He thought that notes were distributed to him. The notes were never reissued in a handbook or manual. He attended the course in 1 974. Another course of two weeks duration was held in 1976. He said: ‘This program was more an indepth look at law and crime scene investigation and things like that’. The officer- one of the founding fathers, a Mr Polden- admitted he did not attend this course and did not have any notes from the course. He did not receive any notes from the course, nor did he have a copy of the basic handbook. In fact the policy manualsigned by Mr Bates, the Director- had no date anywhere on it. In fact, it was entitled ‘Australian Police, Narcotics Bureau’. Because of Senate obstruction from the conservative majority of the coalition when Labor was in Government, that body never came into operation, but if it had it would have fulfilled the recommendations as early as 1975 of the Williams report. The Narcotics witness added:

With your permission I might be able to assist you here. We had an original policy drawn up at the initial starting of the Narcotics Bureau back in 1970. This policy manual became- with many revised editions to it- unreal.

That is the condition of training. That is the standard of investigatory skills which are imparted to the people within the Narcotics Bureau. Regrettably, I do not have time to read the several more pages of devastating disclosures of shortcomings in the functioning of the Narcotics Bureau under this Minister. What it boils down to is that the preoccupation of the Prime Minister with law and order and security is unmasked for all its amateurishness by the Williams report. The fact is that the drug industry deals in death. Yesterday the New South Wales Royal Commission into drugs pointed out that heroin was about to flood into Sydney. The Sydney Morning Herald reported yesterday that heroin use had increased by 24 per cent in two years in New South Wales, that the danger of exposure to overdosing had gone up from 7,000 to 9,250 between 1977 and 1978 and that there are 26,300 hard-drug users in the country. The significance of that is that heroin is imported to this country. This Minister and his Department are responsible for effective law enforcement functioning in this area. But how effective are they? The fact is that Mr Justice Woodward is reported in the Royal Commission report as finding:

Illegal importation of heroin required ‘no special intelligence or ingenuity’ and the Bureau of Customs intercepted probably less than 10 per cent of the heroin imported.

New measures to make saturation checks of selected aircraft and to continue random checks were not likely to reduce the supply of heroin to the illegal market.

In the considered judgment of Mr Justice Woodward, the Narcotics Bureau did not measure up to the task. On the figures he produced the Narcotics Bureau was not notably successful in controlling the flood of hard narcotics into this country. So much for the past claims of the Minister. Those claims are empty shells, they are hot air and are nothing more than myths which have been fabricated to delude the public and the Parliament The absence of cooperation was damned today. As a result of Mr Justice Woodward’s criticism of the lack of cooperation by the Government, by its agency, with the Royal Commission, he said:

But I did receive first-hand experience of the unfortunate effects of a total failure of inter-agency co-operation.

So much for the interstate co-operation that is supposed to take place. The Minister seeks to defend himself. He says that he took a number of initiatives to get things going on a more stable and more substantial keel. Last night, and again today, he said:

Later in January 1 978 -

I am quoting from what he said last night-

I announced certain initiatives which the Government had decided were immediately necessary to counter drug trafficking pending the outcome of the Royal Commission. Briefly, these were to upgrade the strength and status of the Narcotics Bureau, to acquire highly sophisticated equipment . . .

I think he has a cheek to come into the Parliament and say that, because Mr Justice Williams said this:

The Narcotics Bureau claims that the simple remedy for any deficiencies it may have is to increase its staff, powers and resources. The Commission rejects this cure which in its opinion would compound the problem, not solve it.

In spite of that he is coming into this House with disproven propositions, seeking to deceive and mislead us again. Last night the Minister sought to belittle my criticism, based on Mr Justice Williams’ report, that the Federal Narcotics Bureau acted with obsessive secrecy. The Minister claimed that of course it did, because the Bureau operated in a business which required secrecy. Yet the Minister well knows the sort of secrecy of which I was critical, and it is well documented in Mr Justice Williams’ report. I quote further from the report. Mr Justice Williams said:

The Narcotics Bureau has traded on a flattering media image but has maintained great secrecy on matters which might conceivably tarnish that image.

There are many more devastating comments to be made about this Minister. He should be cited by the House for his incompetence in the administration of his Department in this most important section of all his responsibilities.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– I second this motion of censure. I do not enter the debate with any relish, but as the shadow Minister responsible in this area I want to put it on record that I have bent over backwards to co-operate in this very sensitive sector. While I continue to have any responsibility for policy formulation in this area I shall continue to work for bipartisanship, for co-operation between the political parties, in order to fight a common foe, namely, those enemies of our society who peddle drugs to the weak, making huge profits on the way. That having been said, there is no excuse for mistakes on the part of those who are in positions of responsibility. In fact, the responsibility is so great that the Opposition would be failing in its duty if it did not highlight the shocking errors of judgment which have damaged an important area of social concern. In this competitive Westminster system of Government in which we operate we have a duty to draw attention to the errors to ensure to the greatest extent that we possibly can that those errors are not repeated.

One of the cornerstones of this system that we operate is ministerial responsibility. How can there be proper accountability to the people through this Parliament unless this doctrine of ministerial responsibility prevails? This Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) is responsible for grave weaknesses of administration and, therefore, he must be censured. If anything other than the crude numbers game were played he would be censured, but the message of this debate is that whatever the result in terms of votes he will be censured for the grave weaknesses of the administration over which he has presided.

Let me outline some of the reasons why this censure motion is so justified. I will not even draw attention to the reasons that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) has mentioned. There is a whole new set of reasons which I can outline. For instance, on 5 June- five months ago- the Opposition moved a motion in this House to discuss a matter of public importance on this very subject. That subject was the Fraser Government’s incompetent handling of the Federal Narcotics Bureau. In fact I moved that particular motion. This should have been a warning to the Government, if there had been no other warning. But of course there had been other warnings, and I will come to that in a moment. If there had been no other warning, that matter of public importance which was moved in this House on S June should have been a sufficient warning to this Minister and to the Government to clear up this area of slack administration.

The debate on 5 June arose out of what I have described as the Eric Robinson-type resignation of the Commissioner of the Federal Narcotics Bureau. One day he was out, resigning, and next day- or was it the day after- he was in again, kissing and making up.

Mr James:

– Forgiven.

Mr HURFORD:

– Yes, forgiven. That was the sort of thing that happened which gave rise to that debate on a matter of public importance. The episode was a bizarre one, to say the least. That episode has been repeated, and I suppose it will be repeated again. On that occasion the Opposition sought to persuade the Government to change its course. I quote my very words from page 2902 of Hansard of 5 June:

The Opposition raises this subject in sorrow but it is its duty to seek to persuade the Government to change its course because its present direction is an exceedingly dangerous one.

I was referring to the administration of the Federal Narcotics Bureau. What clearer message could there be? We wanted change. We do not live in a vacuum, even though a cloud of secrecy surrounds the work of such a law enforcement sector as the Federal Narcotics Bureau. Although I have received no confidential briefings on the subject generally, sufficient information was available to me and to other members of the Opposition to make us extremely uneasy and to move for the discussion of that matter of public importance. In that debate there was firstly reference to the law enforcement agency being penetrated by the very people it was expected to police. There was the related allegation that the Bureau had been infiltrated by organised crime. By all accounts there was a suspicion that a multi-million dollar drug ring was better equipped than the nation’s Federal Narcotics Bureau.

Secondly, we raised the matter or our nation’s relationships with overseas narcotics agencies. With such grave charges on public record and with such suspicion relating to the inadequacies of the Bureau, how could the international agencies, with whom we deal in this sensitive area, have confidence in our nation’s efforts to deal with what is essentially an international evil? I am referring to drug crime. How could these international agencies be expected to have any confidence whatsoever in us when the strong suspicion was, and frankly still is, that the drug underworld had access to the secret records and files of the Federal Narcotics Bureau. All of this is information that came out in this debate in this chamber on 5 June- five months ago. We said then, and I repeat it now, that Australia may well be cut off from receiving information ordinarily supplied by overseas police forces and international drug controlled policing programs. We still have this allegation of there being access to the Narcotics Bureau computer hanging over our heads. The access enabled- it may still do sodrug criminals to keep one step ahead of the police authority.

These were the harsh facts that the Australian Labor Party drew to the attention of this Parliament on 5 June. Those facts were not properly answered and the Government failed to face up realistically to that problem at that time. This inept Administration confirmed that it would go along for a further five months with the fiction with which it was surrounded at that time. For three and a half years before that time, nothing was done to ensure that there was proper drug administration in this country. We have suffered for a long time. Even in those last five months since that debate very little has been done.

Before moving on let me remind the House of the details of the most serious allegations which were abroad then and which have still not been properly answered. On Friday, 1 June the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs- this Minister under censure in this debate todayannounced that the New Zealand couple, Isabel and Douglas Wilson, had passed information to the Queensland Police in June 1978, a year earlier- nearly 18 months ago now- that an unnamed Narcotics Bureau officer had been involved in giving information to drug traffickers. The Minister’s response to this most serious allegation was to set up an investigation of police officers from the Commonwealth and from some State police forces. The subsequent resignation of the head of the Bureau, Mr Bates, the Minister’s frantic attempts to have Mr Bates withdraw his resignation and the touch of farce to the whole affair when Mr Bates withdrew his resignation all contribute to this being a matter of public notoriety.

Early in June the Opposition charged that the whole matter had been handled ineptly and incompetently. Five months later that charge still stands. Five months ago I substantiated the charges by giving further details, and I repeat those details here: Two people are dead. Those were and are the most recent deaths known to me.

Mr James:

– There are a lot missing.

Mr HURFORD:

– A lot are missing, as the honourable member for Hunter says. There are charges that related to the drug ring. There have been five deaths in recent years. In relation to the two deaths that I have just referred to, the belief stated in this Parliament- it is not denied by anyone as far as I am aware- is that the Victoria Police Force not only leaked the intitial disclosures to the Melbourne Sun but also claimed that the Narcotics Bureau had sat on allegations made by the Wilsons for a year without conducting proper investigations. It also charged that the Bureau’s data on the people at the top of the drug distribution tree is seriously defective. Those were charges which came out in this Parliament five months ago. What was the Government’s response to all those charges that were being made? It only set up that unsatisfactory police inquiry, which apparently is still sitting. That police inquiry includes a representative of the Victoria Police Force. In effect, we have Victorian police as prosecutors and as judge and jury on that inquiry which was set up to look at those charges at that time.

The story becomes even more bizarre when we read recent reports in a number of newspapers. I have here a quotation from the Australian of 2 October 1979 which states, in effect, that Mr Harvey Bates himself was claiming that the inquiry into the Narcotics Bureau was taking too long. What sort of Administration is it that allows the head of the Narcotics Bureau, which is supposed to be working in secrecy, even to pass comments on an inquiry which is set up to look into that same Bureau? That is the sort of sloppy administration that we are censuring in this debate today. Did not the Minister claim in the House last night that the Federal Narcotics Bureau did not like publicity? How can he reconcile that claim with the report that I have just referred to in the newspaper of 2 October? Why should the head of the Federal Narcotics Bureau be getting publicity on the matter of whether the report of the inquiry is running late?

Whilst on this subject of recent newspaper reports and just to build up this picture of inept administration, which after all has given rise to this censure debate, let me draw attention to the equally extraordinary recent story about the leaking of information- accurate information as we learnt yesterday from the statement from the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony)concerning the take-over by Compol- the Commonwealth Police-of the Federal Narcotics Bureau. I refer to the Canberra Times of 27 October and to the article headed, ‘Alleged leak to be investigated ‘. The article states:

The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, Sir Colin Woods, has launched an investigation into the alleged leak of a confidential Commonwealth Police document about the Federal Narcotics Bureau.

The article goes on to state:

Specifically, he had asked it-

That is his PII division, the police internal investigations division- to inquire into a statement by journalist Geoff Duncan on Thursday night’s ABC program ‘PM’ that he had received a report from a senior officer of the . . . Police-

It was to the effect, as Mr Duncan said:

  1. . that the report was a ‘point-by-point’ castigation of the Narcotics Bureau’s mode of operation.

Once again we get Mr Harvey Bates responding to that. The same article goes on to say:

The head of the Narcotics Bureau, Mr Harvey Bates, was quoted on last night’s ABC ‘PM’ program as rejecting the allegations, describing them as inaccurate and in many cases totally false.

Surely it is now seen that what was stated in that report is absolutely correct. Yet as recently as 27 October we have the head of the Narcotics Bureau going public on a matter like that. What sort of confidence can the people of this country have in our drug enforcement administration when this sort of thing is going on? It is not something that is years old; it has been going on in the last couple of weeks. Who is responsible? Under our system of ministerial responsibility, of course, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, who is the subject of this censure debate in the Parliament today is responsible. That is why the Opposition is being responsible and moving this censure motion. But the ramifications of these affairs extend well beyond the points I have made to date.

I have referred already to the debate five months ago, roughly at the same time as Mr Harvey Bates’ resignation. I refer now to a Bill which passed through this Parliament about that time. It extended the powers of telephone tapping to that same Federal Narcotics Bureau. At a time when we on this side of the House, with lesser information, were uneasy about such powers going to such a Bureau, how much more uneasy should this Minister have been at that time? Yet he defended it in the sort of closed circumstances of a legislation committee. He defended those extra telephone-tapping powers for the Federal Narcotics Bureau in that Customs Amendment Bill in May 1 979 at the same time as this uneasiness was being raised in this House. Not only the Minister should be censured; all Government members should be censured. I have only a few seconds left to draw attention to the fact that five years ago the then Labor Government sought to bring into this House an Australia Police Bill which would have done just what is being done now belatedlybring the Narcotics Bureau and the other police agencies under one roof.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

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

– The honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) said towards the end of his speech that the Opposition was acting responsibly in moving this censure motion. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that some time ago the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) seeking to establish a bipartisan approach to this drug matter. The Leader of the Opposition obviously had in mind that this was an important matter, a matter in the national interest, and that there ought to be a bipartisan approach. The Prime Minister responded and accepted the proposition brought forward by the Leader of the Opposition. The Opposition’s handling of the Commonwealth Royal Commission’s interim report represents, in my view, an abuse by the Leader of the Opposition and the members of his Party of this bipartisan approach. The Leader of the Opposition-

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr FIFE:

– I shall be brief on this point because I just need to make it once. The Leader of the Opposition simply seeks to make political capital out of the Government’s responsible action over this particular matter. If the Leader of the Opposition needs other words than those used by me- he has been very busy quoting from various documents, on many occasions out of context- let me quote from the interim report of the Royal Commissioner in relation to this particular approach and the damage that I believe that the Opposition is doing to law enforcement in this country as a result of the way in which it is handling this affair. The Royal Commissioner said:

Strong criticisms publicly made of the Commonwealth’s only specialised drug enforcement agency will compromise the national effort against drug abuse. In addition, many hard-working and dedicated officers of the Narcotics Bureau inevitably but incorrectly will be thought to be the subject of criticism. In fact the Commission recognises their efforts and their sincerity and sympathises with their inability to achieve more within the present structure.

In relation to the present structure I remind the House of some of the things that I said during Question Time and during my statement to the House last night. I was appointed to this portfolio on 17 July 1977. On 19 August 1977 the Prime Minister wrote to the Premiers indicating that the Commonwealth intended to establish a royal commission and inviting the Premiers of every State to provide a commission to the Commonwealth Royal Commissioner. This was a government decision; I do not claim the credit for it. But I do say in this House that I played a major role in events leading up to the decision that was taken by the Government to establish the Royal Commission. We were concerned and we are still concerned. We wanted to have the best advice that could be obtained. We believed that the best advice could be obtained through the medium of a royal commission. The terms of reference were laid down in this House by the Prime Minister on 5 October 1977. Those terms of reference are very wide. They gave the Royal Commission an opportunity to inquire into every aspect of this sinister matter. But today we are talking about the administration of the Narcotics Bureau. I draw the attention of the House to term of reference (e). In part it states that the Royal Commission should look at: the adequacy of existing laws (including the appropriateness of the penalties) and of existing law enforcement (including arrangements for co-operation between law enforcement agencies).

That is a specific reference and direction to the Royal Commission to focus on the law enforcement agencies of the Commonwealth and to recommend any changes that it thought necessary. On 24 January 1978 I indicated on behalf of the Government that, despite the fact that the Government had established the Royal Commission, we felt that we ought to take some initiatives in this particular area although obviously the major changes would have to await the outcome of the Royal Commission. In a statement that I issued on 24 January 1978 I said, in part: it can be expected that the Government will take further steps following full consideration of the findings of the Royal Commission.

However, I went on to say: it may be some time before the Commission can reasonably be expected to report, since it has only been operating for two months.

It was because of that that the Government decided to take the new initiatives that I enumerated in the House last night. Events took place over a period of time. Some have been referred to in Question Time and by the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Adelaide. Criticism built up. I, of course, was kept advised of the flow of material between the Narcotics Bureau and the Royal Commission. I did not see it all and, indeed, I was not advised about all of the oral evidence that was given because some of it was given in confidential hearings. I was not privy to that information. No doubt when the Royal Commissioner reports towards the end of the year his final report will contain all his comments and criticisms and, importantly, his recommendations. I give an assurance to the House that the Government will consider that report as expeditiously as possible and, in particular, those recommendations.

Because of the events, particularly the need to establish what has become known as the Hall inquiry and the allegation of leaks from the Bureau of Narcotics which followed the establishment of the Hall investigation team, I felt that the Government could not wait and should not wait until the Royal Commissioner reported. But I also believed that the Government would be completely irresponsible to take firm decisions, particularly major decisions, affecting the law enforcement agency of the Commonwealth so far as doing matters are concerned without knowing what the Royal Commissioner thought ought to be done and without knowing what his findings were in this regard. So it was that I discussed with the Prime Minister the possibility of the Government seeking an interim report. An interim report was sought from the Royal Commissioner. He agreed to provide an interim report dealing with the Narcotics Bureau. That report was received by the Governor-General on 18 September of this year. Seven weeks laterthere was not an inordinate delay- it had been studied by the Government, submissions had been prepared for Cabinet and Cabinet had taken the decision. That decision was announced yesterday. The Government acted decisively and the Government acted responsibly.

Much of the Opposition’s attack today and yesterday has been based on a confidential letter of 23 June from senior counsel assisting the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs, Mr Cedric Hampson. On 28 June 1978 the permanent head of my Department, Mr M. A. Besley, advised me of receipt of this letter and told me of the action that the Department proposed to take to respond to the issues which it raised. This was to be by way of a submission to the Royal Commission at its sittings scheduled for later that year. There was no criticism of the delay. The sittings were scheduled for later that year. Those sittings were, in fact, held in Brisbane in September of that year. When Mr Besley told me he had received the letter I instructed him to ensure that the Department co-operated fully with the Royal Commission in providing the information which it sought. At the time of my becoming aware of the letter it was clear to me that it contained general rather than specific assertions about the efficiency and effectiveness of the Narcotics Bureau. There was no indication of the source or credibility of the evidence which the Commission had received and which led to the letter from Mr Hampson to the permanent head of my Department.

As I mentioned in this House yesterday, Mr Besley ‘s evidence to the Commission, which was by way of response to Mr Hampson ‘s letter, pointed out the Department’s difficulty in responding to the points which it made. Nevertheless, the Department’s third submission to the Royal Commission which was made in September 1978 was as much a commentary on the points which Mr Hampson ‘s letter had raised as was possible in the circumstances. Apart from the submission itself senior officers, including the permanent head of my Department, spent several days under examination by the Royal Commission at its Brisbane sittings. During that period no effort was spared to provide the Commission with all of the information which it sought.

Perhaps it is appropriate that I comment on some of the issues that Mr Hampson ‘s letter raised. At the outset, the letter requested a considered statement by the Department. As I indicated, this in fact was done by way of the Department’s third submission of September 1978. As to the substance of Mr Hampson ‘s letter, I make the following comments. First, it raises the question of whether narcotics agents should be public servants. This, of course, is not a matter for the Department. It was by government decision that the narcotics function was in the Customs area of its administration- such decisions, I might say, go back to Federation. Secondly, Mr Hampson referred to Sir Robert Mark’s recommendation that investigators from the then Compol be seconded to the Narcotics Bureau. Mr Hampson made the point that this would be difficult if the narcotics agents did not have police status. Thirdly, Mr Hampson ‘s letter referred to the narrowness of the career structure in the Narcotics Bureau and the fact that its officers had limited opportunity for gaining experience and were more susceptible to corruption because of lack of mobility between different functional areas. The Department went to some lengths to explain that there were wider career opportunities in the Department and dealt at length with the training arrangements. I mention these points to indicate that the Department sought to respond to Mr Hampson ‘s letter.

Finally- my time is running out- the submission refers to what has been mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition in this House, namely, the openness of Sydney Harbour and the potential container problem. In responding to those matters, the Department indicated that

Sydney Harbour was not dissimilar from other ports. It said, however, that in terms of its assessment of priorities, it did not have any evidence to suggest that these were wrong and told the Commission that if it had any specific evidence the Department would be glad to receive it. The Department has not received any such evidence. No doubt the Royal Commissioner will make observations if he has observations to make and he will make recommendations in relation to containerisation when his final report is presented.

I have traversed in some detail some of the contents of Mr Hampson ‘s letter of 23 June which, as I have said, was brought to my attention within days of its receipt by my Department. I cannot accept the view put forward by the Leader of the Opposition that Mr Hampson ‘s letter raises issues of the kind which he suggested. Certainly the letter raised points which require full and frank answers. This the Department did in its submission in September 1978- a submission which was made available to me by Mr Besley, the permanent head of the Department, before it was made available to the Commission. No doubt the Royal Commissioner will make his own observations on the content of that report. That is why the Royal Commission exists. He sought and he had the right to seek and, indeed, the Government wanted him to seek, evidence from government departments and from any other person or group that could provide information that would assist him in arriving at the right conclusions. That information was supplied by the Department and it is a matter for the Royal Commission to judge its strength or otherwise.

I want to make it perfectly clear in this House that the Government takes this matter seriously. The Government will take seriously the final report of the Royal Commission. It will take seriously the Commissioner’s recommendations and we will act decisively as we have acted in relation to the interim report. It would seem reasonable to presume that the role of the Royal Commission was to assess all of the Department’s evidence. I believe that that assessment will have been made and will be seen to have been made by the time the final report comes to this House and is made public. I conclude on this note. If any member of this House believes that I have not taken this part of my responsibility seriously let him stand. Let him stand if he believes that I have not taken it seriously.

Opposition members having stood in their

Mi FIFE- I am glad to see that members of the Opposition stood because that is an indication of their partisan approach. If the members of the Opposition were serious they might disagree on some of the decisions but they cannot fairly disagree with the proposition that this Government has done more in this area of responsibility that any other government in the history of Australia. It will go on taking initiatives in this area in the public interest.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

-I support the motion of censure because I believe that the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) has, in fact, failed in his responsibility to this Parliament and, through the Parliament, to the people of Australia. I stress that he has failed in his responsibility to Parliament because the failures I will discuss relate not just to the Opposition but to information provided to all members of this House. It is important if ministerial responsibility is to mean anything that we as a parliament, not just one side of it, should consider whether Ministers are performing their duties.

I know it is easy to use the word ‘responsibility’ in a rhetorical way. I want to show quite clearly what I mean when I say that the Minister has failed in his responsibility to this House.

First, we would all accept, I believe, that the Minister is responsible to this House for the work and actions of his Department and for the major agencies within that Department. We would all accept that this House has the power of sanction for ministerial failure in those responsibilities; that is, it has the power of censure and the power of compelling his resignation. Of course, we would not want to say that he should be responsible for every minor action or misbehaviour by his Department. True, when we talk about the Narcotics Bureau there is a lot of minor misbehaviour and minor actions. We certainly would not want to make an issue of censure of minor misbehaviour by lesser civil servants. Nor do we want to say that the Minister is responsible in the sense that he could be censured for every action made by a bureaucrat in his Department, even though, in this case, a fairly notorious figure is involved who has been peculiarly active as a departmental chief. Next, I would not argue that the Minister should be responsible- though this is more debatable- for errors arising from deliberate disobedience by his departmental subordinates. That is not being alleged in this case. But a

Minister is responsible for the general maladministration of a department or of a major segment of a department. A Minister is responsible for those departmental faults and flaws which could have been avoided if he had exercised a reasonable diligence and a proper oversight.

This is the issue that confronts us in the case of the Federal Narcotics Bureau and the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. The interim report of the Williams Royal Commission is an appalling indictment of the failure of the Minister effectively to oversee the Narcotics Bureau and to exercise a reasonable diligence towards that Bureau and the activities and behaviour for which he is responsible to this Parliament. If responsibility is to mean anything- it may be that Government members do not care about ministerial responsibility- it should be asserted clearly in this case.

