31st Parliament · 1st Session
Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.
page 3349
– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers:
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled.
The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That the National Women’s Advisory Council has not been democratically elected by the women of Australia;
That the National Women’s Advisory Council is not representative of the women of Australia;
That the National Women’s Advisory Council is a discriminatory and sexist imposition on Australian women as Australian men do not have a National Men’s Advisory Council imposed on them.
Your petitioners therefore pray:
That the National Women’s Advisory Council be abolished to ensure that Australian women have equal opportunity with Australian men of having issues of concern to them considered, debated and voted on by their Parliamentary representatives without intervention and interference by an unrepresentative ‘Advisory Council ‘.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite, Mr Innes and Mr Roger Johnston.
Petitions received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of Parliament assembled in the House of Representatives, Canberra the humble petition of the undersigned members or organisations listed below and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That the thorough nationwide investigations by the Working Party highlighted the need to establish the National Women ‘s Advisory Council.
That we believe the Council consistently and democratically demonstrates its wide representation of the interests of all Australian women, as shown by the Draft Plan of Action for the 1980 National Conference to be held in Canberra in preparation for Australia’s participation in the United Nations Decade for Women World Conference in Denmark, July 1980.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:
That the Parliament will continue its support of the National Women ‘s Advisory Council and its recommendations.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr N. A. Brown, Dr Cass, Mr Innes and Mr Keith Johnson.
Petitions received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament assembled.
The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth:
Their support for an endorsement of the National Women ‘s Advisory Council.
We call on the Government to:
Continue to maintain the National Women’s Advisory Council and increase Federal Government support for its activities.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Connolly and Mr Graham. Petitions received.
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 school will receive an increase of 3.4 per cent.
We call on the Government to again examine the proposals as set out in the guidelines for education expenditure 1980 and to immediately restore and increase substantially in real terms the allocation of funds for education expenditure in 1 980 to Government schools.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Martin, Mr Morris and Mr Uren.
Petitions received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament assembled.
The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that in view of the recent revelations of widespread and tragic suffering and death in East Timor, and in view of the fact that despite four years of painful separation less than half of the 600 Timorese approved for family reunion in Australia have been allowed to come from East Timor,
We call on the Australian Government in the most urgent terms:
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Falconer and Mr Howe.
Petitions received.
Have a Go, Australia’ Campaign
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 whereas the ‘Have a Go, Australia’ advertisement currently screened on commercial television portray an Australian continent populated entirely by people with pink, anglo-saxon faces
And whereas this has the effect of presenting an image at variance to our real situation of a population drawn from any races and cultures
And whereas, in particular, the ‘Have a Go, Australia ‘ adertising ignores the Aboriginal people and their culture
Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Members in Parliament assembled will:
Call upon those responsible for the spending of taxpayers’ money on this ‘Have a Go, Australia’ promotion to either give Aborigines and other groups their fair place in any representation of the Australian community or cease such promotion campaign altogether.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Blewett.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.
The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That we oppose the increase in Radio Licence Fees on Marine Radios for the following reasons:
We also oppose the Radio Regulation that allows and encourages the use of CB radios in boats for the following reasons:
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray the government will reconsider the licence fee and also consider a reduction for pensioners.
We also humbly pray that the regulation allowing the use of CB radio in Marine situations be rescinded. by Mr Braithwaite.
Petition received.
Broadcasting Licence in Mandurah-Pinjarra Area
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:
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will ensure that the application by South Western Telecaster Ltd for a broadcasting licence in the Mandurah-Pinjarra area will be speedily granted