Let us look at what the Williams report is saying about this Bureau. It details a series of major aspects of sheer maladministration over at least a two-year period. I sometimes think the Minister wants to shift the blame further back, and the Treasurer (Mr Howard) may be prepared to accept pare of the blame, as the Minister responsible in an earlier period. The report states that the Bureau is inefficient. It states:

The Narcotics Bureau is not a highly efficient enforcement agency.

To make the point quite clear, I quote again from the report. It states:

Within the judicial system, generally speaking, the Narcotics Bureau’s reputation for efficiency is lower than that of State police forces.

Comparatively, it has a low efficiency rating. Secondly, it is argued by the Williams Commission that it is over-centralised and poorly led. On this point the Commission’s report states:

Too much centralised control impairs the bureau’s operational efficiency. In this, the use of the Public Service structure for a police agency and lack of effective leadership are principally to blame.

Those are the very points which the Opposition advanced in 1975 against this form of drug enforcement agency. Again, the report clearly says that the Bureau is obsessed with its image rather than with its task of drug enforcement. I quote again from the report, which states:

The Bureau spends too much time defending itself and its image . . .

The Narcotics Bureau has traded upon a flattering media image but has maintained great secrecy upon matters which might conceivably tarnish that image . . .

Some of the largest seizures in recent years attributed in the media to the Narcotics Bureau have in fact occurred without any real assistance from the Narcotics Bureau.

Fourthly, the Bureau is distrusted by other law enforcement agencies. Again, the good judge says- this has never been challenged; apparently there is a volume of evidence to support this point; indeed, the Government accepted the report fairly quickly. The report stated:

There is considerable and increasing distrust of the Narcotics Bureau among other law enforcement bodies. For some years past relationships between the Narcotics Bureau and COMPOL, especially at the top levels, have been bad but now relationships between the Narcotics Bureau and State police are bad in many places.

Fifthly, the morale of the Bureau is poor. On this point the report states:

The Narcotics Bureau is not a cohesive force with high morale and pride in its accomplishments. There is considerable frustration and bitterness among many Narcotics Bureau officers whom the Commission regards as dedicated and keen agents.

Its achievements- the very things that it was set up to do- are regarded by the Commission as disappointing. On this point the report states:

The Bureau’s recent seizure figures reflect failure in its declared aim of detecting major traffickers, especially in heroin, and leaving lesser operations to the attention of State police.

The report then states that the Bureau’s agents are inadequately trained.

Anyone looking at this as a departmental report would say that it is a fairly formidable indictment of the administration of a particular department. I believe it is an unchallenged indictment, though the whole basis of the material on which these conclusions are drawn is at the moment a matter of confidence; the arguments for them we cannot see. But it is apparently supported by extensive evidence in the unseen appendices, and the Government, for once, has acted rather quickly when it has had a problem in relation to the Bureau.

Let it be said also that there are even graver charges hanging over the Bureau’s head. These are not dealt with in the interim report. Firstly, there is the argument of deliberate noncooperation at times with State and Commonwealth police forces. We have had comment from the New South Wales royal commission today in relation to that. Secondly, there is the charge hanging over the Bureau that it has been penetrated by criminal elements. I know that the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs said the other day: ‘There was one bad apple we found’. I suggest there is a real danger that that one bad apple may contaminate others in the basket. Certainly there is at the moment an investigation of alleged leaks from within the Bureau in the Wilson case. If it is true that there were leaks from inside the Bureau, then the machinery of the Bureau has been an accomplice to murder. I am going to leave aside those charges because they are only suspicions-

Mr Howard:

– Having mentioned them you will leave them aside.

Dr BLEWETT:

-Right, I am not going to use them in the argument against the Minister. I am saying that we had better realise that there are these charges as well as the confirmed allegations against the Narcotics Bureau. But I am prepared to base my case simply on the established facts. The Minister has been responsible to this Parliament for this Bureau for over two years. He knows his responsibility. He knew it from the outset. In fact, one can find various quotations from him about how he recognised, as soon as he got this appointment, that one of his responsibilities was the Narcotics Bureau. He knew of the responsibility. He accepted the responsibility, though in the last couple of days he has said: ‘I have been there for only two years’. Perhaps the blame should be shifted a little farther back in time. Perhaps he is wanting to shift the blame to the Treasurer.

When we look at the list of charges in the Williams report we have to ask ourselves these questions: Did the Minister know that the Bureau was widely believed to be inefficient? Why in over two years was it never suggested to this House by the Minister that there was a problem of efficiency within the Bureau? Why in the two years in which he has occupied this post has he never taken this House into his confidence about the problem of efficiency? Did the Minister know that there were allegations that the Bureau was over-centralised and poorly led? The only highlight there was his persuading of Mr Harvey Bates to come back after he had resigned over what Mr Harvey Bates took to be an affront. Did the Minister ever suspect that the Bureau was more concerned with its image than with its task of drug enforcement? If he did, he has never bothered to tell this House of that in the last two years. Did the Minister know that the Narcotics Bureau was distrusted by other law enforcement agencies?

We originally raised this question in a bipartisan way. Why were the problems of the Narcotics Bureau not discussed in a bipartisan way? We raised the problem of distrust and the Minister said: ‘Let us be bipartisan about this’. One aspect of bipartisanship is to take the Opposition into the Government’s confidence on these issues. Did the Minister know that morale was poor in the Bureau? Did the Minister recognise that the Bureau’s agents were poorly trained? Did the Minister realise that the achievements of the Narcotics Bureau had been, to put it mildly, disappointing?

None of those questions was answered in the Minister ‘s speech. He never referred to any of the charges made against him. If he did know about those weaknesses, or some of them, it was his duty to inform this House. If he knew that the Bureau was inefficient, that morale was poor, that there were serious problems of relationships with other police forces, it was his duty to inform the House. If he knew and did not inform the House, he deserves to be censured. If, on the other hand, the Minister did not know about most of these major weaknesses in the Bureau, equally he deserves to be censured because surely it is the responsibility of the Minister- that is what we mean- to be on top of at least the major problems of the Department. Over two years the Minister has never told us anything at all about the problems of the Bureau. If he knew of them, he deserves to be censured by his attitude towards the House. If, on the other hand, he did not know of them, equally he deserves to be censured because it shows a lack of proper oversight.

Only one hint has ever been given of the problem by the Minister. He referred to it on 8 March 1979 and repeated it last night when he said that the personnel and equipment of the Federal Narcotics Bureau had been substantially upgraded and that some SO additional narcotics investigators had been added to the Bureau in recent times. That is about the only suggestion this House has ever had that the Bureau has had a problem on its hands. We know now what Mr Justice Williams said about that kind of solution to the problem. He said that the Narcotics Bureau claimed that the simple remedy for any deficiencies it may have is to increase its staff, power and resources. He said that the Commission rejected this cure, which, in the Commission’s opinion, would compound the problem, not solve it.

Finally, the Minister has no excuse for not being alert to the problem. He appealed to us a moment ago to be bipartisan. For the last year we have gone along with the principles of the Bills which he has introduced in the drug field, even though sometimes we have had doubts about them. We have gone along with them, we have tried to improve them. We have behaved in a bipartisan way and we have been betrayed. Never during those two years or during that period of bipartisan co-operation were we or this

House told by the Minister that, in fact, the Bureau to which we have been asked to give these enormous powers- powers related to listening devices and wire tapping- had a major question mark hanging over it. That is one reason why I think the Minister should have been alert to the problem. We have been talking about the Bureau constantly in this House.

Secondly, the letters between his Department and the Royal Commission should have alerted him to this problem and should have led to more action. He said on the Nationwide program last night that he had acted decisively and positively by appointing a Royal Commission two years ago. We say that the problems that have been mounting in this Department, which the Minister has been increasingly alerted to, demanded swifter and speedier action than could be provided by the Royal Commission. It is true that in the end even the Minister began to realise that. He realised that after the Wilson affair. Let me say that the real problem about the Wilson affair is not the problem of the leak which is being investigated. I accept that the Minister is conducting an investigation. The real question is: Why was the Minister told nothing about the Wilsons until 10 days after their bodies were discovered? He knew nothing until 10 days after their bodies were discovered and then he learnt of the affair not from his Department, not from his Bureau, but from the Sun News-Pictorial in Melbourne. He has never answered that question. I hope that the Treasurer will explain to us why a Minister has to learn about an event of this kind in his department from the Sun NewsPictorial and not from his departmental head. That again should have alerted the Minister.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

– Perhaps the most remarkable thing about the censure motion that has been moved by the Opposition today is that the Opposition is inviting this House to censure a man whose very actions promoted the inquiry which exposed the deficiencies in a section of his administration. Quite apart from any highfalutin explanations of ministerial responsibility, it would seem to me to be an outrageous breach of common justice if this House were to censure a man who on three separate occasions initiated inquiries and investigations which led to the decision announced yesterday by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) to begin the disbandment of the Federal Narcotics Bureau and its transfer in the first instance to the Commonwealth Police. I think it would be a very odd breach of ordinary, common justice for that to occur. That is precisely what the Opposition is inviting this House to do.

Mr Hurford:

– It is not.

Mr HOWARD:

-The honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett) put the case very well for the Opposition. I am going to nail the Opposition with the words of the honourable member for Bonython. He said that what he was really concerned about was the relationship between the Minister and the general administration of his Department. I put it to the House that what my colleague did within a short time of becoming Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs in July 1977, what he did earlier this year in response to allegations about the Federal Narcotics Bureau, what he joined the Government in doing in inviting the bringing forward of the interim report which has triggered this whole debate and the decision of the Government to transfer the Narcotics Bureau to the Federal Police, were the actions of an honourable and responsible Minister. What he did was the action of a person acting immediately upon allegations having been brought to his attention. He acted not with delay or with inertia as has been alleged by the Opposition in this debate, but with decisiveness and, I believe, with considerable courage.

This issue is of justifiable concern to every decent Australian. I accept and say immediately that many members of the Opposition are just as concerned about the drug problem as are the people on our side of the House. However, I am a little concerned about some of the odd approaches of some Opposition members to the legalisation of marihuana, but I leave that aside. I accept that there is a potential for a bipartisan approach to this problem. But I think it is a very odd sort of bipartisan approach when the day after a comprehensive report is tabled in the New South Wales Parliament and the day after the interim report of the Federal Royal Commission is tabled in this Parliament, all the Opposition does is to try to score a political victory in this debate by trying to impugn the responsibility, credit and honesty of my colleague, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife).

In essence, the Opposition has made three charges against my colleague, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. Let us go through those charges. First of all, it has charged him with inertia. How can a person be successfully charged with inertia when within two months of being appointed a Minister a Royal

Commission is established with the widest possible terms of reference? Secondly, how can a person be charged with inertia following his actions earlier this year when doubts were raised about the integrity of people within the Narcotics Bureau and allegations were made of criminal conduct of the worst possible kind? What did this Minister do? Did he go to his colleagues and say: Look, we have to cover this up. We cannot have an investigation. We do not want this to get out’? He recommended to his colleagues that there should not be an inquiry by the Narcotics Bureau into itself, that there should not be an inquiry by the Federal Police into the Narcotics Bureau, but that there should be a joint inquiry involving the State police. Anybody in this House who understands the relationship between law enforcement agencies in this country in relation to narcotics or at any other level will know that there is a certain degree of jealousy between the law enforcement agencies. One of the last things that a Minister does to make himself popular with his own law enforcement agency is to invite other law enforcement agencies to undertake an investigation of it. There is nothing more calculated, to put it bluntly, to raise the hackles of a law enforcement agency than to have it investigated by somebody else.

Is this the action of a man who is having the wool pulled over his eyes by a section of his administration? Is this the action of a man who is asking his colleagues to bury the matter or to push it under the carpet? In other words, is this the action of a weak, irresponsible Minister? I put it to the House that clearly it is not. Furthermore, the Minister joined with the rest of the Government in inviting the Williams Royal Commission to bring forward an interim report. What happened specifically in respect of that invitation? Was there any doubt left in the mind of the Royal Commissioner as to what was wanted? Was any suggestion made that the Royal Commissioner should bring forward a whitewash of the Narcotics Bureau? No, there was not. Rather, as reported by the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday, the Williams Royal Commission stated:

In July 1979 following allegations of leakages of information from an unknown officer of the Sydney office of the Narcotics Bureau, the Government decided it was appropriate to consider general matters relating to the Narcotics Bureau, including organisation, recruitment, starling and control, lines of responsibility to the Permanent Head and the Minister, and relationship with other arms of government. Accordingly, on 7 August, with the approval of His Excellency the Governor-General, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) sought from the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs an interim report on those issues.

Is that the request or the injunction of a government that is trying to cover something up? Is that the request of a Minister who is running for cover and who is scared that there will be embarrassing revelations about the conduct of his Department? I put it to the House that that is the action of a responsible Minister in the best Westminster tradition. For the Opposition to suggest otherwise is to completely misunderstand the situation. I put it to the House that on the charge of inertia the Opposition has demonstrably failed to establish this censure motion.

Secondly, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) and the honourable member for Bonython have tried to suggest that the Minister has showed a lack of responsibility in the discharge of his obligations. I put it to the House again that the Minister’s track record in terms of taking action when matters have been brought to his attention, and his record in bringing forward to the Government and ultimately to this Parliament some recommendations to upgrade the performance and capabilities of the Narcotics Bureau early in 1978, is also evidence of a Minister discharging his duties with a high degree of responsibility. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition, who cannot seem to restrain himself on these bipartisan occasions, could not resist impugning the ordinary honesty of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. I do not believe anybody who sat through Question Time earlier today and watched the stoney, unimpressed silence of the Opposition as its Leader and other people asked pre-arranged questions could have failed to have been impressed by the ordinary honesty and candour of my colleague the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. On the score of honesty and candour, I also believe that the charge against my colleague has failed miserably.

A couple of specific charges were made against this side of the House during debate to which I would now like to turn. The first thing that was made great play of was the question of what we did in 1975, the obstructionist tactics that were adopted by the then Opposition. I inform the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) that the Bill bringing about the changes of which he spoke was introduced into this House by the then Attorney-General on 30 October 1975; in other words, 14 days after the then Opposition had announced its intention to defer the passing of the Appropriation Bills in the Senate. In those circumstances can there be any charge sustained that the obstruction of the then Opposition held up that legislation? The Bill was introduced and, on the motion of the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann), debate was adjourned, and that was the end of the matter.

Mr Hurford:

– Why did you not proceed with it?

Mr HOWARD:

-The honourable member for Adelaide should sit in his seat. Also, an allegation was made about deceit by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. The honourable member for Bonython tries to interject. His colleague, the honourable member for Adelaide, was talking in earnest and grave tones about hushed conversations at meetings of the Cabinet Legislation Committee earlier this year, allegedly when we were snowed into letting the Telecommunications (Interception) Bill go through in hasty fashion. Is the honourable member for Adelaide seriously suggesting that every time an allegation of criminal conduct is made against a section of the bureaucracy any Bill at all conferring additional power on or giving additional discretions to that section of the bureauracy ought to be immediately pulled out of the Parliament? That is the effect of the charge that he made. He is nodding his head; he is suggesting that every time somebody makes an allegation, everything should be suspended immediately. That is the effect of what is being alleged by the honourable member for Adelaide so far as the telecommunications legislation is concerned. Of course, that is an absurdity. The Government was required then to establish immediately an impartial and proper inquiry into those investigations. That has been established. It is the Hall inquiry and it was established in a most impartial and objective manner. For the honourable member for Adelaide or anybody else on the Opposition side to suggest otherwise is complete nonsense.

I would hope that all members on both sides of the House would agree that successful prosecution of the fight against the drug problem in Australia is a matter of the first priority. I believe that during the time this Government has been in office, and in particular while my colleague has been responsible for the area, it has committed itself with great dedication and energy to that task. Of course, the Government appreciates those elements of bipartisan support that have been extended by the Opposition in respect of this. What the Government does not appreciate from the Opposition is this cheap, politically motivated attempt to discredit my colleague the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. He has acted with candour; he has acted promptly, honestly and responsibly. The Government has ““acted responsibly and speedily. Upon receipt of the report of the Royal Commission, seven weeks ago, after studying it and announcing its conclusions last night, the Deputy Prime Minister indicated the changed administrative arrangements that would come into operation.

I believe that this motion is ill-founded. It invites the House to come to the incredibly unfair conclusion that a man who invites an investigation into his administration must then be condemned and censured out of hand because of the findings of a royal commission into that administration. I believe that that is a manifestly unfair proposition. It is a proposition that has not been established by the Opposition and I invite the House to reject the motion. I move:

That the question be now put.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put:

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

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

AYES: 35

NOES: 70

Majority……. 35

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2707

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL COMMISSION

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

– Pursuant to section 102 of the Postal Services Act 1975 I present the annual report of the Australian Postal Commission 1978-79.

page 2707

MANAGEMENT REVIEW OF PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS

Mr SPEAKER:

-I wish to advise honourable members that the firm of management consultants which has been engaged to conduct reviews of the Department of the Parliamentary Library, the Joint House Department and the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff commenced on Monday, 5 November. Following a break during the summer recess the reviews are scheduled for completion next April. A similar review of the Department of the House of Representatives was conducted in 1977. The range of services provided by these departments is critical to the efficient functioning of the Parliament. The organisation of the departments has been adjusted over the years in a piecemeal manner to accommodate changing parliamentary needs. This systematic examination is fundamental to the appraisal of departmental efficiency so as to provide the highest possible standard of support to Parliament.

page 2707

REPORT OF AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION

Mr SPEAKER:

-I present the official report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to France, the European Parliament and the Commission of the European Communities. From 28 May to 8 June this year I had the pleasure of leading a delegation representing both Houses of this Parliament to France, the European Parliament and the Commission of the European Communities. An important objective of the fact finding mission was to establish personal contact with parliamentarians, senior government officials and representatives of private enterprise to facilitate the future exchange of information and views on matters affecting Australia and Europe. The visit to France was in response to an invitation from the President of the French National Assembly, M. Chaban-Delmas. It was intended to increase goodwill between our two countries and our parliaments while also allowing delegates to study issues of mutual interest to France and Australia. These included agriculture, defence technology and nuclear energy.

As this report will show, the delegation is satisfied that these aims were achieved. It recognises that this was largely due to the excellent cooperation afforded us by the French Parliament and the various agencies involved in our program. In Luxembourg the delegation was received by M. Carlo Meintz, Vice-President of the European Parliament on the eve of the first European general election and delegates were informed of the exciting prospects and problems which face the new European Parliament. At the EC Commission the delegation was briefed on a number of issues of interest to the European member countries and Australia, including the economic climate in Europe and the Common Agricultural Policy. The visit ended with discussions with the Chairman of the EC Commission, Mr Roy Jenkins, at which constructive proposals were made to develop co-operation between Australia and the Community. These proposals are dealt with in the body of the report.

On behalf of the members of the delegation I take this opportunity to express our appreciation of the hospitality, assistance and co-operation extended to us by the French Parliament, the European Parliament and the EC Commission as well as the various government, local government and private enterprise bodies which contributed to the success of our mission. We are also grateful to the Australian ambassadors and their staffs whose assistance was invaluable. I thank and congratulate the members of the delegation for the fine spirit in which they worked together to make the mission a great success. Their application and manifest interest were exemplary and a credit to the Parliament and Australia. I also express my appreciation to the secretary of the delegation, Mr Phillip Bush, and my own private secretary who accompanied us on the expedition.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-by leave-As one of the members of the delegation I think it is important to draw the attention of the House to the importance of direct communication between members of the Australian Parliament and areas in which we have a direct interest, politically, economically and socially. The matters that were highlighted for members of the delegation during the visit to France were the differences in problems which exists for the government and administration of France as opposed to Australia as well as the closeness with which the countries of Europe are integrated in the European Common Market, the Commission of the European Communities and the European Parliament which was engaged in its first direct elections during the period we were in France. France’s position relating to energy and discussions which were held with the European Atomic Energy Community indicated the difficulties which confront a country or an area which is totally devoid of natural energy resources. The discussions indicated how fortunate Australia is to have very extensive reserves of energy on which it can draw and from which it can derive extreme benefit if those energy reserves are properly managed and are put to use for the benefit of the Australian people.

One of the matters which I think most delegates would have found of concern was the lack of any indication of real movement on access for Australian agricultural products. An area of concern which was expressed to us during our discussions with members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development was the development of the world economy over the next five years. Certainly we in this Parliament tend to live in an atmosphere of unreality and quite often we have misleading sloganising rather than the facts in many matters. I think it would have been obvious to those members of the delegation and other members of this Parliament who visited Europe at about the same time that some of the world’s problems are quite different from the way in which they are portrayed to this Parliament.

The delegation had useful discussions on those areas which you mentioned, Mr Speaker. I hope that the links which have been established will be maintained by this Parliament in the future. Whilst it is important to maintain links with other parts of the world, it should not be overlooked at any time that Europe is important to Australia as a trading area, a commercial area and an area from which we have traditionally sought guidance on international affairs and in which we have sought to establish our right to trade. The visit by an Austraiian delegation was sought by the French Government over a long period. I think it is important in future not only to send delegations overseas but also to pay the country extending the invitation the courtesy of not trying to withdraw from any invitation we have accepted.

Mr SHORT:
Ballarat

-by leave-As a member of the delegation that visited France, the European Parliament and the Commission of the European Communities, I would like briefly to endorse your remarks, Mr Speaker, in tabling the report of the delegation and also the remarks of the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes). Mr Speaker, I wish to thank you very much, from my own point of view and I know from the point of view of other members of the delegation, for the tremendous leadership you gave to that delegation. It was an important delegation. I thought that the way in which you led it was extremely admirable and that that went a long way towards making the visit as successful at it was. I would also like to thank my other colleagues on the delegation from both sides of this House and the other place for making the trip as interesting and worthwhile as it was. I join you, Mr Speaker, in thanking the officers who accompanied us, particularly the secretary of the delegation, Mr Phillip Bush, and the officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs who helped us so much in the various centres that we visited. I also express my thanks to those members of the French National Assembly who took great care in arranging our itinerary in France and whose assistance to us while we were there, I think, went well beyond the call of duty.

I really do believe that the visit was important in helping further to forge closer links between Australia and France and with the other countries of Europe. As the honourable member for Corio has said, western Europe is still of enormous importance on the world scene. That certainly applies no less to Australia than it does to other nations. I think it is of great importance that we get closer to Europe by increasing our contacts with European countries. We already have many contacts, particularly at the ministerial level, the official level and in the private enterprise or business world, but there certainly has not been sufficient contact between parliamentarians. Our visit has helped at least in some small way to fill this breach. I hope it is the forerunner of further closer links being forged in the future- There is no doubt at all that European parliamentarians want closer contact with their Australian counterparts. It was very interesting to learn, for instance, that within the French Parliament the Australia-France Parliamentary Friendship Committee is the largest of all such committees.

I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House, but there are just two matters that I would like to refer to briefly. The first is the strength of the impression that certainly I obtained from the visit as to the importance of the further development of the nuclear generation of electricity for the future standard of living in Europe. Time and time again the energy crisis was raised with us and time and time again those who raised this matter with us stressed the need for Europe to proceed with its nuclear development program. Europe is doing just that. For example, 25 per cent of France’s electricity output is already provided from nuclear sources. Within five years this will rise to 50 per cent. Forty per cent of Belgium’s electricity is already nuclear generated and within five years this will rise to 60 per cent. The same pattern is emerging in many other European countries. I think the point that should not be lost on us in Australia is that these developments will occur. No attitude of ours to oppose the mining and exporting of Australian uranium will change this. All that would happen would be that we in Australia would lose out on markets to the rest of the world, to the detriment of the living standards not only of the world but also of all Australians.

The other matter I want to mention briefly relates to the new Mirage 2000 tactical fighter, which is one of the four remaining contenders as a replacement for Australia’s existing Mirage tactical fighter force. The description of the delegation ‘s visit to the Mirage test flight centre at Istres in the south of France is contained in the report. I commend a very careful reading of it to honourable members. I would like to place on record how impressed I was with what I saw at Istres and with the discussions we had with senior executives of the Dassault organisation, the manufacturer of the Mirage. I am not a technical expert in the area of military aviation but I would say that the effort and the quality of that effort which Dassault has put into preparing its tender to the Australian Government for the tactical fighter force replacement is highly commendable. I was particularly impressed with its proposals for Australian participation in its program.

I conclude on the note on which I began, that is, of thanking you very much, Mr Speaker, and all the others associated with the delegation for making the visit to France, the European Parliament and the EEC not only very enjoyable but also, I believe, very worth while.

Mr LUSHER:
Hume

-by leave-Like the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Short), I would like to thank you very sincerely, Mr Speaker, for the leadership that you gave to the delegation and for the contribution that you made to the overall success of the delegation among not only the members themselves but also the many people of whom we were guests while we were in Europe. I would also like to record my thanks to the officials in France, in Luxembourg and in the European Economic Community in Brussels, to the Australian Ambassador Mr Rowland, to Sir James Plimsoll and to the Foreign Affairs officers in Europe. I would also like to thank the French Embassy in Australia for the hospitality and interest it showed both before the delegation left Australia and after it returned. I also record my thanks to the secretary of the delegation, Mr Phillip Bush, whose linguistic expertise made the delegation’s trip such a useful, worthwhile and pleasant experience.

There are a few matters which have been mentioned by other honourable members upon which I will not expand. I would like to join totally with what the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Short) said about the Mirage as a tactical fighter force replacement in Australia. I would like also to say how important it is for Australia to develop and maintain very close relationships with the European Economic Community. To me, one of the most interesting aspects of the delegation’s visit was to see the other side of the argument. We in Australia tend to look upon the Australian point of view as being the only one, but obviously, as in so many other areas, there are two points of view, and the Europeans have one. One of the things which was very important was the fact that Roy Jenkins, on behalf of the EEC, stated his intention to see that the European Economic Community opened a mission in Australia. That will go a long way towards improving relationships between the European Economic Community and this country.

The European Parliament is an institution which is growing in significance. As was mentioned by the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), its first fully representative elections were held while we were there. Mr Speaker did not mention this, but it should be mentioned that the Australian Parliament is making a gift of a gavel to the European Parliament. I think that is a very proper thing to do. We, as a Parliament, ought to give consideration to going further in this respect, and we ought to consider giving something to the European Parliament. I would like to see a gift of a work of art which is distinctly Australian and which could be displayed in some prominent position. It would be a constant reminder of the relationship between Australia and the EEC.

I would like to speak about the uranium activities that we saw, which for me was the high point of the whole trip. The Tricastin enrichment plant in France is an investment amounting to something like $2 billion. The feed for that plant is about 18,000 tons per annum of natural uranium which assays at about 0.7 per cent. The production that comes from the enrichment plant is 10.8 million separative work units, which is equivalent to 2,500 tonnes of enriched uranium 235 which assays as 3 per cent to 4 per cent uranium 235. The tailings that come out of that enrichment plant consist of 0.2 per cent uranium 235. The enrichment plant has a power requirement of 3,100 megawatts. Mr Speaker, you will recall that in the uranium process the role of an enrichment plant is very similar to the role of an oil refinery in the oil industry. The uranium is taken to a stage where it can be used as a feed for the reactors, in the same way that an oil refinery upgrades the oil for feed for uses to which petroleum products are put. In this particular plant there is a seven year process from the selection of the site to full production, which has not yet been achieved and will not be achieved until about 1981.

I would like to say something about the uranium process because I think it is very important to Australia, and it is something to which we should be giving very serious consideration. The process basically is a gasified uranium hexafluoride flow which goes through three stages, the first being a compressor, the second being a diffuser and the third being a heat exchange. There are 1,400 individual units involved in this plant. The process is such that the more units the gas goes through the purer it becomes. The gas goes into a compressor and flows from the compressor into the diffuser. The richer gas goes into the next compressor and diffuser process, ultimately going through all 1,400 units. The lower gas goes out through a heat exchanger and back through the compressor and diffuser stage again. From an initial grade of 0.7 per cent the rich gas gets richer and the low gas becomes poorer until the assays go from that 0.7 per cent up to 3 per cent to 4 per cent, which is the reactor feed level, and down to 0.2 per cent, at which stage it has become the tailings or the waste.

There are no problems with this waste. The amount of radioactive waste associated with an enrichment plant is absolutely minimal.

Australia ought to be looking at this project. The requirements for an enrichment plant of this, nature are steel, of which Australia has no shortage, and energy. As I indicated, there is a need for a power source of 3,100 megawatts. The Tricastin plant is based on an electricity plant in the same vicinity. We have a choice of establishing such a plant, based either on hydro-electricity or on one of the coalfields in this country. We ought to be looking at that. There is an enormous requirement of nickel. In an enrichment plant, all the surfaces exposed to uranium have to be nickel coated. When this particular establishment was constructed an equivalent of two hectares of surface area was nickel plated each month. Obviously Australia has the nickel. The only other thing that is needed in an enrichment plant is the uranium, and Australia has that uranium.

In 1990 there will be a world demand for 75 million separative work units. The European availability will be 22 million separative work units and the United States of America availability will be 38 million separative work units. That represents a total availability of 60 million separative work units with a shortfall of 15 million. An Australian plant producing 10 million separative work units would not create an oversupply of enrichment facilities in the world. Australia must act soon in this particular respect in view of the long lead time required and because we ought to signal our intention to the rest of the world, before other countries get into it, that we want to be in this field and satisfy the demand.

There is a serious risk of Australia getting into exactly the same position with uranium as it did with wool. For the best part of a century all the wool from this country was exported and treated in other countries. We should not allow that to happen in relation to uranium. In this present energy situation Australia should not be just a mine or a quarry for the rest of the world. We should extract that uranium and convert it to yellowcake, as we intend to do, and we should also invest the $2 billion that is necessary to establish a uranium enrichment plant in Australia. I believe that this is something which is of vital importance to Australia. It is something which does not provide any environmental risk or waste hazard. It is something to which this Government should give very close and full consideration in the immediate future. Mr Speaker, I conclude by thanking you for your leadership and your patience and tolerance in allowing me to say a few words on the tabling of this important statement.

page 2711

AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE

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

– For the information of honourable members I present a direction to the Commissioner of Australian Federal Police, pursuant to sub-section 13 (2) of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979.

page 2711

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr FISHER:
Mallee

-I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr FISHER:

– Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member may proceed.

Mr FISHER:

-Last night, during the debate on the Canned Fruits Marketing Bill, I stated as is reported on page 2646 of Hansard:

Perhaps the most important advance for the canning fruit industry is that the Corporation will also be empowered to borrow from the Reserve Bank under Commonwealth guarantee. This will be done to finance purchases of canned fruit.

At that stage the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Burns) interjected:

They ought to abolish it.

I continued:

I thank the honourable member for Isaacs for his support.

As this is reported in Hansard it could be inferred that I support either the abolition of the canned fruit Corporation or the Reserve Bank. This is not the case. At that time my thanks to the honourable member for Isaacs were for his quite generous support during my speech and not for the nature of his interjection.

page 2711

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

National Labour Consultative Council Amendment Bill 1979.

Coal Industry Amendment Bill 1979.

page 2711

HEALTH INSURANCE

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received letters from both the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) 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 honourable member for Prospect, namely:

The Government’s repeated changes to health insurance which have destroyed the community rating principle and will mean that the elderly, large families and the chronically ill will be unable to afford adequate cover.

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 SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Prospect.

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the business of the day be called on.

Question put:

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

AYES: 73

NOES: 33

Majority……. 40

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2712

PATENTS AMENDMENT (PATENT COOPERATION TREATY) BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 August, on motion by Mr Macphee:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-The purpose of the Patents Amendment (Patent Cooperation Treaty) Bill is to amend the Patents Act to provide conformity with the Patent Cooperation Treaty. The consequence of this will be to permit Australian accession to the Treaty. This Patent Cooperation Treaty essentially is a mechanism for rationalising procedural features of the patent system of member countries through mutual co-operation. As such it has the potential- I emphasise the word ‘potential’- to assist Australian inventors to obtain increased protection in other countries. The development of the Patent Cooperation Treaty system began in 1966 when the United States of America suggested that a study be conducted by what is now known as the World Intellectual Property Organisation, to determine if some steps could be taken to reduce the duplication of search effort for applications filed in a number of foreign countries.

Those who have visited Geneva recently- I suppose that might include honourable members who have just spoken at length about their recent trip to that part of the world- will know that the World Intellectual Property Organisation has one of the most extraordinary buildings in Europe. The Organisation has spent millions of dollars on the building. I only hope that there will be a good return from it. The Organisation has spent thousands of dollars on transplanting a tree outside the building. As I say, I hope that the building itself will provide for a viable operation and that it has not been paid for out of subscriptions from member countries like Australia. After a number of drafts of the Treaty were published, the Patent Cooperation Treaty in its present form was concluded and signed in June 1970 by 20 countries, and subsequently signed by another 15 countries. It is noteworthy that Australia did not sign the Treaty at that time.

The Patent Cooperation Treaty commenced operation on 1 June 1978 for the states which had deposited their instrument of ratification of, or accession to, the treaty. The Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee) argued in his second reading speech when introducing this Bill that our accession to the Patent Cooperation Treaty would be of significant benefit to Australian industry. However, in doing so, he based his case on two major assertions. I want to list these assertions and use the Ministers ‘s words because I believe the assertions are questionable. He said: the effectiveness of a patent system is in no way dependent upon the territorial origin of an invention or the nationality of a patentee and that those factors are essentially irrelevant to the operation of a patent system.

That is the first assertion which, I think is questionable. The second assertion from his second reading speech states: the motivation provided by the economic rewards obtainable from a commercial monopoly makes the patent system, in principle at least, the most effective incentive devised to date for the exploitation of new technology by industry.

I go no further than to say that these assertions are questionable and I want to develop that argument. The Opposition questions, as I say, both of those points that have been made. Therefore, if our questioning is correct, the benefits of the Treaty are likely to be more imaginary than real given current circumstances and policies. However, the Opposition is not going to oppose the Bill because we question those assertions. We are not going to oppose it outright for a couple of related reasons. Before I get on to my questioning I will list those reasons, Firstly, there is our belief, as I shall explain shortly, that the disadvantages associated with our accession should be handled by other positive measures. They would not be resolved simply by rejection of the Treaty. Secondly, we are not opposing this because we have taken into account the Minister’s foreshadowing, in his second reading speech to which I have drawn attention, of a review of the Australian patents system. We are informed that this review, to be performed by the Industrial Property Advisory Committee, will be oriented towards improving the patent system’s practical effectiveness rather than the mere structure of its legislative framework. The Minister seems to accept the growing view put by, among others, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation which has stated:

Perhaps it is because the patent system is such a venerable institution with such a wide international acceptance, that it is commonly assumed to operate in this way. But its underlying assumptions and alleged benefits are open to serious question, particularly in small nations like Australia.

It is acknowledged that most patents issued in Australia are ‘bad’ in the sense that the scope of monopoly created is too wide and the cost of challenging a bad patent, once issued, is too frightening. However, while this review has potential, the Opposition is concerned that the arguments contained in the Minister’s speech will unduly restrict the scope of the inquiry. Thus, it must be emphasised that our support for accession to the Treaty is qualified in several major respects. To make this explicit, I intend to move on behalf of the Opposition an amendment to the motion for the second reading which recognises that the benefits of the Patent Cooperation Treaty will materialise only if the Government acknowledges the broader issues, which I am about to develop, and abandons the present attitudes displayed in the Minister’s speech.

Let us examine more closely what I believe to be the two unacceptable assertions made in the Minister’s speech which are crucial to his optimistic conclusions. Firstly, there is his view that the effectiveness of a patent system is independent of the nationality of the patentee. This view, I believe, ignores a very considerable body of opinion within the international community that patents have been used in the past to control imports and exports and to control the production of subsidiaries. Since Mr Speaker had his trip to France, the European Parliament and other places, I have been very glad to represent this Parliament at not only a debate on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, to which I was accompanied by the honourable member for Moore (Mr Hyde), but also at a seminar in Geneva run by the Interparliamentary Union, a seminar on the environment. So, on behalf of this Parliament, I was able to be in Geneva just recently. I visited not only the building to which I have just referred, owned by the World Intellectual Property Organisation, but also the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development organisation and talked to people in UNCTAD interested in the very subject of the transference of technology between nations. This is where the challenge to the old system arose originally.

The international patents system, justified as an instrument to encourage creative activity, has occasionally been singularly unsuccessful in facilitating the transfer of technology to host countries. It has been found, for example, that the majority of patents registered in the developing countries are not exploited. Thus patents are registered which not only entitle their holders to produce the patented product directly or to license it to a third party, but also give the exclusive right to import the product into the country in which the patent is registered. This gives international corporations the possibility of controlling certain markets without having to make direct investments in the country concerned. This situation can result in frustration of the task of imitating, assimilating and adapting technology to that country. I believe that in this day and age, when we are interested in building up developing countries, we have to look at this subject, limited in interest though it may be, of the international movement of technology with much more seriousness than we have hitherto in this Parliament.

Also, the system, by enabling restrictions to be placed on the licences to use patents, has resulted in some cases in restrictions being placed on the number of goods which can be produced, the numbers which can be exported and the destination of any exports. That these possibilities exist has been acknowledged by, for example, the OECD, which has incorporated guidelines covering technology transfer in its ‘Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises’, and UNCTAD, which is still in the process of drafting an international code of conduct on the transfer of technology, that same organisation to which I just referred. I spoke about my visiting the relevant officers in that organisation. The Minister’s claim, I believe, ignores the informed views coming from these areas.

But we do not have to go outside Australia for strong arguments about the dangers inherent in a patents system which ignores possible abuses by foreign patent holders. The Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment, in its report on ‘Industrial Research and Development in Australia’ dated May this year, has provided what I believe to be cogent and good arguments against the views which seem to be those of the Minister, if we deduce correctly from his second reading speech. The Committee’s arguments are particularly relevant when considered against the background that, firstly, Australia is a net importer of technology. For instance, in 1974-75 payments for royalties and copyrights exceeded $75m whereas receipts amounted to only $9m. Secondly, as the Minister himself admitted, over 90 per cent of patents registered in Australia annually are granted to overseas patentees- 10,000 out of 1 1,000 in 1978. That is a very sad situation. I want to repeat those figures: Of the 11,000 patents granted in 1978, 10,000 were granted to people overseas. I have already shown that I admire the work of the Senate Standing Committee in its report on this subject. I want now to quote from the Committee. It stated:

Much intellectual property covering new technology useful to Australia is privately owned by big national and multinational corporations. These naturally seek to limit, by patent licensing and other means, the use made of it by competitors.

The Committee further stated: . .. although a subsidiary may buy technology from its parent, the amount paid may not always relate to the intrinsic value of the technology. In some instances … an unwarrantedly high price may be paid as a device for transferring capital, and /or reducing company taxes.

The Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment also quoted from a paper by Professor Brian Johns, the Director of the Government’s Bureau of Industry Economics, when he argued that it is:

  1. . important to examine the conditions attached to contracts and arrangements for the import of technology. In many instances, these conditions include limitations on the exports which can be made by the local subsidiary of the licensee.

The Senate Committee recognised that licensing can produce problems for countries like Australia. The Committee listed that attempts can be made by licensors: . . to fix prices at which the licensee can sell the licensed products or goods made with a licensed process;

  1. . to impose tying clauses forcing licensees to purchase from the licensor unpatented raw materials that are freely available elsewhere; to oblige the licensee to acquire certain technology, already freely available in the recipient country, as part of the larger package; to require a licensee to use trade marks of the licensor under conditions that do not enhance the licensee’s chances of succeeding in the local market; to insulate the Licensee from reasonable export markets;

And the last of these limitations- to charge a royalty, or otherwise provide for remuneration to the licensor, that is unreasonably high in the circumstances.

As a result of these possibilities, the Senate Committee argued in its report that:

It cannot be assumed that Australia is immune from the practices, which amount to restrictive trade practices in the broad sense of the term.

The Committee concluded that:

It may be that consideration should also be given to problems attendant upon foreign patents and licences with application of standards similar to those existing in the internal trade practices legislation.

In another section of its report, the Committee commented on issues and problems relating to the patent system itself. It argued that legislation favouring the inventive citizen: . . may be justified in order to stimulate domestic industrial innovation. However, it does not necessarily follow that it is also in the national interest to favour inventive, technology-exporting countries by extending monopoly rights to them.

The Committee also pointed out that:

It is salutary to remember that the introduction of patent laws and the participation of countries in international patent agreements have a history of being determined by self-interest and nationalism. The USA did not put foreign and local applicants for patents on an equal footing until the end of the 19th Century, by which time its position as an industrial nation was assured. The British Patents Act was altered between the two World Wars to prevent patenting of chemical compounds. This was a deliberate effort to reduce the dominance of German technology in this field. Japan and Italy adopted similar policies for the same reason. The USSR did not join the International Patents Convention until it had technology to sell.

What I am stating categorically in supporting these attitudes in this Senate Committee report is that Australians have too often been too naive in areas such as this. We are an importer of technology. We are paying a high price for that technology. We need to display more nationalism in our attitudes to questions such as these which I am raising.

Mr Martyr:

– Does that affect the market?

Mr HURFORD:

-Of course nationalism affects the market. It affects jobs and the creation of jobs in this country. If the honourable member had been listening to the points that I have quoted from the Senate Committee report he would have noted all the restrictions that are put on job creation through Australia’s being a little bit too naive in this sector. All of these considerations should lay to rest once and for all the Minister’s apparent view- and I am only taking this view from the comments in his second reading speech- that the effectiveness of our patent system is independent of the nationality of the patentee. They lead us to the conclusion that the Australian Government should be actively taking steps to examine and to develop legislation in relation to the international relevance of present patent laws and agreements to Australian industrial research and development and the importation of technology. Australia has to be on the side of the developing countries in so much of what is going on in the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development consultations when considering this subject.

The second major assertion made by the Minister- and I remind the House of it as I have already stated it- was that the patent system potentially is the most effective system devised to encourage the exploitation of new technology by industry. Once again I believe that we need not go past the Senate Standing Committee when considering this issue, although we could look at the views expressed in the reports of the Australian Science and Technology Council, ASTEC, and the Crawford study group on the sort of action necessary to resuscitate indigenous IR and D activity in Australia. All these committees argue in one voice that the cause of Australia relying very heavily on overseas technology is the lack of funds for indigenous industrial research and development- not on an imperfect patent system. It has been pointed out that Australia’s overall commitment of resources to research and development puts it in the middle rank when compared with other countries and that a high proportion of Australian research is either provided for by the Government or is basic research rather than applied research and development.

There are very strong grounds for believing that IR and D activities might not attract the degree of funding warranted if financing such activities were determined by private capital markets alone. For example, industrial research and development may give rise to significant economic benefits extending beyond those accruing directly to firms and individuals undertaking IR and D. All potential applications of particular IR and D activities cannot necessarily be anticipated or patented by the originators of new products and processes. Also, the risk that particular IR and O activities will not yield an economic return may be high from the viewpoint of individual businesses and investors whereas the risk to the community at large that resources devoted to IR and D will not yield an overall economic return may be substantially lower.

Both the Crawford study group and the Senate Standing Committee generally concluded that the task of achieving a turnaround in industrial research and development activity in Australia is substantial and that additional resources should be applied to this area. The Crawford study group considered that there is also a problem associated with the financing of firms adopting new technology. For reasons I have noted earlier in this speech, private financial institutions can be reluctant to provide finance for the introduction or development of new technology or innovations, particularly when the commercial viability is unknown or still doubtful. Johns,

Dunlop and Lamb found that great difficulty is experienced by recently established and fast growing small firms in obtaining medium and long term finance to develop new products and processes.

In proposing that an innovation authority be established the study group envisaged that such a body would have, in addition to its other functions, a role similar to the United Kingdom National Research and Development Corporation, the NRDC. In addition, while focusing on this point, it has been pointed out by the Senate Standing Committee that the short and medium term financial assistance offered by government under the industrial research incentives scheme was, and I believe still is, clearly deficient. For example, the Committee pointed out that the average project grant for a company after tax during the 1977-78 year was in the vicinity of $2,500. Whilst the figures for last year and this year will be higher, those figures are unlikely to be sufficient to overturn the Senate Committee’s view that:

  1. . such low levels of grants lead to a frittering away of public money without having an appreciable effect on the quality of the nation ‘s technology.

The Committee went on to recommend that the Government:

  1. . establish policies designed to remove disincentives from, and give positive encouragement to, the systematic commercial adoption of research results.

The arguments I have put forward against the Minister’s two assertions provide, I believe, powerful reasons why this House should reject the optimistic conclusions in the second reading speech. Only if this is done is it likely that Australia will give sufficient scope to the review of the patent system. Only then will the review be a true response to the Senate Standing Committee ‘s call in its report when it said:

Australia’s present patent system may well be acting against the country’s best interests. Once again absence of any clear policy or plan for national industrial development makes it very difficult to know where our best interests may lie. Even so, a review of our patent system in the light of the situation with respect to IR&D is clearly indicated. The Committee accordingly recommends that the Minister for Productivity undertake an examination of both the national and international relevance of present patent laws and agreements to Australian IR&D and the importation of technology.

Only when the dimensions I have raised are recognised will the Government be in the position to devise policies which truly extract the potential benefits for Australia from the Patent Cooperation Treaty. We of the Opposition give notice that we are prepared to support the Treaty only if the conditions contained in our amendment to the motion for the second reading of the

Bill are given much attention. We cannot put qualifications on the Bill’s going through as we do not have the numbers to do so, but we can use the time of the Parliament in debating this treaty to draw attention to the way in which the administration of patents and the legislation relating to patents can so properly stimulate research and development activities in our community and thus so properly be of enormous assistance to job creation.

If what we are saying is not agreed to, if the matters we have set down are not met and the review of the patent system produces insufficient reform, the Opposition will be forced to the view that it would be better for Australia to stay well out of international patent agreements like the PCT until such time as a more enlightened and realistic government comes to power in Canberra, a government prepared to adopt the necessary policies. In view of the points I have made, on behalf of the Opposition I shall now move the amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill. I am pleased to note that the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) will second the amendment. I move:

I am very happy to move that amendment on behalf of the Opposition.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Hon. J. D. M. Dobie

– Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I second the amendment and congratulate the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) on a very excellent speech.

Mr DEAN:
Herbert

-This Bill is designed to allow Australian accession to the Patent Cooperation Treaty which, of convenience, we can refer to as the PCT. To the motion for the second reading of this Bill we have just heard an amendment moved by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford). It would seem to me that the amendment rests on some sort of misconception of what this Bill really is all about. It would seem that the amendment is trying to widen the ambit of this Bill to take in the whole general area of industrial research and development, which is really quite irrelevant to this debate. With that comment, I shall leave it to the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee) to indicate the Government’s attitude to the amendment.

A couple of the points that the honourable member for Adelaide has made would seem to me to be casting more doubt about this legislation than needs to be cast. It is, of course, quite true that in the end result the real effectiveness of our accession to the Treaty will be known only after a trial period, after a period of usage. To that extent, I suppose it is valid to say that the Treaty may not do what we hope of it. On the other hand, it may well do all that is hoped of it. The honourable member for Adelaide made reference to the benefits being more imaginary than real. I would suggest that there are going to be some very real benefits which can and will flow from our belonging to the PCT. I shall indicate some of these in more detail in my speech, but, just putting it in a nutshell, our accession to the Treaty may well give Australia wider and quicker access to international inventions. It may well provide simpler and possibly more effective and less expensive international protection than currently exists for Austraiian inventiveness. The assistance that we can give undeveloped nations, particularly in the South East Asian region, is important from Australia’s point of view. Finally, I refer to the point the honourable member for Adelaide made about the low level of Austraiian patent applications; indeed, this accession can provide a stimulus to Australian inventiveness, research and development- by no means all the stimulus that may be needed but in itself it can provide a stimulus.

I accept that there ought to be a more national approach, if you like, to industrial research and development. What the PCT can do and may well do for Australia is to provide one way of stimulating further and more inventive research and development. After the honourable member for Adelaide made that point he went on to discuss the level of industrial research and development funding as provided by the Government. It is a criticism that I do not accept. It is a criticism that does not really give a proper analysis of the Budget provisions last year and this year for research and development. Nevertheless, all that is really quite irrelevant to the main point, which simply is that we are seeking to accede to a treaty which I believe will give real benefits to Australian industry and to the part we can play in the South East Asian region in particular.

The Patent Cooperation Treaty is, for the first time, providing a truly international service for the filing and processing of patent applications. Acceding to the Treaty was widely canvassed over the last year. The Minister for Productivity called for, and received, submissions from a wide cross-section of Australian organisations and the Australian community at large. Australian industry and research institutions were overwhelmingly in favour of acceding to the Treaty.

There has been a measure of international collaboration and co-ordination in industrial property matters for nearly a century. I refer here to the first major international convention dealing with the protection of industrial property, the Paris Union. This Union was based on the principle of mutual recognition and recorded an agreement to develop domestic laws along certain established lines. Nevertheless, the industrial property system remained firmly based on the domestic laws, courts and procedures of individual nations.

Certain other arrangements followed. For example, there was the Madrid Agreement, which gave some sort of international system for the registration of trade marks. But no supranational method of dealing with industrial property rights evolved until the creation of the Patent Cooperation Treaty. At times, various ideas have been tried out or proposed. For example, some nations in post- World War II Europe tried to harmonise procedures and formalities to achieve uniformity in law, but to little effect. The Scandinavians made a brave attempt with their Nordic system and an international searching centre was established at The Hague but still there was no really international system.

Then came the Common Market in Europe and with it a recognition that nationally based industrial property laws were probably incompatible with the economic aims of the European Economic Community as expressed in the Treaty of Rome. One of the cornerstones of Community policy is the free movement of goods. It was therefore seen that a uniform and monolithic patent system was desirable and probably ultimately inevitable.

Thus, in the early 1960s, we saw come into being the European Patent Convention, which provided a new style of international activity. That came, I might say, at an opportune time because at that time we found patent offices, patent users and patent applicants around the world bogging down in a mass of applications and patent literature. Patents were becoming more complex, applicants were seeking wider geographical protection and there was generally some upsurge in the number of applications being made. A more universal system than the European convention was therefore seen to be needed to solve some of the problems, which included multiple searching and separate filings in countries in which protection was sought. After intense argument the PCT came about. It was the first serious attempt to marshal the resources of the World Intellectual Property Organisation and the great examining patent offices of the world. It provides for the first time an international service for filing and processing patent applications. By this Bill, Australia will accede to the Treaty and take advantage of its benefits three months after the Bill has been assented to.

I turn now to consider some of the benefits that I believe will flow to Australian industry as a result of accession to the Treaty. The procedure under the Treaty presents great advantages over the present procedures for the user of the patent system. Firstly, the PCT proposes an optional procedure for the international filing of patent applications. Secondly, it will simplify procedures for obtaining a patent for the same invention in several countries. Thirdly, it will facilitate and accelerate access to technological information disclosed by patents.

Austraiian industry applicants will find it easier to obtain protection for inventions in foreign countries. The PCT procedure allows the applicant to file one application in one language in his own country, even at the last moment in the priority year, obtaining at the same time a filing effect in all the foreign countries which are party to the Treaty. In this situation the applicant gains two important benefits. First of all, he gains more time for the making of his initial applications for protection in other countries. Under the Paris convention, international applications must be made in other countries within 12 months of application in the home country. Under the PCT there will be a further eight months within which these applications can be made internationally. Secondly, because of the greater time that will be allowed and the international search that will ensue as a result of the filing of an application, the applicant will have more time to consider whether he ought to undertake the expense of seeking wider protection internationally and whether he should go to the trouble of all the documentation that will therefore be necessary. Indeed, an international preliminary report, if requested, will put the applicant in an even better position to judge the validity of his application and the usefulness of incurring the expense of a national or regional procedure before the offices concerned.

Austraiian industry, as a competitor, will profit from the PCT procedure, particularly in view of the early publication of international applications. Whereas it is now rather difficult to get a complete picture of all the patent documents published in many countries and languages, and of the most recent state of the art they disclose, Australian industry in future will have earlier access to those inventions for which applications are filed under the Treaty. Those applications will be published by the international bureau 18 months from the priority date and with them will be an international search report. This publication, in one of five world languages, including English, will provide knowledge about important inventions at quite an early date. The international search report published together with the application will make it easier to evaluate the chances of one’s competitor to obain a valid patent.

Those engaged in Australian industry, as exporters, should derive benefits from the PCT. Australia is a major trading nation. Our industry is based on advanced technology and we therefore have a special interest in ensuring that the international patent system operates efficiently and economically so that it may act as a stimulus to the further growth of international trade.

If we want to encourage the export of goods and technology and to promote greater innovation within industry, there is a need for an international patent protection system capable of providing a stimulus to the development and flow of trade and technology. The Patent Cooperation Treaty will assist here by improving the international legal recognition and enforcement of patents, by simplifying lodgment procedures for applicants seeking multi-country protection, by reducing the current high level of legal costs involved in securing adequate protection in a number of countries and by facilitating a free flowing exchange of information on technology, which is the subject of patent applications. Strong patent protection is, of course, important to the exporters of manufactured goods, because one of the reasons sales are obtained is that products and productive processes are more technologically advanced than those of competitors. If an exporter believes that his patent might be copied by an unscrupulous importer, there is a real reluctance to export at all, with obvious implications for international trade.

I turn now to look at Australia’s role as an international searching authority. It is in this area that Australia can be of assistance to undeveloped nations, particularly those in the SouthEast Asian region. Australia’s role as a searching office would enhance our commercial and trading interests and improve our overall image in the South-East Asian region if, firstly, through the Austraiian Patent Office, we were to provide patent services at cost or thereabouts for the developing countries of Asia. This is something that most of those countries are not capable of providing at present because of their lack or scarcity of technical expertise and the drain on financial resources. Such a step would also demonstrate Australia’s sincerity in facilitating their economic and industrial development. This course of action is one that I would commend to the Government.

Secondly, Australia could help the South-East Asian region if we explored the possibility of regional co-operation in industrial property matters. This sort of move should foster closer trade ties between Australian industries and those of Asia. A uniform- system for protecting patents would ensure that countries in the regions recognise and do not infringe upon the patents held by Australians, with obvious advantages for Australian exporters. Furthermore, Australian investors and licences would have the benefit of operating within a patents system they fully understand. In this way, trade in goods, as well as transfer of capital and technology with their consequential linkages with trade in goods, would be further developed. The overall effect could be to focus Asian attention on Australia as a technology information centre for the whole region. This would undoubtedly enhance the role of Australia’s patent profession and possibly the industrial research industry in Australia. It should also facilitate the flow of technology within the region, thereby giving Australian industry greater opportunity to participate in the development of these countries.

This Bill should be seen as but one step in a continuing program over the last couple of years to improve the Australian patent system. During the life of this Parliament we have seen what was substantially the amendment to section 54a of the Patents Act. That was the amendment which, in effect, brought forward the publication date of patents. We have seen the introduction of the petty patents system. We now have this Bill to give accession to the PCT. The Minister has foreshadowed in his second reading speech- the honourable member for Adelaide has already referred to this- a review of the Australian patent system to be undertaken by the Industrial Property Advisory Committee. This could well be a major, wide-ranging, most significant and important review.

So we come to the PCT, marking the beginning of the end of the age of complete isolationism in industrial property legislation and procedures. It has already triggered off a whole series of other proposals, some of which have led to other international arrangements and some of which are still under discussion. It has provided the impetus to revive the European patent system, which became an effective patent system, on the same day as the PCT. It represents the beginning of a truly international system which is already being further explored.

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Productivity · Balaclava · LP

– I would like to congratulate the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Dean) for having done his homework thoroughly, as he always does on these matters. He is one of the few members of the House who takes a deep interest in the patent reforms which have gone on in the past year or so. I am indebted to him for the remarks he made. Likewise, I would like to compliment the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) who again has been constructive, as he always is in these debates. The Government has endeavoured to make this as bipartisan a subject as it can because it ought to be. It is technical but it has enormous ramifications for the benefit of our industries.

The honourable member for Adelaide raised two points. I would like to assure him that each of the points which he has raised will be examined in the course of the inquiry into the patent system which I mentioned in my second reading speech and which I will formally announce, together with the terms of reference, next Thursday. I have discussed the terms of reference with the Industrial Property Advisory Committee and the reason for announcing them next Thursday is that there will be in Canberra a conference attended by the heads of patent offices from all Pacific nations and member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations. If the honourable member for Adelaide has not been invited because he was overseas, I will make sure that is rectified. I am sure he would find it a worthwhile conference to attend, at least during the parts of that day when Parliament is not sitting.

I assure him that in the light of his contribution today I will look again at the terms of reference and if I do not believe they cover the areas about which he has genuine misgivings then I will make sure that they are rectified. My recollection of them is that they are broad enough to encompass those parts of his amendment which are based on valid concerns. I say that because I believe some of the honourable member’s comments were based on a misunderstanding of some of the concepts underlying the patent system, at least as it is currently administered. There is no denying the fact that in the past there were occasions when patents were taken out and sat upon, and inventions were not fully exploited. I think the honourable member for Adelaide was referring to those. However, there are mandatory provisions in our system and in those of most industrialised countries now which oblige people to exploit the patent. Indeed, the essence of the Australian patent system is that inventions must be exploited in Australia regardless of their origin. That is the error which the honourable member has made; he misunderstood a point made in my second reading speech.

For the purpose of our patent system, the origin of the invention is irrelevant; what is relevant is that it is exploited in Australia for the benefit of Australia. We cannot invent everything and we cannot re-invent everything. We have to apply as quickly as we can to Australian industry the kind of technology which is available overseas, hence the reference by the honourable member for Herbert to the other amendments that the Government has made to the Patents Act in the last couple of years. In other words, we have to exploit it in Australia. The reference to developing countries is another point that I should correct because, notwithstanding the views that have been expressed by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, most developing countries have joined or are joining the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. That is the principal international treaty on patents. The Paris Convention is to be examined for revision at a diplomatic conference in Geneva in 1980. The principal proposals which will then be considered are those which are being submitted by developing countries.

In conclusion there are 350,000 new inventions in the world which are patentable each year. I think I am correct in saying that only Japan has a larger number of local inventions than foreign seeking registration under the patent system. Inevitably, foreign inventions will out-number local inventions in most countries and we have to make use of those as well as developing our own industrial research and development capabilities. I have said a lot elsewhere about this subject but in the interests of time I will confine my comments and leave that matter for the present.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion (by Mr Macphee) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-Mr Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence I will not direct myself to the motion for the third reading of the Patents Amendment (Patents Cooperation Treaty) Bill; I merely say that in view of the assurances of the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee), there was no question on my part of calling for a division on the second reading. I thank him for those assurances and look forward to learning more about the terms of reference for the inquiry.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

Sitting suspended from 6.2 to 8 p.m.

page 2720

HOMELESS PERSONS ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 25 October, on motion by Mr Hunt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-The original Homeless Persons Assistance Act was introduced in 1 974 for a three-year period by the then Minister for Social Security, the present Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hayden. The Act provides for capital grants to be made to eligible organisations which are defined as non-profit organisations, local governing bodies and charitable or benevolent trusts towards the full cost of purchasing, constructing or renting buildings, including the purchase of furniture and equipment. It also enables the Commonwealth to pay 50 per cent of the salary of a social welfare worker employed at a homeless persons assistance centre. Approved organisations may also be paid a daily subsidy at prescribed rates for each homeless person to whom both food and accommodation are provided at a daily rate of 75c and a subsidy of 25c for each meal supplied to nonresident homeless persons.

The introduction of the original legislation in 1974 followed the 1973 report of the working party on homeless men and women. The report’s recommendations highlighted the need to concentrate assistance on upgrading existing facilities for permanently and chronically homeless men and women. It also suggested that the program be reviewed after its initial three years. The amending legislation deletes the reference to a prescribed period. In total 113 centres are approved at present. These provide overnight accommodation for about 3,600 men and women. During 1978-79 a total of 947,000 persons was accommodated. Over one million meals were made available to non-residents. It is important to note that the program is not directed exclusively towards chronically homeless men. A number of centres cater exclusively for single homeless women. The Labor Party’s attitude to the legislation is one of support but we feel that we should draw the Government’s attention to the lack of increase in the subsidies. I move:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of opinion that the payment of 75c per day for accommodation and 25c per meal paid to those who provide assistance to homeless persons should be increased to a more reasonable level taking into consideration cost increases since 1974’.

No new capital projects are approved in this legislation. As I said, all it does is extend the duration of support for the existing programs. In fact, the level of individual support remains at 75c for board and 25c for meals. These are exactly the same amounts as were provided when the legislation was introduced in 1974. The amendment which I have moved does no more than request the Government to do something about the level of these payments. A considerable problem is faced by people who are assisting homeless persons. The food and accommodation subsidies have remained the same since the scheme was introduced. No allowance has been made for improvement or expansion.

I draw the attention of honourable members to the debate on this legislation in the Senate. It was pointed out that in every year since 1976 amounts have been allocated but not expended. In 1976 over $4m was allocated but only $ 1.6m was expended. In 1977 $5.5m was allocated but only $1.73m was expended. In 1978 $3.8m was allocated but only $2.08m was expended. For four years in a row during the occupancy of this Government only half the moneys appropriated to provide assistance with shelter for the homeless has been used, despite claims by existing organisations for more help with emergency assistance particularly but also with extensions to existing programs. Needs have risen each year but moneys voted by the Parliament have been unused and returned to revenue.

I see no virtue in such a situation when the need and the opportunity to use such funds are obvious to anyone who is interested in the subject. We are not talking about expenditure which would cripple the nation. We are talking about relatively small amounts. There is no virtue in cutting expenditure in these socially important areas where people are in great need. In four years, of the $ 1 7m allocated only $ 1 Om has been spent. That is a reflection of either appalling estimating on the part of the Department or a lack of willingness actually to spend the money. When the legislation was introduced in 1974 the then Minister for Social Security, Bill Hayden, pointed out the contrast between the millions of dollars which are spent in this country enforcing laws such as those relating to vagrancy which harass the homeless persons who are assisted under this legislation, and the pittance spent in providing shelter, rest, nutrition, rehabilitation and counselling for the heterogeneous group of people whom we conveniently label homeless, although it is purely a label of convenience.

In summing up, I point out that the Opposition has moved the amendment to draw to the attention of the Government and the community the utter inadequacy of the food and accommodation subsidies available under the program in 1979. The subsidies are the same as were available in 1974-75. In view of the costs and the increasing size of the problem it is quite ludicrous to find them at the same level today. This community can and must afford to increase them. I know that other Opposition speakers will deal with more specific problems relating to homeless persons. I think we are all aware that one of the major problems, which is probably a relatively new phenomenon, is the large number of young people who are homeless and unemployed and therefore unable to afford the accommodation which would otherwise be available. I think there is a real risk for these very young people. For one reason or another they are not living with their families and they have not got enough money to look after themselves properly. This applies to both girls and boys. I think there is a tendency for them to get involved in what we consider to be illegal behaviour whether it be the drug use which we were talking about this afternoon in another connection, prostitution, both male and female, or all kinds of other unpleasant things. Vandalism, which is fairly prominent in the community, in many cases is associated. I do not think it is a political issue in the strict sense of the word. I think we all basically agree, even from a financial point of view, that the cost to the community may well be less in the long run if we can help the most vunerable people in the community and prevent them becoming involved in a life of crime, drug addiction or whatever. It is very important that we use institutions such as those I mentioned earlier which are able to take advantage of the money provided by legislation and which in many instances provide cheap labour because they are charitable institutions or the people who run them have a strong motive to help others. We should take the fullest advantage of those institutions and support them to a greater extent on running costs and capital expenditure than we are doing at the present and than we have been doing for the last few years, especially since the problem has become so immense.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I second the amendment.

Mr McLEAN:
Perth

– I support the Homeless Persons Assistance Amendment Bill because it secures the future of the homeless persons welfare program. Until now there has not been any guarantee that this program would be an on-going one, which has meant that neither the Government nor the organisations delivering this welfare have been able to undertake long term planning of programs designed to assist homeless men and women. Many church and charitable organisations have spent a good deal of time and energy in raising their own money and utilising their own resources to deliver programs under the Homeless Persons Assistance Act. Some valuable government assistance also has been provided through capital grants, food and accommodation subsidies, rental subsidies and subsidies for the salaries of social welfare workers, but until now the Act has required statutory extensions following periods of evaluation and review. By removing from the enabling legislation reference to a prescribed period the status of this Act and of those organisations and individuals operating under it has been enhanced and the Act can now be given the long term welfare priority which it rightly deserves. I say that because this is an area of real need. In previous speeches in this Parliament I have referred to the findings of the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty and to departmental surveys which have highlighted the tragic dimensions of this problem at both the individual and the community level. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle), in introducing this Bill in another place, said:

The allocation of funds for new capital projects will, of course, be decided at the appropriate time. Other subsidies under the Act, in relation to salaries, food and accommodation and meals, continue independently of this Bill.

Now that the statutory authority of this legislation has been firmly established by this Bill, the Government should try to restore an appropriate level of funding to eligible organisations under the Act if the intent of the original legislation is to be achieved.

The extent of the problem of homelessness or of the skid row population is very difficult to quantify and no census has been taken to gauge its incidence in Australia. It is a geographically and socially mobile population. The Minister, in her second reading speech, said that at present there are 113 approved centres and these provide overnight accommodation for something like 3,600 men and women. Point-in-time estimates would place the number of homeless persons in Australia at many times that figure. Numerically these figures may not be substantial but the number of people who move into and out of homelessness throughout a given year may be many times this figure. I refer again to the Minister’s second reading speech when she said that a total of 947,380 persons were accommodated in 1978 while 1,056,832 meals were made available to non-residents. Those figures highlight the problem of trying to put an exact figure on the incidence of homelessness. I do not know how much double counting is included in those figures and just how many individuals were looked after at homeless persons hostels but I suspect it is a growing problem. Qualitatively the social and health problems of many of these people place them in a position of hardship which is far more severe than that of many other categories of disadvantaged people in the community.

This matter has been examined by the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into poverty in Australia and several departmental surveys have been carried out. Some of these findings show that the homeless people have experienced a disrupted and discontinuous process of care in the formative and vulnerable years of their childhood. A high proportion never attended school. There has been a history of family alcoholism and a strong relationship existed between parental alcoholism and drinking problems early in their lives. For many there has been a significant childhood experience in a corrective institution. As to social contact, there has been a high usage of church or welfare centres and a virtual absence of family ties. Surveys have shown that one in four people have been homeless for more than 10 years and for most the incidence of previous illnesses was far higher than that for the general population and that as a group homeless men appear to be prematurely aged.

A number of other surveys have shown that the percentage of epilepsy and venereal disease among them was 10 times as high as that for the community at large and the incidence of tuberculosis was four times as high. The publication A Place of Dignity put out by the Department of Social Security in June of last year also found that there was a high rate of illness and disability among the homeless persons surveyed. This really is an area of significant need in Australian society, but in terms of the total federal Budget this program is not significant. I think that substantial improvements could be made to government funding in this area of need without having a significant effect on Budget aggregates.

There is no doubt in my mind that there is an urgent need to increase the food and accommodation subsidies payable to eligible organisations under the Act. I hope that, within the context of the next Budget, the Government will give every consideration to that. These subsidies, which are paid at a daily rate of 75c for each homeless person to whom both food and accommodation are, provided and at 25c for each meal supplied to non-resident homeless persons, have not been increased since the inception of the Act in 1 974. Over the past six years of relatively high inflation the value of these subsidies therefore has been gradually but substantially eroded.

I raised this matter during an Estimates committee examination of the estimates for the Department of Social Security in September of this year and it was stated quite specifically that the failure by all political parties and governments to adjust these subsidies has caused some financial difficulties for organisations operating under the Act. I keep in close contact with some of the organisations in Perth which look after homeless men and women and youths and their experience certainly shows that there is a need to update these subsidies. In one 35-bed hostel the food bill comes to $1,100 a month but the subsidies received amount to only $400 a month. This calculation does not include other expenses, such as building maintenance and the administrative costs which inevitably arise in any substantial organisation.

In the particular institution to which I referred, providing the linen service for one man for one night costs 40c. With the meals, accommodation and overhead expenses it is little wonder that a subsidy rate of 75c per day for one man leaves many of these institutions in a difficult financial position. Yet it is the church and other charitable organisations which the Government, under this Act, is trying to encourage to stay in this field of welfare to help the homeless and destitute people in this country. Organisations such as the Salvation Army, the St Vincent de Paul Society and the Jesus People- which is a uniquely Western Australian group who look after the homeless group in Western Australia and do an excellent job- must remain in this field of welfare because the people they are helping are those who are often referred to as ‘skid row’ people. These people do not need financial assistance only; they need compassion, sympathy and, basically, a friendly hand.

The publication A Place of Dignity summed it up well when assessing the kinds of organisations which should be eligible to receive grants. The publication affirmed:

That organisations currently in the field are the best friends and allies that homeless people could have, and that any defects are due mainly to lack of money and staff.

I do not believe that governments should provide all the finance required to care properly for this area of welfare. If this were done much of the essential spirit and dignity which comes from the church and charitable and other non-profit welfare organisations would disappear. But I do believe that the capital and recurrent funding of these organisations needs to be upgraded substantially if these organisations are to be able to stay in this field. If this does not occur, sheer financial necessity will force the entire program back into the hands of the Government. This would be against the best interests of homeless persons who would be cared for by an impersonal and bureaucratic structure, rather than by, say, the church organisations. It certainly would increase the overall cost of caring for these homeless people.

The cost of upgrading the program, as it is presently structured, would not be great. In the evidence given to the Estimates committee of this House on the Department of Social Security I was told that the cost of providing food and accommodation subsidies in 1979-80 was $1,160,000. In other words, by spending an additional $1.1 6m we could double that level of assistance. If we do not do so, the agencies in the field will have to devote more of their valuable time to fund raising than to looking after these needy people. This may well result in some of these organisations being unable to continue their work. It might mean also that the organisations will have to charge the users of their services a much higher percentage of their present pension or benefit than is charged at present. This may mean that these men, women and youths will be discouraged from entering homeless persons’ hostels and will be forced back into the streets and on to the park benches. So an additional $1.1 6m would go a long way towards helping to solve these problems. That figure represents 0.01 per cent of the Budget outlays for 1979-80 which are classified as social security and welfare payments. Yet, on the other hand, this would represent a 100 per cent increase in the very important recurrent capitation subsidies which are paid to those organisations eligible under the Homeless Persons Assistance Act. Following this catch-up adjustment, indexation of these subsidies also would be a desirable and necessary policy initiative, as soon as the Government was able to do so.

I would like to refer also to the salary subsidies, which amount to 50 per cent of the salary of a social welfare worker employed at a homeless persons’ assistance centre. According to the second reading speech of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle), at present subsidies valued at $320,000 are being provided for 44 social welfare workers at 40 different homeless persons’ centres. Social welfare workers need formal qualifications in order to be eligible for this subsidy. They need experience in the field, and they have to furnish duty statements. That is quite reasonable. Organisations in the field have informed me that some liberalisation in this area would be beneficial. In considering the nature of the people seeking the refuge of these centres a total reliance on formal qualifications is considered by some to be too restrictive. The Minister should also look at this matter closely.

If the purpose of these centres is to provide some scope for rehabilitation rather than just to mount a salvaging operation, additional suitably trained staff, quite apart from social welfare officers, may be required. Further, there is a need particularly in the larger centres, for supervisory and administrative staff. In Perth I refer to the Tandara Hospital, which is administered by the Salvation Army. Organisations which operate on a large scale like this certainly have a need for supervisory and administrative staff. Taking all these factors into account, I would suggest that more than one salary-subsidised person may be required at a number of these centres. I am advised by departmental officers that there is no maximum limit to the number of salarysubsidised staff which can be employed at any one centre, although in practice usually no more than one person per organisation is in receipt of a salary subsidy. I make this point because these centres are generally open for 24 hours a day. A lot of man hours are involved and much of their most urgent work is done during the late hours of the night. This requires the employment of many people. One 35-bed hostel in my electorate employs nine welfare workers. If the hostel is to offer a responsible 24-hour a day service, it is deemed necessary by the organisation to have salary-subsidised staff. This area warrants further attention when the Act eventually comes before the Government for review.

By all standards the annual appropriation for capital and recurrent grants under this Act is not significant in terms of the overall Budget. Yet there seems to be a great reluctance to preserve the real value, particularly of the recurrent funding. I urge the Government to re-assess the financial aspects of this Act when it is being considered in the context of the next Budget. This problem is an almost inevitable consequence of the conflict which occurs in determining welfare priorities when universal payments assume a significance, both political and budgetary, which precludes a flexible approach in appropriating funds to emerging areas of need. The more we rely upon universal payments in the social welfare field, the more that prevents a total concentration of scarce resources in areas of need. It does not permit flexibility in responding to emerging areas of need. It certainly precludes the possibility of offering general tax cuts which, in the long term, would be of great benefit to the whole community and more particularly to the unemployed.

I know that the Government is seeking to stress the criterion of need as the basis of disbursing welfare funds. I acknowledge also that Australia has a better record than most countries in concentrating on anti-poverty measures. I would like to quote from an article which was recently published by Professor Henderson in a publication Public Expenditures and Social Policy in Australia. It reads:

Several countries which spend 8 to 9 per cent of gross domestic product on income maintenance only directly spend 2 to 3 per cent on the relief of poverty, because so much income maintenance consists of pensions, or benefits related to past earnings or contributions to a pension fund, not to needs. In Canada, Norway, Sweden, UK and USA only 30-40 per cent of the income transfers go to the poorest 20 per cent of the population. In Australia, on the other hand, a very large proportion of income transfers do go to the poorest . . . Unless the means test is abolished for all old age pensioners, or the system replaced by a national superannuation scheme, it seems probable that the Australian income transfers will continue to be directed to the poor to a much greater extent.

Notwithstanding this desirable method of administering a welfare policy, I think that we have a long way to go and the homeless persons assistance program highlights that fact. I find it strange that in a country of 14 million people, strongly endowed with the world’s most valuable resources, enjoying one of the highest standards of living in the world and spending $14.7 billion annually on health, welfare and education, areas of real need involving minuscule appropriations remain relatively ignored. I do not think that it is the fault of the economy. Any economy that is able to produce $14’A billion worth of transfer payments is healthy and strong. It is rather a question of priorities between universality and selectivity in welfare payments, which I have debated time and again in this chamber.

Perhaps there is a tendency for policy makers in democratic systems to listen to the highly organised and highly articulate welfare groups, which leads mainly to income transfers being made from middle income earners to other middle income earners. Homeless persons are certainly neither organised nor articulate and others have to speak on their behalf. Whatever the reason, I strongly suggest to the Minister for Social Security, who has constantly advocated a needs approach to welfare, that she give a top priority to re-examining the present funding levels under this Act which services a very needy section of the community. I support the Bill. It certainly elevates the status of the Act and gives continuity to the program. It will assist long term planning by all organisations and individuals involved in this program.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I would be the last one to disparage the enduring interest that the honourable member for Perth (Mr McLean) exhibits on matters of this kind. I have been involved with him in efforts in this area. But from what I have heard tonight, the honourable member would be a good candidate, if we were looking for one from the Government, to support the Opposition in the amendment that has been moved. It is not an overreaction, it is a sensible amendment to move and it is very much in compliance with the terms of his own speech. There has been no increase in any of the provisions under this legislation since it was first introduced in 1974. It is reasonable to assert that there should be an updating of those provisions. Regrettably, the Homeless Persons Assistance Amendment Bill does not do anything like that. It does nothing more than remove the time limits on the major grants under this Homeless Persons Assistance Act 1974.

A range of grants has been spelt out already. There is an urgent and increasing need for additional assistance for the expanding army of homeless people of Australia. Once we used to think of them as old swaggies and derelict old men, but now the army has taken on a different type of characteristic. It now involves a large number of young people. Sometimes they are young people who have fallen out of favour or an effective relationship with their affluent families. Sometimes they are just young people who cannot get started in the modern, technological world. If there has not been sympathy for homeless people before, there could well be reason for people to generate such sympathy in the future.

The principal Act, of course, is very laudable in all its objectives. It is one of the surviving initiatives of the Whitlam Government. It survived the unrelenting vendetta of the Fraser Government which has taken the form of a devolution program aimed at destroying the Australian Labor Party social reforms. Of course, this whole area of homeless people is taking on such dimensions that although it was contemplated to put those original initiatives into the incinerator with the introduction of the devolution program, the Government dare not do that now because it would be criticised on many fronts. It is interesting to look briefly at the history of this matter. Following a working party on homeless men and women set up by Bill Hayden in February 1973, which reported later in the year on the feasibility of a program to assist them, legislation was foreshadowed by the then Prime Minister in the 1974 election campaign and introduced by Mr Hayden in November 1974. Grants were made available to organisations for existing and new hostels, day attendance centres, detoxification clinics and work centres. They would cover rent, furnishings and equipment with subsidies for welfare staff members and a subsidised meal allowance. The then Minister for Social Security, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), in his second reading speech said:

The measures proposed within the Bill are based on a compassionate understanding of the needs and very real problems of homeless men and women and of their alienation, their loneliness and their despair . . . Our Government is determined to end such areas of neglect.

The speech from which that quotation is extracted was made on 27 November 1974. In fairness, I must say that it brought a reasonable response from the spokesman for social security at the time- it was Don Chipp as a matter of fact- who said- I quote him word for word:

At least he has made a start. We did not for 23 years … I commend the Government for this humanitarian piece of legislation.

Mr Chipp, now a Senator, is leader of the Australian Democrats-

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– He was a Liberal member.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-He was a Liberal member. This was before his defection from the Liberal Party. I suppose that was one of the reasons why he defected; he was out of step on matters of this kind. He said those words on 3 December 1974. I must try to cut back my remarks because a number of people would like to share the limited speaking time. The main provisions of the principal Act which the Labor Government initiated were to support organisations and agencies catering for homeless men and women. It has been mentioned by the two preceding speakers that this Bill is about a salary subsidy of 50 per cent of the salary of approved staff, an accommodation subsidy of 75c a person a day and a meal subsidy of 25c a meal in respect of a non-resident homeless person. It is probably sufficient to say that none of these subsidies has been altered or increased since the last Labor Budget in 1975. Obviously, the Government is remiss about that. Any fair person would contend that. I am sure that the honourable member for Perth was making points to that effect. That is why the Opposition has moved this amendment which is in simple terms. I will read it to the House. It is reasonable. It says in part:

  1. . the House is of opinion that the payment of 75c per day for accommodation and 25c per meal paid to those who provide assistance to homeless persons should be increased to a more reasonable level-

Obviously, we should take into account the cost of living increase that has risen in that time. I am trying to put a reasonable case. The present allowance is 25c for a meal. Half a hamburger could not be bought for that amount now. It would be a hamburger without the meat. It is a laughable proposition. The Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay) who is sitting at the table ought to take that on board and recognise that he is out of step with the rest of the country. Anyone who takes an interest in these things would know that the Government is not fair dinkum. It has failed to upgrade or update these figures to sensible and reasonable levels. The Government members can make all the laudable speeches that they like about the Salvation Army people, the St Vincent de Paul Society people and others who go around the slums of Sydney, Melbourne and Perth looking after the derelicts in the streets. All those laudable comments do not count anywhere near as much as giving the societies and charitable organisations the wherewithal to get on with the job.

The primary thing is to keep these homeless persons alive on more than half a hamburger, which is the policy of this Government at the present time.

Mr Bryant:

– You can imagine how well his shearers do.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The honourable member is out of his seat to start with. My colleague, the honourable member for Wills, has a great involvement in this matter. I do not think that anyone could quell his enthusiasm regardless of where he sat at any time. When the program was approved by the Labor Cabinet in 1974 it was expected to cost about $20. 15m, including $ 14.5m in capital expenditure over the three-year period. In 1975-76- the year of the Hayden Budget-$4.4m was allocated. But the Fraser Government has cut the allocation harshly and in the two financial years from 1975 to 1977 has spent only $3.8m altogether. The funding goes on from there. In 1977-78 the actual expenditure was $2.7m; in 1978-79 it was $2. 8m; and this year the Budget allocation has jumped to $5.6m. Even if the Government spends the Budget allocation it will have contributed only about two-thirds of the resources intended when the scheme was launched by the Labor Party.

One of my complaints is that there has been vacillation and uncertainty about the program. This Bill is simply extending the period. The agencies and the organisations dependent on this legislation have been disadvantaged. They have been destabilised. I think that we have slowed momentum by failing to make the position clear at an earlier time. The Government has been carried away by budgetary constraints and so on, by this philosophy that it incessantly imbues and indoctrinates into the Australian community. It has no regard for priorities, even the most humane priorities. It has vacillated right up to this time about telling these agencies and organisations that are right in the frontline of the greatest devastation we can see in our own country. It is the closest thing to a Kampuchean situation that we are experiencing. It is the closest thing to a Timorese situation in Australia. The Government has vacillated right up until now and has slowed down the organisations, has caused them to lose their momentum. That, I think, is a great shame. It is a reflection on the Government. It is not a thing we want to score about politically. It is a damned shame that it has been allowed to happen.

This Bill, as innocuous as it is, represents a green light that this scheme is going to go on in the future even though no money is involved in its passage. The message should have come through earlier because many of us have been inundated with expressions of concern by organisations in many States. I have correspondence here, to and from the Minister, on behalf of the organisations. I know that if they had been aware that the Government was going to carry on with this scheme they would have had their plans prepared for other buildings and all sorts of other things. An internal report within the Department of Social Security some time ago stated, in part:

The trouble with homeless people, regarded as a group, is not that they are defective or homeless, but that they are poor, sick, defenceless and lacking in self-esteem.

The same report went on to give an account of these people. It stated:

The average age of the homeless men is about 46 years, and their life expectancy far lower than the average. Their level of schooling is lower than the average, and the proportion of the sample investigated by the Poverty Commission who never attended school is almost three times as great as that of the male population in New South Wales.

These are incredible revelations. The document continues:

One in live had been homeless for more than 10 years, and almost one in ten had been homeless for more than 1 5 years. They have a far higher rate of diagnosed illnesses than workers of an equivalent age. Epilepsy and veneral disease were 10 times as high; bronchial and liver diseases were at least three times as high; breakdowns were four times as common; and back injury, twice as common, was consistent with the level of physical injury and occupational hazards expected in a group of poor, unskilled workers.

That kind of information is available in great quantity and volume at present. The Government’s great obsession is to protect the taxpayer, which is a fair enough proposition. But if it thinks it is going to win more votes by requiring people to exercise less conscience about their fellow man, if it wants them to be their brother’s keepers to a diminishing degree in the future than has been the case in the past, it is operating in a fool’s paradise if it thinks it can do this on the cheap to the advantage of the taxpayer. The Government has to tackle these fundamental problems and start looking at the whole man, not just his accommodation. While this program must continue, there should be less emphasis simply on beds and meals, important enough as they are. I suppose they are primary resources in the circumstances. But there ought to be greater emphasis on attention to health problems, and even on legal injustices, which often drive these people into this kind of circumstance, and civil liberties. Certainly there should be a new range of conditions laid down about the operation of homeless men’s institutions and doss houses about which there have been scandals from time to time. Honourable members will remember the headlines about slave conditions in Queensland. Some people have exploited this unfortunate group of people.

I did not mean to go on as long as I have on this matter. However, a restricted document compiled by the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development, Directorate for Social Affairs, Manpower and Education was referred to in the Financial Review just a few days ago. It contended that Australia’s youth unemployment problem is at least the third worst among OECD countries. The article said:

Of 15 OECD countries Australia last year and early this year had the third worst youth unemployment rate. Only Finland and Spain showed higher rates. And of eight OECD countries surveyed on the duration of youth unemployment Australia was by far the highest.

The article continued:

Other countries in this comparative group included the US, the UK, France, Canada and Sweden.

The comparisons and predictions of higher youth unemployment in the 1 980s are contained in a restricted document compiled by the OECD’s Directorate for Social Affairs, Manpower and Education.

Honourable members can see this article for themselves. It is very revealing indeed. It must be frightening to parents to recognise the extent to which the number of homeless persons is going to be aggravated by young people who are affected by the unavailability of employment. The article in the Financial Review continued:

The documentation included in the study showed that between 1965 and the first quarter this year Australia experienced the highest growth in youth unemployment of 15 OECD countries.

Through 1978 Australia’s youth unemployment (unemployed aged between 15 and 24 as a per cent of the total labour force between those ages) ran between 11.1 per cent and 1 5.2 per cent.

The article goes on to indicate how much worse that is than is the case in other countries and how much worse it will become in the future. It indicates beyond doubt that we have to give a lot more attention to these matters.

I have before me tonight an account of the activities of the Smith Family, the Salvation Army and the St Vincent De Paul Society in terms of all the meals they serve, how many people they accommodate and so on. I do not have time to do anything more than make a cursory mention of the work of one of those organisations. The St Vincent De Paul Society estimates the number of homeless people at between 8,000 and 10,000. According to the national report 1978-79, the increased demand on services provided can be estimated by the following for the 10-year period 1968 to 1978: Persons assisted, that is given food, cash or accommodation, have risen from 218,000, in round figures, in 1968 to 708,000 in 1978. This represents a 224 per cent increase. Assistance to families increased in round figures from 45,000 people assisted in 1968 to 259,000 people assisted in 1978. In money terms in 1968 $430,000 was provided. That amount increased to $ 1,500m in 1978. This was the amount spent on food vouchers, fares and assistance to homeless persons.

If one looks at newspaper cuttings from the Parliamentary Library indicating the extent of devastation of homeless people, especially in respect of the emerging homeless group- the young people in every State in Australia- one can say only that this legislation, as timely as it is and as wanted as it has been, is inadequate in that it does not give sufficient priority to these people. It exhibits the indifference which this Government has displayed for far too long about a growing cancer in our community. There would be something wrong with all Australians if we allowed this very seriously deteriorating problem to go as unattended in the future as it has been in the lifetime of the Fraser Government.

Mr MCVEIGH:
Darling Downs

-No government should be afraid to face the truth of a situation and the facts of life. The FraserAnthony Government in particular has never sought to flee from the truth. There is a concensus in the Government, the Opposition and the population at large that much remains to be done in the area of helping the poor and the unfortunate in our society. I am delighted to know that there is a sense of agreement with the thrust and aims of this piece of legislation. True it is that some of the speakers in this debate have given positive examples of how improvements can be effected. But in the final analysis, the Government has a responsibility to ensure that the taxpayers’ money is spent to cover the whole length and breadth of human endeavour. I suppose the facts are alarming. There is no pleasure in finding that we have more people who are homeless and to realise that last year one million beds were used by the various charitable organisations to try to bring some peace and comfort to these people by providing them with shelter.

Of course, the cause for concern is that we have seen an alarming change, a shift in emphasis. Ten years ago the average age of homeless people was in the order of 41 years. Now it is 29 years. That is a reason for concern. Many people do like to blame a government for causing all these ills but I suspect that a detailed knowledge and faithful analysis of the position would indicate that governments cannot legislate for attitudes. Attitudes are moulded and chiselled into shape by the personality of the individual, by the quality of family life, by the existence of a conscience in all strata of society and also by the lead given by government. I suspect that in a debate like this, one does not have the latitude to analyse all of those different attitudes. However, I point out that the problem that we are facing today is not caused by government. It is caused by society. No government can change society by itself. I know that statistics can be confusing but the real fact of the matter is that it is young people who are now creating the greater problem.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Get them jobs.

Mr McVEIGH:

– It is all right for the previous speaker, the honourable member for Hughes, to say, ‘Get them jobs’. How difficult it is when we find the trade union movement in this country denying the workers the opportunity of work by, as it were, exporting jobs out of this country.

Mr Morris:

– You said that 100 years ago.

Mr McVEIGH:

– It was an interjection by the honourable member for Hughes that has given me an opportunity in a debate like this to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the workers of Australia are exporting jobs out of this country. The honourable member for Hughes came in with an interjection and I had to answer it in charity to my mind. In Brisbane this year the Government has allocated the sum of $4m for the purposes of providing residential accommodation for the St Vincent de Paul Society and the Salvation Army. Last Monday in the St Vincent de Paul shelter in Brisbane 182 people sought accommodation. At breakfast time that number increased by 92. Six hundred people came in for lunch. It is true, as the honourable member for Perth (Mr McLean) and the honourable member for Hughes have said, that the amount of subsidy is inadequate to provide the essentials of even one decent meal a day. I would hope that the Government in its budget decisions next year will be able to see its way clear to increase the amount of subsidy that will be made available in this most worthwhile area. I support the remarks made by the honourable member for Hughes in that respect.

I make a request to the Government to consider three very important matters. It should consider not only the need for shelter and accommodation and the provision of food, but also it should consider the absolute necessity to increase the number of social workers. How disappointing it is to find that in January this year eight suicides were committed in Brisbane by people jumping off the Story Bridge. The eldest person was 31 and the youngest 18 years of age. These people need counselling. They need something to invigorate their spirit as well as to sustain them in the everyday mortal requirements. The second point I make is that people who use these homes in many instances come from interstate areas. Even in this day of the computer it takes up to three weeks to process these people’s cheques. Surely it is not unreasonable to expect that some small portion of the staff who work in the social security area could be allocated to look after interstate transfers so that these people can get their cheques quickly and do not have to wait for three weeks.

The third point is that a huge percentage of these people are what we term runaways. Something has to be done to make a better home life for these people so that they will not want to opt out and run away from home. I am talking about people of 14 or 16 years of age. They have no shelter at home because their homes were not places of peace and quietness. That is a very essential area for counselling and the provision of social workers. I have been allowed only five minutes in which to associate the National Country Party with this piece of most necessary social welfare. Finally I wish to indicate that we applaud the initiative of the Government in positively displaying that there will be a continuation of this scheme. It will not be cut out.

I remind the people of Australia that notwithstanding the need to spend much more money in this area there are parallel schemes in existence: $3m has been made available on a dollartodollar basis with the States for the provision of youth support schemes; various family support service schemes, the community health programs and the welfare housing programs are operating. The need for this support is indicative of the fact that there is a problem. I suspect deep down that none of these problems will be solved unless we adopt an attitude of answering positively the question: Am I my brother’s keeper? If not, I suspect that we are really sowing the seeds of our own destruction.

Mr HOWE:
Batman

– I support the amendment moved by the Opposition in relation to this legislation, the Homeless Persons Assistance Amendment Bill, which refers particularly to the levels of subsidy of 75 cents a day for accommodation and 25 cents a meal for those institutions that provide accommodation or meals for homeless people. I think all of the previous speakers have referred to the inadequacy of this subsidy. There ought to be considerable support on the Government side when that amendment is voted upon. If the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) does not accept the amendment we would expect to see a number of people crossing the floor. The legislation was one of the initiatives of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden ) when he was Minister for Social Security. He set up the working party which did the initial investigation, resulting in the draft legislation and its enactment for a three-year period. Originally, as suggested earlier, it was intended that the total expenditure on the program would be of a rather larger order.

One of the disturbing features in terms of the trend in financing has been the difference between the allocation and the amount spent in each of the years. I recognise that to some extent that is related to the fact that the capital side of the program has not proceeded as quickly as anyone would have hoped. Nevertheless, no new projects have been approved, as I understand it, since 1977. All of the applications that have been considered were submitted prior to that time. So there have been considerable delays and there has been very little initiative on the part of the Government to seek additional projects apart from those that were approved, two of which will come into the building stage, as I understand it, this financial year.

The plight of homeless people is a very important subject. It is important that some time be set aside by the House for debate on this subject, although unfortunately this debate has been foreshortened to some extent. I wish to reply to some of the matters that, for example, the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh), suggested, which seem to me to echo something of what has been the conventional wisdom in terms of homeless people. I refer firstly to the suggestion that these people are somehow the product of family conditions, personal attitudes and perhaps their immediate social environment, rather than their being in any sense the victims of larger social forces. That tendency has been present. I guess that is the reason why most of the services that have been provided to homeless people in Australia in the past have been provided by charitable organisations. No group in the community has been more subject to charity, had its spirits aroused so often by the singing of hymns at breakfast timevery often in return for breakfast- or been so embedded within perhaps the more extreme and even right-wing sections of religion than this particular group, namely, homeless people. I think that is unfortunate.

It is also unfortunate that in this legislation the major subsidies continue to go to the traditional providers of services to homeless people and that the notion of co-operatives which is embedded in the legislation and the possibility of funds being provided for local government to establish services has not been developed. The tendency throughout the life of this legislation has been for the traditional pattern of providing services for homeless people, particularly for social derelicts, to be provided by the religious and charitable organisations that historically have been in the

Held. If there has been a benefit from the program it has been that at least there have been some additional resources, although, as other speakers have suggested, certainly not adequate resources, and that to some extent the services have been upgraded.

The new accommodation we built in Brisbane at least will be new accommodation. Presumably it will provide for more single room accommodation rather than the dormitory accommodation that traditionally has been provided for homeless people. A proper diet may even be provided. Anyone who knows anything about this area would know that homeless people as a group very rarely have access to an adequate diet. A lot of their health problems flow from that situation. That is another reason why the meal subsidies and the board subsidies ought to be upgraded. It ought to be seen that the people who are receiving subsidies for the provision of these meals are in fact providing a more adequate diet for homeless people.

To get closer to the nub of the matter, I think that the tendency has been to interpret homelessness very much in terms of what I might describe as a Durkheimian model or a notion of people who suffer primarily from social isolation. The prime characteristic of these people is that they do not form enduring relationships; that they are not part of the larger social structures and value systems which are dominant in our society; that they are, in a sense, people who have been cut off and are adrift from society. Often that is seen very much in the terms of the honourable member for Darling Downs, who saw it very much as their responsibility, that they or their families have been living in such a way that they have cut themselves off and therefore society itself is not responsible. I think that belief flows from two misunderstandings. I shall refer to them very quickly.

It is historically true that homeless people have lived by necessity within the inner areas of large cities. Living in those areas, they very often have lived in a situation which is extremely unstable. I refer to one aspect of that, namely, the housing situation. We all know that the inner areas of large cities go through constant processes of change. Those processes of change are not simply the result of a number of individual decisions. In part, they flow from the forces of the capitalist system as it operates the private property market. As homeless people are people who are able to pay only the lowest price for rent, invariably they tend to be provided by the community under a free market system with the very poorest of accommodation. This is true irrespective of whether they are living privately or within institutional accommodation. That accommodation had traditionally, historically, been the poorest accommodation that is provided for people within the urban areas.

I believe that the problem of homelessness has been exacerbated by the kind of major changes which have occurred more recently in the inner areas of Australian cities. In the past few years we have seen major programs of urban renewal and the tendency for office areas within a city to expand into neighbouring suburbs and for properties that have been used for perhaps 30 or 40 years as rooming houses to be taken over for commercial purposes or sometimes turned into large family homes. The net result of that process of gentrification- the process of change in use and change in values that has occurred in property markets, whether at Redfern, Fitzroy or the inner suburbs of other cities- has inevitably resulted in the expulsion of many homeless people from what may have been fairly primitive accommodation but which was, on the whole, relatively low rent accommodation. The dispersal of homeless people has resulted in a situation arising in which the traditional services are located greater distances from them. I believe that the trend in terms of the property market, with its insensitivity not only to homeless people but also to many other groups of people who live in the inner city areas, is one of the trends that people who are analysing homelessness ought to be looking at.

The other factor which I think is important is related to employment. Traditionally, the homeless person not only lives in marginal housingvery often the poorest housing- but also is a marginal worker. It is not true to say, as many people do about homeless people, that they are people who either do not work or rarely work. Most of the people I have known in the homeless group, in the social derelict group, have been in fact in a working situation, for most of their lives, but it is also a working situation which is quite marginal. By that, I mean the casual workers who move from city to country to follow the seasonal work in rural areas or casual workers in the sense that they do any kind of work that is available, for example, in the railway goods yards where there is loading to be done from time to time or in major transport interchanges for bulk transport where again there has always been a demand for casual labour.

The homeless person who is part of this group suffers because not only is he marginally housed but also he is marginally employed within industries where traditionally there has been a demand for casual labour but where people are taken on often for very short periods, where the pay is extremely poor and where they can be laid off on more or less a moment’s notice. It has suited the community to have a group of people who form, in Marxist terms, a kind of reserve army of labour. They are the people who are available to be exploited at more or less a moment’s notice and who form a group that to some extent maintains pressure on those who are employed because of their need to accept the lowest wages. They are the people who can be drafted from a situation of unemployment into employment. At a time of extremely high unemployment, it is quite clear that the homeless population has expanded and that the poverty of that homeless population has also expanded.

In a sense, one could say that what the Government does in terms of this legislationwhether it provides an extra million or so dollars or whether it raises the allowances by a certain amount- is not the crux of the problem. The crux of the problem is related to the housing policies of this Government and the kind of housing that is provided. Firstly, I might point out, seeing the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Groom) is at the table, that historically public housing authorities have literally refused to provide accommodation for people in this group. We negotiated in Melbourne for the construction of a new building to replace the old Gordon House, which I might say is now highly gentrified and is one of the better restaurants in Melbourne for the accommodation of the soul. All the capital appreciation associated with that property has gone to the new owners. A new building was constructed in South Melbourne, which is certainly a major development for this group. When the directors of Hanover Welfare Services were negotiating in relation to Gordon House, the State Housing Commission refused to be part of that deal. It refused to use its money, which was provided mostly by the Commonwealth Government, to house this particular group. It did not see it as appropriate to house this group and it still does not.

Despite the flexibility in terms of the new Commonwealth-states housing finance agreement, it is not sufficiently flexible for public housing authorities in this country to house the people who everyone would agree, are amongst the very poor. When we have this talk about the need to introduce market rents, paradoxically in order to get the people who are not so poor out of public housing accommodation, I am reminded of the fact that the people in this group- the homeless men and women of this country- as a matter of policy are not housed, as far as I know, by any of the State housing authorities. I think that is very unfortunate. Not a cent went into the Gordon House building in Melbourne which was conceived well before the introduction of this legislation, that came from the State housing authority. Admittedly, the State Treasury contributed substantially. I think that says something about public housing and its administration in this country. It is not a real solution for the problems of homeless people simply to reinforce the traditional 19th century pattern of charitable houses and accommodation for the undeserving poor. Insofar as this legislation has reinforced that charitable pattern, I think one ought to regret it.

Secondly it is also important, if one wants to be serious about this group of people, for the Government to develop employment policies that guarantee the right to work, create employment and maintain high standard conditions for unskilled, seasonal and casual workers. I do not have time to develop that theme, but employment policies are extremely important in relation to this group. One ought not to think of these people as being somehow outside the work force. Most of the time they are in the work force and they are amongst the most exploited members of the work force when they are in it. Thirdly, and finally, it is unfortunate that even though the legislation has been amended to make it permanent legislation, there is not associated with it any rethinking of the whole approach that might be developed by the Government to homeless people. I take, for example, the definition of homeless people which I have been discussing. I think there are substantial groups within the population that might be brought within the purview of this legislation. I am not referring simply to homeless youth. There are other groups of people- for example, migratory, seasonal and casual workers- which need adequate housing, very often close to their employment. They might well be provided for in this legislation.

There has been no emphasis in the administration of the legislation on the rights of homeless people. We know that there is no group which is more offended in terms of its rights within the population. That is reflected in the fact that at any one time homeless people represent a substantial proportion of the population in the nation’s prisons. Very often they are there for having committed offences which are quite minimal and for which they have been undefended. For example I refer to acts of vagrancy. They have had their legal rights completely overridden. The rights of homeless people would seem to me to be an area on which much greater emphasis might have been placed by the Government. I refer not only to legal rights but also to rights to receive basic care. I know of a number of cases of people who, for want of urgent treatment in casualty sections of hospitals, have died, simply because others have made a judgment that they represent a class of people which has to be given second rate treatment, and which is not to be treated in the same way as ordinary people in the community. I think that in terms of the funding of voluntary agencies there needs to be a rethinking of that relationship. The Government might think in terms of some kind of deficit funding approach to the gap between the budget presented by an agency and its expected receipts.

Very little research has been done on housing in Australia generally. Certainly, not very much work has been done in relation to this particular group. Some of the work that has been done, of course, includes the finest research of a sociological character that we have had done in this country. But there has not been much of it and certainly there is not a continuing program. It is good that the legislation has been made permanent. It is unfortunate that there has not been a strong indication from the Government of a decision to upgrade the subsidies that are provided. It is also unfortunate I believe, that the Government has not in terms of policy, sought to use State agencies. Perhaps the legislation could have been amended for that purpose, and also for the purpose of developing more activities on the part of local government in the homeless field.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 72

NOES: 32

Majority……. 40

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

In Division

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

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2732

CRIMES (AIRCRAFT) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 October, on motion by Mr Viner:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The Crimes (Aircraft) Amendment Bill 1979 is a Bill of a short nature. It extends the present operation of the Crimes (Aircraft) Act by creating new crimes relating to aerodromes and air navigation facilities. Under State and Commonwealth law there already are provisions relating to offences such as those being created by this legislation but the Government quite properly feels it is appropriate to create specific Commonwealth offences. The Opposition supports the Bill.

The provisions in the legislation can be briefly summarised. Clause 3 contains an amendment to the title of the Act so as to extend its operation to aerodromes and facilities. Clause 4 provides for two new crimes, the first of which is the crime of deliberately endangering the safety of airports, air navigation facilities or people at airports. That is punishable by seven years’ imprisonment. There are then the crimes of threatening to destroy or damage airports, or kill or injure persons at airports, or make false statements that there is a threat to forcibly take over, destroy or damage airports or to kill or injure persons at airports. This clause, which will become section 20C, carries a penalty of two years’ imprisonment.

Aerodrome’ is defined as an area of land or water that is owned by the Commonwealth and used, or intended to be used, for or in connection with the arrival, departure or other movements of aircraft. It includes any building, structure or installation. The term ‘air navigation facilities’ means buildings or other structures or installations or equipment at any place in Australia that is provided by the Commonwealth for use in connection with the navigation of aircraft. It does not include any building or other structure or installation or equipment in the area of a Commonwealth aerodrome. A wide area is affected by the legislation. Of course, the crimes dealt with by the legislation are serious. It is obvious that everybody would agree that there should be the severest of deterrents by way of penalty whether a legitimate threat is made or whether it is a hoax when someone suggests that there will be danger to an aircraft, people or facilities. As much mischief, distress and turbulence can be created by a false threat as by a genuine threat. That point is encompassed in this legislation.

Proposed new section 20c contains provisions which make it a crime to make a statement from which it could reasonably be inferred that a crime would be committed. The term ‘reasonably be inferred ‘ involves a subjective judgment. It is not always justice to say that everybody would draw a reasonable inference. It is to be hoped that all inferences will be reasonably drawn. Finally, I refer to clause 5 which amends section 26 of the Act. This enables the provisions relating to searches to apply to the new Part IIIA which is to be inserted by this legislation. A search will be authorised where there is a suspicion that an offence has been, is being or may be committed in respect of Commonwealth aerodromes or facilities. This clause provides for searches of any person, luggage, freight or vehicle found within the limits or in the vicinity of an aerodrome or any area in the vicinity of the aerodrome or its facilities. I think that this provision is understandable in the circumstances. Everybody in Australia would see this type of legislation as being necessary. The Opposition supports it and wishes it a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2733

DEFENCE AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 25 October, on motion by Mr Killen:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · Moreton · LP

– I understand that the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) is agreeable to treating in cognate fashion this Bill, the Naval Defence Amendment Bill and the Air Force Amendment Bill. I understand that he wishes the Defence Force (Retirement and Death Benefits Amendments) Bill (No. 2) to be debated separately. I am quite agreeable to that being done. I suggest that if the procedure meets with the approval of the House, separate questions will, of course, be put with respect to each of the Bills.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-(Hon. Ian Robinson - Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate? There being no objection I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-The Opposition welcomes the concept in the Defence Amendment Bill and the associated measures. The position of servicemen in respect to the passing on of changes to their salaries and their actual salary structure has been unsatisfactory over a long period. The practice of requiring that regulations be drafted in order to change that salary structure is one which has become extraordinarily cumbersome. It has caused dissatisfaction and extreme delays in some areas of the Services with respect to the passing on of increases in salaries and changes of conditions of that nature to serving members of the armed forces. The other portion of the Bill, that which empowers the appointment of acting chiefs of staff to the Defence Force or an arm of the Defence Force, is a clarification of what would be a necessary appointment in the absence of the person who for the time being held that position. The Opposition welcomes the change and congratulates the Minister on having made a long overdue reform to the manner of fixing Service salaries. The Opposition, however, intends to move an amendment which expresses an opinion on the method by which that change should take place rather than the method which is being adopted in this legislation. I move:

The difference between the amendment and what is, in fact, in the Bill is that the tribunal which is to all intents and purposes structured similarly to other wage determining bodies, which operate within the various areas of the Public Service and government employees, and would formulate determinations which would have the force of law and would be disallowable only by a resolution of either House of Parliament. That is a situation which applies to all Public Service determinations and those which are fixed under other forms of tribunal which fix government salaries. It would in effect mean that if the Government decided not to adopt any of the decisions of the tribunal the Government would be required to seek disallowance in the Parliament.

Under the terms of the legislation set out in the Bill disallowance can take place by the Minister withholding his signature. Therefore it is not necessary for any public act to take place in order to disallow, although provision is made for a determination made by the Minister to be disallowed by Parliament, which I think is a highly unlikely event. I think it is equally unlikely that the determinations of the tribunal will not be given force of law by the Minister of the day or the Government of the day. It would be very difficult for the Government to disallow services and conditions for members of the armed forces where they were adjudged to be entitled to those increases by a tribunal. The Opposition moves this amendment because it believes that the defence forces should be substantially on the same ground and have their pay fixing made in the same way as other government employees. They are as dependent on and are entitled to expect the same consideration in respect of wages, salaries and conditions as other persons. The tribunal as it operates at the moment has as its members a presidential member of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, a commissioner of that body and one other person. It is an independent body capable of fixing or judging salaries and certainly well able to fix or judge salaries on the same basis as applies to other government employees and the community in general.

The last paragraph of the Opposition’s amendment indicates that the tribunal should operate in a similar manner to the Remuneration Tribunal. That, in effect acknowledges the fact that there are at this time no associations or organisations which in fact represent members of the armed forces. Therefore, the making of submissions and the giving of evidence to the tribunal by individuals, as is the case with the Remuneration Tribunal which deals with the salaries of members of this Parliament, academics and senior public servants, would appear to be the only method by which members of the Services or persons with an interest in the salaries and structures of members of the Services could make representations to the tribunal, give evidence to the tribunal or seek to refute any submissions which may be made or any decisions which may have been made by the tribunal at other times. I reiterate- I do not intend to labour the point-that I believe that it should be that the tribunal is an independent body that fixes conditions by determination and that the Minister, who is the administrative head and in fact the head of the defence forces should not be seen to be the person who ultimately makes the decisions which in all other areas of the Public Service, except the Parliament if I may say so, are reserved for independent tribunals. The Minister should not be seen as having the power to disallow merely by withholding his signature. The power to disallow exists in the Parliament. A government can take that step at any time it wishes, although it is a most unusual step. To my knowledge it has been taken only once, and it was not taken by the present Government. The Opposition’s amendment which I have outlined, expresses an opinion and a principle which I hope will ultimately be drafted into the legislation. It is certainly not the Opposition’s intention at this time to delay what is a welcome reform.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-(Hon. Ian Robinson) - Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Wallis:

– I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

-This legislation may be regarded as purely a machinery measure but I think it goes a little further than that. My brief speech will be taken up with an expression of appreciation for the concern which the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) has shown. The presentation of these Bills to the House exposes the concern which he has for trying to remove not so much the disciplinary environment of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force but the many tedious and antiquated machinery matters. After all, when we are dealing with the Defence Act of 1 903, the Naval Defence Act of 1 9 10 and the Air Force Act of 1 923 we are probing pretty deeply into history. I think the most important of the measures which are now before the House is, as the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) has pointed out, that measure which removes the tedious necessity for the approving of financial benefits generally by regulation, which involves the promulgation, withdrawing and revising of regulations and so on. The Minister and the Department of Defence have seen fit to remove these very tedious procedures. There is little doubt that the defence force will greatly welcome these measures. The purpose of my contribution is merely to pay tribute to the Minister and the Department not only in respect of this legislation but also in regard to the way in which they have been examining the whole system of benefits for the participants in the defence force.

We hear a lot of talk about resignations and so on. It is interesting to note that the rate of resignation in the defence force is very much less than the rate of resignation in the Commonwealth Public Service. Recently I put to the Minister at an Estimates committee a question on how we were attracting people to train for the new generation warfare and he was able to tell me- I am sure that everybody who is interested and involved in defence matters would be delighted to know this- that the interest in participation in that terribly important section of our defence requirements is very high. These people are being trained in the new generation warfare and the weaponry that goes with it. I am sure that every honourable member fully supports this legislation. As I have said, the legislation is only a machinery measure but I did feel that something should be said in regard to the progress being made in doing away with tedious procedures.

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · Moreton · LP

– I will take just a moment to thank my friends the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) and the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) for what they have had to say and also to say to the honourable member for Corio that I resist the Opposition’s amendment. I am sure the honourable member understands the reasons. Acceptance of the amendment would require a very radical change to be made to the existing structure. The committee which is presided over by His Honour Mr Justice Coldham would need to be set up on a statutory basis. It would require the reception of all of the characteristics of advocacy. In short, it would mean taking the Defence Force into the whole ambit of industrial legislation. I am not prepared this evening to offer any extensive views on that proposal other than to say that I would find it a thoroughly unacceptable one. Possibly at some time in the future my honourable friend and I may have an opportunity to consider all of the ramifications of such a concept.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2735

NAVAL DEFENCE AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 25 October, on motion by Mr Killen:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2735

AIR FORCE AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 25 October, on motion by Mr Killen:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2735

DEFENCE FORCE (RETIREMENT AND DEATH BENEFITS AMENDMENTS) BILL (No. 2) 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 1 October, on motion by Mr Killen:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-The Opposition does not oppose this Bill. It provides some changes to the Act which will benefit a limited number of pensioners who, because of a lowered classification, have lost the right, under the existing Act, to seek reclassification to higher grades. Under the amendments which are proposed in this piece of legislation, in future those persons will have a right of appeal for reclassification from Class C to higher classes of pension. This change will make a difference to some pensioners, although it will not be an extensive change.

The Bill provides also that persons who are in receipt of class C pensions who in the future are invalided out, may choose to take a lump sum payment by commutation of future pension benefits. However, the legislation does not permit those people who have already retired to accept that course of commutation for that portion which would be available to them if they were to make that choice. The reason for that is that the amounts which would be involved are extremely low and, therefore, would most likely be disadvantageous to the serviceman. I am not sure that that is a judgment that this Parliament should make; rather, the serviceman, if he chooses to take a very small lump sum for the remainder of the commutation period- provided he is fully aware of the consequences- should be entitled - to make an independent judgment. However, the Bill does not have that provision. It seeks to protect the serviceman from an error of judgment on his part. The Bill is basically beneficial to a limited number of servicemen. It removes a couple of anomalies from the Act and extends commutation to servicemen who currently are denied access to it.

There is one other matter I wish to raise- I do not intend to detain the House for long- and that is the continued failure of the Government to give any indication of its consideration of what is known as the Bonnett report on the anomalies between pensions under the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Fund and others under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund. This report has been in the hands of the Government for a considerable time. I understand that it was given the status of an official reort by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). The concern being expressed by a considerable number of DFRB pensioners who have been retired for a long time at least indicates the need for a statement from the Government of its intention as to whether it will take any action as a result of that report. The expectations of those pensioners were created by the Government permitting the setting up of a committee and indicating that it was prepared to consider the recommendations made by Mr Bonnett in that report. The committee was set up by the present Government and was approved of by the present Prime Minister. I understand that Mr Bonnett still has not been recompensed for the expenses involved in preparing and presenting the report which the Government appointed him to undertake. The Government obviously has not accepted financial liability for this task. The anomalies to which I have referred are a matter of some concern to a number of fairly senior retired Service personnel, who are significantly worse off than people who retired shortly after them. The Government created an expectation and it should indicate to those retired pensioners whether their expectations are real or imaginary, and it should do so fairly soon. The report has been in the hands of the Government long enought for it to have an indication of any action that it intends to take. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill.

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · Moreton · LP

– in reply- May I simply say that I thank my honourable friend for facilitating the passage of the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2736

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

-by leave- During the debate on the censure motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) in one respect I might have inadvertently misled the House when I was speaking of the circumstances under which the Hall inquiry was established by the Government a few months ago, and in particular the role played in the establishment of that inquiry by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife). In my speech I indicated that the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs had not only recommended an inquiry but in fact also had recommended the form that the inquiry should take. On checking further I have established that this is not the case. The Minister recommended that there should be an investigation. The form the investigation should take was agreed to by Cabinet and the specific form was not adopted on the recommendation of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. But it is thoroughly correct to say that the Minister agreed fully with the decision of Cabinet that there be such an investigation and he enjoined his Department to cooperate fully in that investigation. He himself cooperated with it in every way. I just wanted to correct what may have been an inadvertent emphasis.

page 2737

SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21 August, on motion by Mr MacKellar:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-As it has been a little while since the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill was introduced to the House, I remind the House that the purpose of the Bill is to amend the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act to provide certain new exemptions from sales tax, which new exemptions were announced either in the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Howard) or in the energy policy statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on 27 June. The Bill falls into a couple of categories. The first category covers the new exemptions announced in the Budget. Those exemptions relate to goods for use by blind or deaf persons. They relate also to antiques and to player-piano rolls.

As in the past, the Government’s decision to exempt new aids for the blind and deaf is commendable and is thoroughly supported. The decision to abolish the 15 per cent sales tax on piano rolls is expected to save Australia’s only piano roll manufacturer from extinction. Of course we have to support that as well. The Treasurer justified this measure by describing the particular company- there is only one company that falls into this category- as ‘undertaking valuable work in preserving the works and playing styles of many great pianists’. This measure is estimated to be a cost to revenue of around $15,000 per year. The Opposition opposes none of these measures. I gather from what the piano roll manufacturer concerned has said that she will not be increasing employment opportunities. So this industry will not join these only two growth industries under the Fraser Liberal-National Country Party Government in Australia. I list those only two growth industries as massage parlours and Chinese restaurants. We cannot add even piano roll manufacturers to that rather impressive list.

The second category of sales tax exemptions is of much greater importance to the Opposition.

That category covers the exemptions relating to the Government’s so-called energy policy. The remaining provisions in the Bill give effect to the sales tax area of that policy by exempting from sales tax goods used in the conversion of internal combustion engines to liquified petroleum gas or natural gas operation to non-oil burning domestic space heating appliances and to various solar energy appliances. At this point it is worth noting some of the differences between the measures announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on 27 June and the Budget measures announced on 21 August. The Prime Minister announced the dropping of sales tax on kits used in vehicle conversion to liquified petroleum gas only. Yet this Bill extends this exemption, happily, also to compressed natural gas coversion kits and to conversion kits for all internal combustion engines. The Opposition welcomes these extensions but it does make us wonder just how well prepared and considered the Prime Minister’s original policy announcement was. This is relevant because we said at the time that that energy statement was introduced in an enormous hurry. It would seem in many respects that that is so and that a lot of aspects of that so-called energy statement were hastily and ill prepared.

There is another variation which the Opposition does not welcome between the Prime Minister’s announcement of that date and this Bill. The variation has not been explained. Clearly, the Prime Minister announced the exemption from sales tax for solar appliances ‘of all kinds’. Yet the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr MacKellar) qualified this when introducing the Bill on behalf of the Treasurer, who is now at the Table by stating that the sales tax exemption would not apply to household air-conditioners. This excludes the advanced systems now available which use solar power for hot and cold airconditioning. We would like to ask the Government why this particular decision was taken. I hope that the appropriate Minister replying to this debate will give me an answer to that question. To make matters worse, it has been reported that when some manufacturers have sought clarification from the Taxation Office, they have found that the Prime Minister’s original intention has been modified even further.

It appears that they have been advised that where installations consisting of a number of separate components are not sold as a unit, sales tax exemption will not extend beyond the solar device which actually collects, absorbs or concentrates the solar rays. I am informed that the results of this very narrow interpretation will be that the simplest solar hot water systems are largely covered, but more complex systems which incorporate water heating, space heating and air-conditioning are discriminated against, although the energy savings they effect are likely to be far greater, particularly in industrial and commercial applications. Can the Treasurer advise the House of the reasons for the narrowing of the Prime Minister’s intentions with respect to these other solar units? Can he confirm the Taxation Office’s narrow interpretation of the definition of ‘solar unit’? What action does the Treasurer propose to take to ensure that the more complex and often more efficient units are not discriminated against, they being the units which are relevant in the industrial context?

The other curious aspect of the Prime Minister’s energy policy statement in June is the decision announced in the Budget to supplement the measures with two income tax concessions relating to the conversion of oil-fired industrial equipment to other non-oil energy sources. Why were these proposals not included in the much heralded energy policy statement of the Prime Minister? Are these additional proposals a reaction to a hindsight realisation that the energy policy package contained no measure which encouraged energy conservation in the industrial and commercial sectors? Is that the explanation? The Opposition notes with disappointment that the Government has not been able to present to this House legislation which gives effect to these additional measures. The Treasurer announced on 25 October:

These proposals are all matters of substance and considerable complexity which require the most careful attention.

This does not disguise the haste with which these measures were put together before their public announcement. What this proposal really does is to indicate either the Government’s cavalier attitude to this vital issue or its inability to design policies properly. Having said all this, I must repeat that the Opposition is not opposing the sales tax exemption measures contained in this Bill relating to energy conservation. They are all reasonable measures in themselves. The errors are ones of omission, not of commission. The most significant aspect of the Government’s measures in respect of energy conservation is its failure to implement other vital energy conservation measures.

I would like to devote a little attention to these errors of omission. Energy conservation means not only using less energy but also using energy more efficiently. Existing living standards can be preserved with a lower level of energy consumption. Since 1976 Australian oil policy has been dominated by questions relating to supply. Emphasis on supply means that society is likely to continue developing an economy and lifestyle dependent on an eroding, non-renewable resource base. This also means more pollution and a growing commitment of scarce capital to the energy industry. Despite the costs associated with increasing supply, the demand control option has been largely neglected. Although the decision to increase the price of crude oil is a measure which has been heralded as a conservation measure by this Fraser Government, overseas evidence indicates that for most petroleum products, price increases are ineffective in the intermediate term in achieving any significant reduction in petroleum demand. In Australia the concentration of private motor vehicle use in residential and recreational lifestyles and the difficulty of moving to alternative transport forms, means that the price elasticity of demand, particularly for gasolene, is likely to be very low. In other words, putting up the price will not necessarily reduce the demand, in the medium term anyway. If massive price increases are required before automobile demand is significantly affected, the question arises as to whether such price increases are worth the cost in the redistribution of wealth they cause. That redistribution is, of course, from the have-nots to the haves. In other words, the people who are being mostly hit by these cost measures, price increases, and petrol taxes are ordinary Australians on middle and lower incomes. Because over half of liquid fuel consumption in Australia is in the transportation sector- over 60 percent of this being for private motor vehicle consumptionconservation measures should be directed at this sector. Scope exists for conservation in the transport sector because energy costs have not previously been a significant factor in transport planning. The Australian Institution of Engineers believes that in time it is possible to save about 30 per cent of transport energy consumption without any serious inconvenience to transport users.

I will list some of the possibilities for demand control: Firstly, mandatory fuel consumption standards on automobiles should be implemented. The United States of America has done this. Because of the restriction on time in this debate I will not go into as much detail as I originally intended. A second alternative is a selective tax on large cars, as proposed in the Carter energy plan and which exists already in Sweden. Thirdly, speed limits could be reduced, as has been done in the United States. We have a lot of evidence on that. Fourthly, emphasis should also be placed on energy conservation in traffic management, traffic planning and land use planning. Increased efficiency in energy use can also be brought about in the industrial sector of the economy. The industrial sector covering manufacturing and electricity generation accounts for approximately 60 per cent of Australia’s energy consumption. The Australian Institution of Engineers believes that energy consumption in the manufacturing sector can be reduced by between 15 per cent and 25 per cent without loss of output, and that between 30 per cent and 50 per cent of oil presently used in industry can be replaced by coal and natural gas by 1990. So there is this alternative to the pricing policies of the Government, to the fuel taxes which the Government has imposed on the Australian people. If these savings are to be made, a national program for energy conservation in industry needs to be implemented now. More than just lip-service is needed. Among the bodies which have recommended such an active program is the Government’s own National Energy Advisory Committee. It did this in its first report, dated September 1977. 1 repeat that time prevents me from reminding the House of the Committee’s recommendations for immediate action, but they are on public record.

I could go on and on with examples of hard advice to the Government from other committees, not just that one. It is sad that very little advice has been accepted and that the price mechanism solely is being relied upon, with enormous hardship to ordinary Australians. It is not satisfactory for the Government to come back and say that the measures it has announced, including some of these in the Bill, are sufficient. Clearly these measures are not sufficient. So, whilst not opposing this Bill, the Opposition takes this opportunity to call upon the Government once again to adopt a comprehensive package of conservation measures relating to the transportation, domestic and industrial sectors and not just use the price mechanism that is being used in this Bill. The price mechanism in some cases, of course, is excellent but where it puts up costs it is far from satisfactory. I repeat that the Opposition does not oppose this Bill. It reduces the sales tax on certain energy-using goods and that is excellent but we would like other measures supplementing those in this Bill.

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

– I support the Government’s sales tax proposals in this Bill which provides for exemptions in the areas that have been discussed by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford). While I am pleased, naturally, to see his support for these measures, my concern relates to his apparent lack of comprehension of the significance of the Government’s very, very impressive and wide-ranging policies relating to energy conservation. I find it extraordinary that, presumably as some part of a political stunt aimed at what will happen in 12 months time, he should have fallen into the trap of simply attacking the high price of petrol, something introduced by this Government as a conservation measure, in the terms that he used.

The honourable member for Adelaide pretended that there is an inelastic demand situation for petrol. That is not true. He has confused his time scales. There is no doubt that someone with a piece of equipment like a six cylinder or eight cylinder motor car will continue using that motor vehicle, because he has a capital investment in it, even though the price of petrol continues to rise. But the honourable member for Adelaide fails to understand that when the time for re-equipment comes, when the decision is made about the next motor car to buy, the energy conservation impact of higher petrol prices will have a serious effect. Honourable members can see, from looking at the size of engines in motor vehicles in Europe where the price of petrol has been so high for so long, that the point the honourable member for Adelaide has made can be demonstrated to be utter nonsense.

High petrol prices lead to the use of more efficient motor vehicles and smaller engines. The facts demonstrate this incontrovertably. So it is extraordinary to hear a man with the capacity of the honourable member for Adelaide to see issues as clearly as he usually does to make this basic simple error. I can only assume it is made because this is going to be a vital part of the cheap set of policies, if I may say so, that are going to be introduced by the Labor Party in an attempt to convince people that they should vote Labor at the next election at the end of next year. If the honourable member for Adelaide is doing nothing else he is, at least, being consistent in maintaining what his masters in the Caucus have required him to do, even though it is so obviously nonsensical.

I want to make one more point about the higher petrol price. There is no doubt that not only does the higher petrol price lead to conservation, even though a time lag may well be involved in the re-equipment; it is also resulting in a massive increase in the resources of oil available to Australia. This is happening not only as a result of new discoveries, but also because some existing fields which may not have been recoverable in economic terms are now economic propositions. It has also brought about the situation that shale, for example, is now on the borderline of being an economic resource for conversion into liquid fuel. The honourable member for Adelaide represents a city seat and probably does not see things with the same clarity as those of us who represent country seats. It seems extraordinary to me that the honourable member should consider that Australian motorists should have an unlimited right, at a false phoney price, to waste a resource which costs a fortune in the international market. Its international price will continue to rise and Australian production is limited to something like 70 per cent of our usage. The honourable member for Adelaide apparently wants us to have a false price for petrol in Australia in order to buy votes at the next election. I regret his decision to take that position.

Returning to the specific matter of sales tax, I naturally welcome the Government’s decisions. I understand that some further changes are to be made by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) this evening. There is no doubt that the humanitarian approach that the Treasurer has shown in these sales tax exemptions is to be commended. Like the honourable member for Adelaide I must say that I am overjoyed to see the Australian piano roll industry given assistance, particularly after hearing the outstanding results that can emerge from stimulus to that industry. No doubt the honourable member for Adelaide has had the opportunity of listening to an Australian piano roll of the late Percy Grainger playing the Grieg piano concerto, backed by the Sydney Symphony Orchestra. It is not the late Sydney Symphony Orchestra; it is very much on time in that recording. It has been done by merging an orchestra with a piano roll. It is a remarkable achievement. I know that any member of the House who listened to it. would be grateful for having had the opportunity. I trust that the piano roll industry in Australia thrives to achieve other such outstanding results.

Mr Hurford:

– Is it in your electorate?

Mr BAUME:

– It is not even in my electorate. I now wish to proceed to the general question of sales tax. This is a matter of some significance. There is no doubt that the Government’s sales tax policies and reductions in the incidence of sales tax have resulted in a significant fall in sales tax collections by this Government as compared with the previous Government. In fact the level of sales tax collections in Australia, as a result of the current Budget, will be down about 7’/i per cent in real terms compared with sales tax collections in the Hayden Budget. We hear continual attacks on this Government for being a high tax government which, of course, is patently untrue.

It seems to me to be unfortunate that the people who make those attacks do not have the decency to concede that as a result of the concessions that we are discussing tonight sales tax has fallen in Australia under this Government, particularly in industries such as the motor industry where there is a serious employment sensitivity. It seems to me that the Government’s policies on sales tax are humanitarian and sound, although of course, there is a view to the contrary which suggests that there should be a great increase in indirect taxes.

While examining the declining sales tax collections under the present Government- and of course, these are significant- I stress that under the previous Government this was not the case. Under the previous Government there was a considerable’ increase in real terms in sales tax collections. Despite the massive rise in income tax collections during the previous Government’s regime, the situation existed where the proportion that sales tax made up of total tax collections was about 8.5 per cent. In the present Budget sales taxes make up only about 7 per cent of total tax revenue. This is interesting, particularly in view of the continual claim by the Opposition that this Government attacks the low income earner. Surely a government which has introduced continually lower sales tax collections is, in fact, not following the course that the Opposition alleges. Let us face it, the people with the highest propensity to consume are, of course, those with the lowest incomes. Therefore, sales tax collections which have been diminished surely would benefit proportionately those people with the highest propensity to consume. They are, of course, the lower income earners. I think it is vital that the people of Australia recognise that this Government is a low sales tax government and the record proves it. The record is in stark contrast to the high sales tax style of government of our predecessors.

I just mention in passing also that it is unfortunate that those who attack us on the matter of taxation in general fail to recognise that last year, for example, real income tax collections by this Government actually fell by one per cent. We are the low income tax Government. Income tax collections fell by one per cent despite the fact that many thousands more people were at work. I stress, and I conclude on this point, that even though there has been a continual and untrue campaign against this Government as a high tax government, the facts clearly demonstrate that this is a low tax government. The amendments that are being introduced tonight and this Bill itself clearly demonstrate and clearly underline the facts of the matter. Once again reductions in sales tax are occurring in various areas. I join in congratulating the Treasurer on the continuation of this policy and I commend it to the House.

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

– I thank the Opposition for the general support it has given to this Bill. I also thank my colleague, the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume), who is secretary of the Government members taxation sub-committee, for his contribution. I take this opportunity of thanking that sub-committee for the continued, practical, intelligent and pragmatic support it has given to me in considering the complexities of tax legislation throughout this year. The honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) raised one specific matter to which I will reply concerning the extent to which the undertaking to exempt solar appliances has been given effect. I believe that it has been effected and I will try to explain why. The original announcement was to exempt from sales tax all solar appliances. This does not mean and was not meant to mean that everything that benefits, for example, from solar heating, would get the benefit of the exemption.

The honourable member for Adelaide mentioned air conditioners. The ones that he mentioned are air conditioning systems which use solar energy to pre-heat water which is in turn boosted by electricity, oil or gas heating to the desired temperature for piping to separate appliances such as a heat exchanger for winter, air conditioning or a chiller unit for summer cooling. The chiller unit contains a chemical which uses heat to provide a refrigerative effect similar to gas-powered refrigerators. Several separate appliances are linked as a system in the examples that I have given.

Air conditioning systems are not as such exempt and it was never undertaken that a collection of appliances would be exempt merely because one of the appliances is a solar appliance. The intention always was that the solar appliance itself would get the benefit of the exemption. The Government once again thanks the Opposition for the support and the speedy passage that it affords this legislation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

– I seek leave to move my amendments together.

Leave granted.

Mr HOWARD:
BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I move:

  1. 1 ) Page 2, omit clause 2, substitute the following clause: “(2). (1) Subject to this section, this Act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent. “(2) Paragraph 3 (f) and section 4 shall be deemed to have come into operation on 28 June 1979. “(3) Paragraphs (3) (aaa), (a), (aa), (ab), (b), (c), (dg) and (e) shall be deemed to have come into operation on 22 Aug–t 1979.”.

Progress reported.

page 2743

ADJOURNMENT

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– (Hon. Ian Robinson) - I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Howard:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I require that the question be put forthwith without debate.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 2743

SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 1979

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

– The physically handicapped will benefit from two further exemptions proposed in amendment (3). These will apply to battery chargers for use exclusively or principally in recharging the batteries of electric wheel chairs and invalid chairs and to motor vehicle hand controls and similar devices which enable disabled persons to drive motor vehicles. Other measures proposed in the amendments circulated will benefit craftsmen and other small manufacturers.

There are at present two exemptions based on annual turnover levels. One exempts goods made in the manufacturer’s own home if the average annual turnover from his or her sales of all goods does not exceed $1,000. The other exempts sales by retail of products made otherwise than in the home by a person whose average annual turnover from sales of all goods does not exceed $ 1,400. These turnover levels have remained unchanged since 1941 and the Government has decided that they should be raised to a level more commensurate with present day prices. It is accordingly proposed by paragraphs (d), (da), (db) and (dc) of amendment (4) that these exemptions be replaced by a single exemption for goods produced by a person whose average annual turnover from sales of all goods does not exceed $12,000. The distinction between home and other small manufacturers will be abolished.

The definition in the present provision of ‘average annual value of sales of all goods’ which lays down the rules to be followed for the purpose of determining the average annual turnover will remain but it is proposed in paragraph (dd) of amendment (4) that a further definitional provision be included in the item. This provision will enable the annual turnover to be determined by reference to arms length prices where sales are made at depressed prices between parties not at arms length.

Another provision, exemption item 103, which applies to those who are manufacturers in a small way, is based on annual tax liability. If the sales tax that would otherwise be payable by a manufacturer would not exceed $100 per annum, the products are exempt. The figure of $100 was set in 1957 and it is proposed that it be raised to $250. Under the proposed amendments, the exemptions related to goods for use by the sick and disabled are to be effective from 22 August 1979. This is the date already specified in the Bill as the date of operation of the proposed exemption for goods for the blind and deaf. The changes in the exemptions in favour of small manufacturers are to be effective from the date of royal assent. A memorandum explaining in more detail the amendments which I have now moved is being made available to honourable members.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– I have some bad news and some good news for the Treasurer (Mr Howard). The bad news is that when amendments are being made by the Government at the last moment, I believe that the usual courtesies are for a copy of what is virtually a second reading speech to be delivered to the relevant Opposition spokesman in advance so that there is some warning of the matters that are to be debated. I could be at fault here because I am standing in at short notice for the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) and he may have received such advance notice, but I do not think so. I think he would have passed it on to me if he had received it. I raise this matter not in anger but in the hope that if it is not a normal courtesy now it will become a normal courtesy in future and that such an explanation of detailed amendments will be delivered to the office of the relevant spokesman.

The good news is that we too are enormously glad that these extensions are being made to the exemptions from sales tax. However, I do believe that the application to wigs has an element of self-interest in it as it applies to the Treasurer and the he should declare his interest in this matter. I wonder whether he is waiting for the report of the Bowen committee, which is looking at pecuniary interests of members of parliament, before he decides what form his declaration of self-interest should take. Nevertheless, I think something might be said about that at an appropriate occasion. The Opposition supports the amendments. We on this side of the chamber are glad that these extensions are being made. I know that the honourable member for Corio (Mr

Scholes) has a question or two to ask following my remarks.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I seek clarification of some of the remarks made by the Treasurer (Mr Howard). During his outline of the additional items being exempted from sales tax he referred to goods which are used by the sick or persons with certain diseases and which are substantially or exclusively for the use of persons in that category. I raise the situation of the diabetics who are very large users of low sugar or non-sugar products. At one time those products were manufactured significantly for that restricted market. At this stage I think it is fair to say that they are goods which are used substantially by other sections of the community for dietary and other reasons, but this does not alter the medical requirement of persons who have a diabetic problem. I ask the Treasurer Where medical certification is involved, will the amendments cover persons in that area with regard to sugarfree or low sugar products? It would appear that, because other people use similar products for other purposes, the diabetic section of the community will be unfairly disadvantaged if those products are not included.

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

– In answer to the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford), the Government announced some weeks ago the changes that are embodied in the amendments. The general outline of the amendments themselves was given to the Opposition this morning, but I accept the honourable gentleman’s stricture that that is not quite good enough. I accept that it is a preferable practice for that information to be made available earlier. I answer the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) by saying that the example he used could well fall into a grey area. I do not think it is possible for me to say in advance all of those things which would be held or regarded as being required substantially for the use of sick or disabled persons. I appreciate that there can be cases like that in legislation of this character when descriptions of the type I have outlined are used. I give to him and to the chamber an assurance that the Government will monitor pretty closely the operation of this legislation. Whilst we clearly do not wish to open the legislation for use by people who do not fall within the category I have mentioned, quite obviously we would not be unsympathetic if the legislation appears to be working in a way which is against the policy behind the change.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

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

Third Reading

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

page 2744

ADJOURNMENT

Allegation against Member -Development of Brisbane Airport -Qantas Airways Ltd -Mr Finnane

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It has come to my ears that Squizzy Williams of the Queensland branch of the Australian Workers Union is slandering me with statements that my charge that he presided over an unlawful manipulation of union funds was a libel and that he will take me to court if I repeat the truth outside the Parliament. I am concerned that I should be falsely charged with committing a libel, but when I examine Williams’ court record I remain unmoved by his threat to face me in open court.

Squizzy Williams is notorious for using stop writs to prevent people from telling the truth about him. Some years ago he issued a writ against Leo Lorimer of Perth for truthfully accusing him of masterminding unlawful alterations to AWU rules, but then withdrew his complaint and paid all of Lorimer ‘s costs rather than face Lorimer ‘s charges in open court. Before that, on 12 December 1965 to be precise, he served a writ on Trevor Alexander of Goondiwindi, claiming £5,000 damages for the fact that Alexander had repeated a very serious criminal allegation made against Williams by John Mulkey and Roy Devin of Goondiwindi. But right on the doorstep of the court, so to speak, he dropped his claim for damages and paid his own costs in return for an unpublished statement which merely said that Alexander did not believe the criminal allegation made by Mulkey and Devin against Williams. He did this rather than face Alexander’s witnesses in open court. Significantly, he has still taken no court action against Mulkey and Devin. I know the nature of those charges. I challenge Williams to disclose to his associates the charges made against him by Alexander and by Mulkey and Devin and to explain to his associates why he squibbed a court hearing of those charges. He might also expand on what was known in AWU circles as the quarry affair.

Mr Ian Robinson:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP

– Where was Tom Foley?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Tom Foley, who once served as Queensland Minister responsible for home affairs and had ministerial control of the Queensland Police, gave me certain information from police files. This information, together with certain documents, is kept in a locked vault to which I hold the keys. Also inside that vault are certain instructions which, among other things, direct that if I should predecease Williams those documents are to be handed to a named Labor member of Parliament with my full authority to use them as he thinks proper in the circumstances. This means that there is no such thing as the final solution in this matter. In conclusion, I want to say this: I shall continue to defend my good name against the lies of my defamers. If Mr Williams, or Squizzy as he prefers to be called, continues to defame me either personally or by proxy, I shall return to the facts of this case so that my position in relation to his will be put in proper perspective. <

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
Lilley

– Queensland industrial affairs have always had a unique attraction for the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron). I am not going to join him with respect to those matters. Brisbane airport has a unique attraction for me. I want to say a few words about it because of a quite mischievous and incorrect article which appears on pages 45 and 46 of this week’s Bulletin. The honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Peter Johnson) made the article available to me. It is replete with errors which should be corrected. It would be a tragedy were Australia’s airline policy and airport development policy to be decided by an oligopolistic duopoly. It is quite clear that that is what Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia intend to do with respect to the development of Brisbane airport. Let me deal with one particular point which is made in the article. It states that clearly from evidence TAA and Ansett do not like the proposal for the development of Brisbane airport because the estimated increase in passenger through-put has been overstated by the Department of Transport. That is nonsense. The honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) would realise that it is nonsense because he heard the evidence last week. TAA and Ansett say that they are opposed to the development of the airport at this time, even though it is firm government policy, because they say that the through-put in the year 2000 is likely to be something over six million passengers instead of the nine million passengers that the Department of Transport estimates. The interesting point is that TAA and Ansett have never made 20-year forecasts before. If one were to look back to any occasion when they made a 20-year forecast- for example, from 1950s to the 1970s- one would find that they have consistently understated the increase to the extent of 60 per cent to 100 per cent. They both state that they always rely upon the Department of Transport estimates of what passenger throughput is likely to be. They grasped on this occasion because I believe that they do not want the development of Brisbane Airport for their own reasons. The reasons are quite clear. The airlines would prefer international passengers arriving in Australia to land at airports in Sydney and Melbourne and to be transported to the north by the two domestic carriers. They, of course, have a monopoly of the air travel facilities available to domestic travellers in Australia. That is a scandalous position. Australian citizens should realise that our airport development policy ought not to be in the hands of either TAA or Ansett.

Let me make one other point in the few minutes that are available to me. It is quite fascinating that over the last 18 years from 1960 to 1978 the rate of growth of through-put at Brisbane airport has been in excess of that which applied to either Melbourne or Sydney airports. Yet TAA and Ansett persist in their attitude. TAA and Ansett fell over themselves in promoting the development of Tullamarine airport, even though in the three years before they agreed to that development there had been actual negative growth at that airport. Their sense of justice is to differ in the kind of judgment they would make in respect of Brisbane airport compared with that which they made in respect of Tullamarine airport. At the hearings for the development of Tullamarine airport they were persuaded to contribute 10 paragraphs of induced comment. Yet in respect of Brisbane airport they went in hard and for their own reasons, which are full of bias and which relate to their having better traffic by transporting people from the south. They decided to oppose the airport development. I am very much emboldened and supported by the fact that we know it is firm government policy to develop Brisbane airport. I believe that TAA and Ansett realise that also. One other point ought to be made. It is quite clear that over the 20 years between the late 1950s and the late 1970s the growth of traffic at Brisbane has been in excess of the growth of traffic at all other capital city airports in Australia except Perth airport. Perth is the exception. Yet the airlines want to raise barriers to the development of Brisbane airport greater than those which they have raised in respect of the development of any other capital city airport in

Australia. I suggest to. the House that that is a clear reason why two airlines which have a monopoly of the domestic air traffic in Australia must not be allowed to dominate what is a very important source of traffic growth and development that ought to apply around the capital cities of this country.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-When the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) in his capacity as shadow Minister Tor Transport yesterday asked a question of the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) about the possibility that the present Chairman of the board.of directors of Qantas Airways Ltd might not be reappointed, I was surprised to note the ambiguous nature of the Minister’s reply. Sir Lenox Hewitt is one of Australia’s outstanding public servants. He is a very great administrator and a great protector of the Australian aviation industry. The fact of the matter is that there have been disclosures to the effect that a back bench committee has commenced a conspiracy. I am saying that there is a contention that this committee has decided to develop a conspiracy designed to have Sir Lenox Hewitt replaced as Chairman of Qantas. It is undoubtedly a fact that there are people in this Parliament and out of this Parliament who, as upholders of an open sky policy and of a private and free enterprise system, would be prepared to jettison Qantas and all the great benefits that accrue to Australians as a result of its successful operation.

I believe that we ought to have regard to the fact that Sir Lenox Hewitt has been upholding a policy of attaining cheap air fares subject to sustaining the highest level of service, safety and employment in the Australian aviation industry. It is important to make sure that that policy continues. I hope that the Minister will repudiate these people who are pursuing this vendetta against Sir Lenox Hewitt. I hope that he will give an assurance that no change in the administration of Qantas will occur which will put any of the policies of Sir Lenox Hewitt at risk, because if that happens there will be dire consequences for the air travelling public in this country.

I remind the House of the outstanding service given by Sir Lenox. He has been Chairman of Qantas since 1975 and his term is due to expire next year. He is 63 years of age, and he wants to be reappointed. It is significant that the insidious attack started to emerge when he was leading Australia in its talks with the five Asian nations that were seeking access to the Sydney-London air route. There is no doubt that those Asian nations have some entitlement but it is most inappropriate that the position, status and standing of Sir Lenox should be undermined at that time. This man has been a senior public servant since 1955. He has been deputy secretary of many departments. I cannot take the time to mention them all. To mention some salient positions, he was chairman of the Australian Universities Commission, Secretary to the Prime Minister’s Department, Secretary to the Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, a member of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, Chairman of the Snowy Mountains Council, and Secretary to the Department of Minerals and Energy. As I mentioned, his current position is one of very great achievement and distinction.

Only this week we have heard of the operational profits of Qantas. I think all Australians are proud of this institution and are very concerned that there are Liberal members in this Parliament, apparently in a committee of a conspiratorial nature, seeking to undermine a man doing a great service. I hope that the Minister will come clean in the near future. I am attempting to flush out the opponents so that we can see the insidious nature of their objectives. They are upholding people from overseas who do not give a damn about what happens to Australians employed in Australia’s own airways industry.

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

Mr NEIL:
St George

– I have received a letter from Mr Michael Finnane expressing disappointment at a remark I made about him during a recent debate in this House. In part, his letter reads:

I have known you for approximately fourteen years and until that debate have always held you in high regard. I admired your work in earlier years in bringing about changes to the system of Articles of clerkship and your contribution as President of the Sydney University Law Society.

My regard for you formed during university days was not diminished by your membership of the Liberal Party and until that debate I had always felt myself to be on reasonably good terms with you.

I took strong exception to your suggestion that I had carried out a ‘Gestapo hatchet job ‘.

Mr Finnane continues that he does not like the reference to Hitler’s secret police, and that he is disappointed in these statements. The first thing I want to say about this is that I wrote to Mr Finnane and told him if an opportunity arose I would make a clarification in the Parliament. Secondly, I want to point out that I do not view any of these matters on a personal basis. These were matters of public interest; matters that had to be raised in this Parliament in accordance with the public interest. The statement that his regard for me was not diminished by my membership of the Liberal Party clearly implies political bias. What other meaning can there be other than that ordinarily a person who is a member of the Liberal Party is, in Mr Finnane ‘s eyes, to receive diminished regard? However, in this particular case, because of prior knowledge of me, he does not adopt that view. The point I make is that any person reading that paragraph will see it in the appropriate light.

The other thing I must say is that I believe his claim is over-sensitive. I do not think any reasonable person would have understood that interjection in a time of debate to imply that he had carried out his work in the way that Hitler’s secret police had done. I think it was fair to point out what had happened during the proceedings; it was fair to point out, as it had been pointed out in debate, that the proceedings were secret and that certain undertakings had been broken. I understand that Mr Finnane, in other court proceedings that have now ended- this happened some months ago when there was an action between himself and certain newspapers- admitted that he had sought to drive a wedge between two parties, Mr and Mrs Walsh and their solicitor, Mr Torok; that he had tried to get them to leave Mr Torok; that he had gone to a place called Sunshine to interview them, knowing that Mr Torok would not be present, and that he had tried to stop Mr Torok from being present. There is also no doubt that he promised to furnish a copy of his report to the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) an hour before it was published, and that was not done. It is clear that that matter was discussed with the New South Wales Attorney-General. It is also of note that he has taken almost a month to complain about the statements that I made in the House. I would like to think that Mr Finnane, whom I have known for some years and for whom, on a personal level, I have had regard, would rehabilitate himself by resigning from the Labor Party and show to the world at large that he adopts a new approach to matters.

This matter should be taken one little step further. Mr Marcus Einfeld wrote a very lengthy defence of Mr Finnane and attacked members of this House who debated the matter some weeks ago. That defence appeared in page 7 of the Australian of 6 November. Mr Einfeld makes very trenchant criticisms of politicians. He says that politicians should keep out of this matter and should not even have made any comments on it. All I want to say is that before Mr Einfeld attacks members of this House, let us have an open and public statement by him that he will never seek political office. It is open knowledge in New South Wales that Mr Einfeld is jockeying for a seat in the New South Wales Parliament and hopes to be the Attorney-General. Of course, he is carrying favour with Mr Walker with his kindly article about Mr Walker and Mr Finnane. He says that no substantial criticisms of that report have been made. Let me give one very substantial criticism. Mr Finnane sought the advice- this is known- of another barrister during those proceedings. According to all principles, he fettered his own discretion.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I wish to raise a point of order. The honourable member is now trespassing on a matter that is sub judice.

Mr NEIL:

– You know that is rubbish.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– He knows it is a matter that is sub judice. It is impossible for the honourable member to continue and develop the remarks that he has just commenced without trespassing on the law of sub judice.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Chair has been particularly attentive to the sub judice question. There is no substance in the point of order. It being 1 1 p.m. the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday.

page 2747

NOTICES

The following notices were given:

Mr Nixon to present a Bill for an Act relating to the marketing of wheat, and for other purposes.

Mr Nixon to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Wheat Industry Stabilization (Reimbursement of Borrowing Costs) Act 1979.

Mr Nixon to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Wheat Products Export Adjustment Act 1974.

Mr Nixon to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Wheat Research Act 1957.

Mr Nixon to present a Bill for an Act to repeal the Loan (Farmers ‘ Debt Adjustment) Act 1935, and for related purposes.

Mr Nixon to present a Bill for an Act relating to an agreement between the Commonwealth and one or more of the States and the Northern Territory in respect of a scheme to provide assistance to persons engaged in rural industries.

Mr John McLeay to present a Bill for an Act to amend certain Acts in connection with the enactment of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979.

Mr John McLeay to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951.

Mr Groom to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Homes Savings Grant Act 1 976.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 2749

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Public Service: Comment on Public Issues (Question No. 4055)

Mr Kerin:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 30 May 1979:

  1. 1) Were provisions in the Public Service Act relating to the rights of public servants to comment on public issues abolished or qualified in 1 974.
  2. If so, what guidelines were circulated within Commonwealth departments as a result of the change in the Act.
  3. Has the Public Service Board had reason to draw the changed Act to the attention of officers who have commented publicly on issues within the Government ‘s control.
  4. Have any officers been (a) charged, (b) dismissed, (c) reprimanded or (d) disadvantaged in any way as a result of public comment since the change in the Act.
  5. If so, how many officers have been affected and what was the nature of the breach of the Act and the reasoning of the Board in each instance.
  6. What interpretation or guidelines does the Public Service Board put forward as a result of the effects of the changed Act, for example, (a) is an officer working in the Department of Health deemed to be in breach of the Act if he/she comments publicly on a specific defence issue or (b) is an officer working in any department, other than the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, deemed to be in breach of the Act if he/she comments publicly on the current levels of unemployment.
  7. Does the Public Service Board regard an officer as being in breach of the Act where he/she publicly criticises the Government’s action or performance in an area where the officer has no privileged knowledge of the issue as a result of his/her employment, where his/her own Department/Minister is not criticised and where the officer has not identified himself/herself as a public servant.
  8. Does the Public Service Board regard an officer as being in breach of the Act if he/she publicly criticises a political party which forms the government of the day.
  9. Under what circumstances would the Public Service Board view an officer as not being in breach of the Act where criticism of his/her Department was concerned, for example, are officers regarded as being in breach of the Act where criticism of Departmental actions is given in evidence to Parliamentary Committees.
  10. 10) Does the Public Service Board regard an officer as being in breach of the Act if he/she addresses meetings on political topics not associated in any way with his/her departmental duties.
Mr Viner:
Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs · STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. Public Service Regulation 34 (b) which imposed a total prohibition on public comment by public servants upon any administrative action or upon the administration of any Department’ (other than civic affairs in a Territory) was repealed on 2 June 1974.
  2. Following repeal of Regulation 34 (b) the Public Service Board issued a circular (No 1974/23 of 3 June 1974) explaining the implications of the change in the Regulation and circulating a new Sub-section (No 14/M) of the Public Service General Orders. Further guidance is contained in the

Board’s Guidelines on Official Conduct of Commonwealth Public Servants.

  1. The General Orders referred to have been relied upon by the Public Service Board and by departments in counselling individual staff members who have commented publicly on certain issues within the Government ‘s control.
  2. and (5) The Public Service Board had advised that to its knowledge, the only case where charges have been laid under the disciplinary provisions of the Public Service Act relating to public comment by an officer of the Service since the repeal of Regulation 34 (b), involved Mr William Frederick Toomer. The report of the inquiry into that case was tabled in the Parliament on 8 November 1 977.
  3. to ( 10) These questions seek in effect a legal interpretation based on hypothetical cases couched in very general terms. The Public Service Board is unable to answer categorically but the answer to questions (4) and (5) indicates the infrequency of action under the relevant sections of the Public Service Act. The Board ‘s views on the rights of public servants to comment on public issues are set out in Chapter 4 of the Guidelines on Official Conduct of Commonwealth Public Servants. Chapter 5 which deals with political and industrial participation by public servants is also relevant. Much of this material is concerned with issues relating to conventions and propriety rather than to law. Copies of the Board’s Guidelines nave been lodged with the Parliamentary Library.

Tax Avoidance (Question No. 4148)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 4 June 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many individual taxpayers claimed deductions in respect of (a) share trading losses on the basis of the decision in Curran v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation 74 A.T.C. 4296, (b) gifts where a deduction is claimed under paragraph 78 ( 1 ) (a) of the Income Tax Assessment Act as a result of the participation of the taxpayer in a scheme to reduce liability to taxation, (c) prepayments of interest rent or any other outgoing in excess of 3 times the nominal annual liability for the outgoing, (d) expenses of leasing live-stock incurred as a result of participation of the taxpayer in a scheme to reduce liability to taxation and (e) payments claimed as deductions under section 67 or section 67a of the Act in respect of expenses of borrowing or expenses of discharging of a mortgage where the deductions are claimed as a result of the participation of the taxpayer in a scheme to reduce liability to taxation, in returns of income for 1976-77 where an assessment (whether or not objected to) has been made.
  2. How many claims in each of the 5 cases referred to in paragraphs ( 1 ) (a) to (e) were disallowed in whole or in part on first assessment by the Commissioner of Taxation.
  3. What was the sum of the claimed deductions (a) disallowed in each case and (b) allowed on first assessment.
  4. What was the sum of the increased tax assessed as a result of the disallowance of the claimed deductions.
  5. What would have been the sum of the increased tax assessed if the claimed deductions not disallowed had been disallowed.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1) to (5) Details of claims made in 1976-77 income year returns by individual taxpayers for deductions in respect of tax avoidance schemes are not available. However, some information was recorded on 1976-77 claims made by taxpayers, including companies, in association with an examination of 1977-78 income year returns. The available, but incomplete, information on these 1976-77 income year returns identified as including claims based on tax avoidance schemes is shown below. Comparable figures are not available in respect of schemes involving leasing of livestock. No schemes involving section 67 or section 67a were identified by the survey.

With very few exceptions, the claims for deductions made by taxpayers included in the limited survey had at the time that the survey was made been disallowed. In some cases a claim was first made when an application for amendment of an assessment was received. The amount of deduction disallowed in the cases surveyed includes amounts sought to be carried forward for deduction in later years.

Tax Avoidance (Question No. 4150)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 4 June 1979:

  1. How many individual taxpayers claimed deductions for share trading losses in their returns for the year 1975-76 which either have been allowed in whole or in part or are treated as allowed in whole or in part in the tabulation presented to the Parliament by him in 1978-79 budget paper No. 11.
  2. How many of the taxpayers referred to in part (1) claimed deductions on the basis of the decision in Curran v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation 74 A.T.C. 4296, what was the total of the claimed deductions which have either been allowed in whole or in part or are treated as allowed in the tabulations in budget paper No. 1 1 and what is the additional tax that would have been assessed if the claimed deductions had not been so allowed.
  3. If the number of taxpayers referred to in part (2) is not known, what was the total sum of the claimed deductions referred to in part ( 1 ) which have either been allowed in whole or in part or are treated as allowed in the tabulations in budget paper No. 1 1 and what is the additional tax that would have been assessed if the claimed deductions had not been so allowed.
  4. If the net incomes of individuals aggregated in table 3 of budget paper No. 1 1 were varied by the addition to the net income of a taxpayer of the amount of a deduction referred to in that paragraph and allowed to that taxpayer, what would be the varied columns under the headings (a) grade of net income, (b) net income (total), (c) taxable income and (d) net tax.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1) to (4) Details of deductions claimed for share trading losses in 1975-76 income year returns that were allowed in full or in part are not available.

However, some information was recorded on claims made for deductions for tax avoidance losses in 1975-76 - including those claimed to be based on the Curran decision- in association with an examination of 1977-78 income year returns

This survey identified 114 taxpayers, including some companies, who made claims for the deduction of losses of $9.4m- including amounts sought to be carried forward- on the basis of the Curran decision. In all of these cases identified by the survey the claims have been disallowed with a resultant increase in tax assessed on 1975-76 income of $3.8m.

Trading Stock Valuation Adjustment (Question No. 4151) ~

Mr Hayden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 4 June 1979:

What was the (a) tax paid and (b) value of the Trading Stock Valuation adjustment claimed by industry groups for (i) individuals and (ii) companies for 1976-77.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

The available relevant statistics which relate to net tax assessed and deductions allowed for trading stock valuation adjustment in respect of taxpayers coded to various industry groups as recorded in the mam income tax tabulations for the 1976-77 income year are set out below. The details of trading stock valuation adjustment allowed in returns of partnership and trusts, which affected individual taxpayers mainly, are also provided.

Investment Allowance (Question No. 4152)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 4 June 1979:

What was the sum of (a) tax paid and (b) the investment allowance claimed by industry groups for (i) individuals and (ii) companies for 1976-77.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

The available relevant statistics which relate to net tax assessed and deductions allowed for investment allowance in respect of taxpayers coded to various industry groups that were included in the main income tax tabulations for the 1976-77 income year are set out below. Details of deductions for investment allowance included in returns of partnerships and trusts, which affected individual taxpayers mainly, are also provided.

Industrial Accidents and Occupational Health (Question No. 4248)

Mr Howe:

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

  1. What action has the Government taken to overcome the differences between States in the collection of statistics on industrial accidents and occupational health.
  2. Will these differences be removed in the near future.
  3. What is the estimated cost of industrial accidents and occupational health problems during 1978-79.
  4. What is the estimated number of days lost due to industrial accidents and occupational health problems during 1978-79.
  5. What is the estimated cost and time lost due to disputes during 1978-79.
Mr Macphee:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Present statistical collections are based primarily on reports submitted under State Workers’ Compensation Legislation. Since that legislation differs between the States, so the reports differ, and hence there is no nationally uniform base from which nationally uniform statistics can be derived. Nationally uniform reports will require changes in State Legislation.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics which is responsible for the Commonwealth’s statistics has been working with State Statistical Offices to achieve as much uniformity in reporting as is possible within the present reporting arrangements, but from the above it will be clear that national uniformity cannot be expected in the near future. (3), (4) and (5) No agreed basis exists for estimating the total national cost of industrial accidents and occupational health problems, although one figure that is a significant element of the cost and is reliably estimated is employers’ liability insurance premiums. The most recent year for which that figure is available on a national basis is 1976-77 when it was $926m.

For the reasons discussed under ( 1 ) and (2 ) above, firmly based national statistics on the number of working man-days lost due to industrial injuries are not available, and the best estimates, based on aggregated non-uniform State figures, take some dme to make. The latest figure is for the year 1973-74 and is based on compensation insurance claims finalised in that year; that figure is 1,010,000 working manweeks (approximate).

The following table sets out the latest available information.

Productivity: Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption (Question No. 4331)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. 1 ) What is the total volume of fuel consumed per annum by motor vehicles operated by his Department and statutory authorities and business undertakings under his control.
  2. What is the annual cost of fuel consumed by motor vehicles referred to in part ( 1 ).
Mr Macphee:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the Minister for National Development’s answer to House of Representatives Question No. 4328 (Hansard, 6 November 1979).

Interstate Commission (Question No. 4616)

Mr Morris:

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

  1. Did he state on 21 April 1975 that the Opposition would support a Bill to create an Interstate Commission which was intended to be a regulatory body in the field of transport.
  2. Does he now consider that his support for the Interstate Commission Bill was unjustified: if so, why: if not, when does he intend proclaiming the Interstate Commission Act for which he expressed support in 1975.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. ) Yes, but as clearly indicated in my statement, within the limits provided for in the Constitution.
  2. That statement could in no way be construed as support ibr the Interstate Commission Bill 1975 as then drafted. I did in fact criticise the Bill in the strongest terms as being outside the spirit and intention of the Constitution.
  3. 3 ) See reply to part ( 3 ) of Question No. 46 1 7.

Transport Regulation (Question No. 4617)

Mr Morris:

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

  1. Did he state in Parliament on 21 April 1975 that the Opposition believes that the need exists for a body which will have power to regulate transport in Australia within the limitations provided for in the Constitution.
  2. Was this statement justifiable on the basis of the information available in 1975.
  3. If so, was this promise of support based on the need for such a body perceived by the Minister for Transport at the time.
  4. If so, in what way have circumstances or the Minister’s knowledge of transport altered his attitudes since that statement was made.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. and (2) Yes.

Reference to the Hansard of that date, however, clearly indicates that I did not consider that the Interstate Commission Bill as then drafted met that criterion.

  1. My attitudes have not altered. However, as I have already said before, no decision has been made regarding proclamation of the Interstate Commission Act 1 975.

Public Service: Invalidity Retirements (Question No. 4646)

Mr Fry:

asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 18 September 1979:

  1. Does the Government acknowledge that there are, or have been, improper practices in respect of invalidity retirements from the Australian Public Service.
  2. Has his attention been drawn to reports that some doctors may have falsified documents relating to invalidity retirements; if so, does he have any evidence to support these allegations.
  3. Is there any other evidence of improper practices in respect of invalidity retirements; if so, will it be made public
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. No. Following an increase over recent years in invalidity retirement rates, the Public Service Board conducted a study in 1978 which indicated that the increase is related to a number of factors, including the changing age structure of the Service, the number of ex-servicemen approaching retirement, changing community attitudes towards health and arrangements for age and invalidity retirement As part of a program to manage the incidence of invalidity retirements from the Service, the Board, in conjunction with the Department of Health, the Department of Finance and the Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office, has now completed an examination of procedures for reviewing an officer’s fitness for duty. As a result of that review, it is proposed to introduce some changes to current procedures to provide departments, examining Commonwealth medical officers and the Board with additional information to assist in determining an officer’s fitness for duty and whether invalidity retirement or other action, such as redeployment, is appropriate. Consultations on the new procedures are being held with peak councils of staff organisations. Details of the new procedures are contained on page 50 of the Public Service Board’s Annual Report for 1979, which was tabled on 12 September.
  2. and (3) Decisions to retire officers from the Service on invalidity grounds are taken by the Public Service Board’s Regional Directors in each State and Territory following receipt of a report from the relevant officer ‘s department and a medical examination conducted by a Commonwealth Medical Officer. The Public Service Board has advised me that it is not aware of any reports that some doctors may have falsified documents relating to invalidity retirements nor is it aware of any other evidence of improper practices in respect of invalidity retirements.

Trade Practices Act (Question No. 4698)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 19 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the case of Fletcher v. Seddon Atkinson Australia Pty Ltd (1979), INSWLR 169, in which the New South Wales District Court decided that the enforcement and application (except possibly by way of defence) of certain provisions of Part V, Division 2 of the Trade Practices Act 1974, as amended, fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia.
  2. If so, will the decision create uncertainty and cause considerable practical problems in the administration of laws governing contracts for the supply of goods and services to consumers.
  3. Will he consider, as a matter of urgency, amending the Act (a) to remove the uncertainty created by the decision and, in particular, (b) to make it dear that State courts may deal with the application of the provisions of Part V, Division 2 of the Trade Practices Act in order to avoid the possibility of consumers being put to the unnecessary expense and inconvenience of commencing 2 or more actions in different courts to enforce claims arising out of the same contract.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) The decision in this case is contrary to the previously understood position regarding the jurisdiction of courts in relation to Part V Division 2 of the Trade Practices Act.

It is also contrary to the Victorian Supreme Court in Read v. Nerey Nominees Pty Ltd (1979) VR 47, and by a number of learned text writers.

Accordingly, it remains to be. seen whether the decision of the NSW District Court in this case will be followed in the future. The situation is being closely watched but I consider that there is insufficient justification at this time for an amendment of the Trade Practices Act.

Joint Venture Fishing Projects (Question No. 4726)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 20 September 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What joint venture fishing projects are being negotiated for South Australia.
  2. What are the details of these ventures and with which nations is Australia to be involved.
  3. From what fishing ports are the joint ventures to operate.
  4. What steps are being taken to protect Australia’s long term interests in the fishing industry.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Joint Australian/foreign fishing ventures which have been approved or which are being actively considered to operate in waters off South Australia involve either squid jigging or fish trawling.

Squid Jigging

Safcol Holdings Ltd in conjunction with Chuo Gyogyo Kosha Ltd and C. Itoh and Co (Japan) have concluded the first year of an approved two year feasibility fishing project which involved 11 Japanese squid vessels operating in waters off South Australia and Victoria with port access to Port Adelaide, Port Lincoln, Melbourne and Portland. The operations of this project during the second and final year are now being reviewed in the light of results to date aud conditions to apply for the forthcoming squid season.

A number of new additional proposals have been received involving feasibility fishing operations off South Australia. Three proposals based in either Fort Lincoln or Port Adelaide involve Australian interests operating in conjunction with Japanese and Korean companies with a total of 17 foreign vessels. These proposals are currently under consideration by the Commonwealth in conjunction with State fisheries authorities.

Fish Trawling

Mauri Bros and Thomson (Aust) Pty Ltd in conjunction with Dalmor Deep Sea Fishery and Fishing Services Enterprise (Poland) have been approved to undertake Stage 1 of a feasibility fishing project which will involve mid water trawling in waters off South Australia when specifically approved by the SA and Commonwealth fisheries authorities. Two Polish trawlers of 88m in length will be used to investigate the extent, distribution and commercial potential of fish species which are not currently being exploited by Australian fishermen. In addition to operating off South Australia, the vessels may midwater trawl off the west coast of Tasmania on specific approval of the Tasmanian and Commonwealth Governments and may operate in waters off Macquarie Island and Heard and McDonald Islands. Port access has been granted to the ports of Hobart, Burnie, Melbourne, Geelong, Portland and Port Adelaide. Stage 2 of the project which involves an extension of the project’s approved area of operation, is currently being considered at Commonwealth and State levels.

  1. The operations of all foreign vessels approved to operate in Australia’s 200 mile fishing zone are strictly controlled to ensure there is no conflict with local fishing operations and to ensure benefits accruing to Australia from these operations are maximised.

With respect to feasibility fishing projects, approvals are conditional upon the companies concerned conforming to strict requirements with respect to areas and methods of operation, access to ports, disposal of catch and species to be taken. In addition, participating companies are required to provide detailed information on the project’s operations in order that the extent, distribution and commercial potential of the fisheries and areas in which they are active can be assessed by Commonwealth and State fisheries authorities and local fishing interests. This information will assist the Australian industry to make investment decisions and thus encourage an expansion of Australian fishing and fish processing activities where commercial viability of operations is demonstrated. The operations of foreign vessels engaged in approved feasibility fishing projects are also subject to the oversight of authorised Government observers. Feasibility fishing projects have only been approved for a maximum period of two years and are reviewed at the end of the first twelve months operations. Participation in feasibility fishing projects does not entitle the companies concerned to any exclusive or preferential rights in any future commercial fishery that may develop.

With respect to joint commercial fishing ventures any approvals are conditional upon the participating companies phasing out foreign vessels and crews in addition to satisfying strict requirements with respect to areas and methods of operation and disposal of catch. There are no joint fishing ventures currently operating.

Vessels operating under government to government agreements are only approved to operate for a 12 month period and foreign vessels will only be permitted access to fisheries resources surplus to Australia’s harvesting capacity. International practice requires that we allow foreigners access to surplus resources in the 200 mile Australian fishing zone but on terms and conditions we determine. These conditions include frequent reporting of position and movement in the zone as well as catch reports every six days to assist in managing and conserving the resources.

Adelaide Airport (Question No. 4731)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works in relation to Adelaide Airport, its recommendations regarding the redevelopment of airway facilities at that airport and in particular the (a) operations building, (b) services building, (c) existing fire station and (d) existing terminal building.
  2. When will these redevelopment facilities be completed.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes; the recommendations of the Committee were presented to this House on 29 May 1978 and the motion of expediency moved on 1 June 1978. However the recommendations of the Committee do not relate to the existing fire station or the existing terminal building.
  2. All these facilities are expected to be operational by mid 1982.

Taxation Deductions: Health Insurance Contributions (Question No. 4749)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 26 September 1979:

What would be the estimated cost to revenue of allowing health insurance contributions as a tax deduction additional to the concessional deduction of $ 1 ,590.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

The annual cost to income tax revenue of allowing income tax deductions for contributions to health insurance funds is estimated at about $500m. If allowed as a rebate at the standard rate, and outside the $1,590 arrangements, the annual cost would be almost the same.

Commonwealth Government Centre, Parramatta (Question No. 4773)

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 27 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has any decision been made regarding the commencement date for the building of the proposed Commonwealth Government Centre in Parramatta.
  2. If not, has any decision been made regarding the future use of the site of the proposed Centre.
  3. Has any decision been made with regard to amending the design of the Centre or the number and type of facilities it is planned to incorporate; if so, what form have the amendments taken.
Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. The future use of the Commonwealth owned site in Church Street, Parramatta is to be considered in the context of an overall review of Commonwealth office accommodation in Sydney.
  2. No.

Purchases of Creamy Fudge Candy (Question No. 4869)

Mr Morris:

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

  1. 1 ) What quantity of creamy fudge candy was purchased under contract LP4201 referred to on page 104 of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 9 October 1979 (G 40).
  2. Are similar purchases made regularly; if so, when was the previous purchase made.
  3. ) Who was the previous supplier.
  4. What quantity was purchased and at what contract price.
  5. Are allocations of creamy fudge candy made available to Departmental officers; if not, for what purposes is it to be purchased and at what locations will it be used.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) 1 1 ,480 units of 3 ounces.
  2. Purchases are made biennially. The previous one was made on 10 November 1977.
  3. C. Mansfield and Staff Pty Ltd, Highett, Victoria.
  4. 15,120 units of 3 ounces, total value $2,874.69.
  5. No. Creamy fudge candy is a food component purchased by my Department, primarily for use in Search and Rescue Marine Survival Kits. However, it has also been used on occasions during search and rescue activities in remote areas on land. The kits are held in varying quantities at some thirty locations throughout Australia in readiness for aerial drops to provide life support to survivors on sea and land. The item is a medically approved ration for use in circumstances where a limited drinking water supply is available.

Australian Fishing Zones: Surveillance (Question No. 4874)

Mr Humphreys:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1979:

  1. Will he discuss with the Minister for Transport the need to increase funds for aerial surveillance in order to adequately police the Australian Fishing Zone to detect unlicensed foreign fishing vessels and vessels contravening Australia’s laws and regulations.
  2. Will he also discuss with the Minister for Transport the question of increasing Government charter of local boats in order to conduct regular surveillance and to alert authorities about vessels breaching Australia ‘s fishing laws.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The Minister for Transport has the authority to convene meetings of Ministers who have a direct interest in civil coastal surveillance.

There is at present no basis for speculation that commencement of the 200 nautical mile Australian fishing zone will lead to a great increase in surveillance requirements.

Foreign fishing activity will be monitored continually and it is anticipated that the system of fisheries management and licensing being introduced will hold the surveillance task at an acceptable level. However, the surveillance programs are flexible and can be varied quickly should practical experience indicate a need to increase routine surveillance in the air or on the sea.

Arrangements have already, been made for the provision of a Nomad Searchmaster L aircraft fitted with powerful radar equipment to be stationed on the central Queensland coast for fisheries surveillance of the outer Great Barrier Reef.

  1. ) As per answer to ( 1 ).

Taxation: Overseas Musicians (Question No. 4933)

Mr Willis:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 October 1979: ;’ ‘/

  1. 1 ) What percentage rate of tax is charged to overseas musicians who perform in Australia.
  2. What was the gross sum paid to the Treasury from this source in(a) 1976-77 and (b) 1977-78.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. Overseas musicians who perform in Australia are taxed on their Australian earnings on the same basis as other persons, Le., the taxable income ascertained by deducting any allowable deductions from the gross earnings and ordinary rates of tax are applied’. Agreements for the prevention of double taxation which Australia has with other countries give Australia taxing rights in respect of these people with the qualification, in the case of a United States resident where the visit is a short term one, that Australia’s taxing rights are conditional upon the services in Australia not being performed on behalf of a United States resident Where this condition is not met the Australian earnings of a United States musician are exempt in Australia and taxable at home.
  2. Information on the amount of tax paid by overseas musicians is not recorded separately.

Shipping Freight Rates (Question No. 4947)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 7 October 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What is the name and designation of the officer of his Department delegated to observe negotiations conducted between the Australian Shippers’ Council and the Shipping Conferences.
  2. Does this officer put the views of the Department to the parties at these negotiations.
  3. To whom are the reports of the officer made available.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Mr Stanley Phillip Smith, Acting Deputy Secretary, Surface Operations is the officer designated by the Minister for Transport for the purposes of negotiations between shipowners and the Australian Shippers ‘ Council under Part X of the Trade Practices Act, 1974. As designated officer, Mr Smith may appoint an officer or officers to be his deputy or deputies.
  2. The designated officer or his deputy may request from the Conference or individual shipowners information concerning the progress of the negotiations under Part X, be present at meetings in the course of these negotiations, and make suggestions which must be considered by shipowners.

The role of the designated officer is to encourage the parties to the negotiations to arrive at satisfactory commercial solutions.

  1. To the Minister.

Road Transport Policies (Question No, 4949)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 17 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Did he state to the Australian Road Transport Federation on 17 September 1979 that many persons and organisations in the road transport business were genuinely concerned at the Government’s policies in general areas as well as those specifically directed at transport.
  2. ) Is he now able to say which specific policies in general areas he was referring to and which specific transport policies prompted the remark.
  3. What particular action is he taking to remedy the specific policies causing concern to the road transport industry.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) This statement should be read in the full context of the speech. I have received numerous representations from the road transport industry on specific industry issues and on broader issues such as energy. The text of my speech details the nature of these issues and the action the Government has taken and is taking in relation to them.

Slaughter of Baby Seals (Question No. 4975)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 23 October 1979:

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the film Warm Blood on White Ice and the book Seal Song produced by Brian Davies, Executive Director of the International Fund for Animal Welfare, to direct attention to the annual slaughter of adult and baby harp and hood seals in the north and north east of Canada.
  2. Is it a fact that several European nations have legislated to ban the importation of baby seal products in order to destroy the economic base of this industry.
  3. Have representations been made to the Australian Government to impose similar bans; if so, what has been the Government ‘s response.
Mr Groom:
Minister for Housing and Construction · BRADDON, TASMANIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) My attention has been drawn to the book Seal Song. I have not viewed the film Warm Blood on White Ice, although I am aware of its existence.
  2. The Canadian High Commission has advised that Italy is the only European nation to have banned the importation of baby seal products.
  3. Yes. The Government’s response has been to advise that the Australian Government is very conscious of the need to conserve flora and fauna which are threatened by commercial exploitation. Both Australia and Canada are parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The Convention is designed to regulate trade in endangered species and their products to ensure the survival of species of wild fauna and flora that are or may be threatened with extinction by uncontrolled trade.

The Convention provides for the listing of species endangered through trading on one of three Appendices depending on the degree to which they may be endangered. Neither the harp seal, nor the hooded seal which is also taken during the Canadian seal hunt, are listed on any of these Appendices. Should evidence be forthcoming that either species is endangered by continued hunting the Prime Minister has said that the Australian Government would seek to have the species included in one of the CITES Appendices.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 7 November 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1979/19791107_reps_31_hor116/>.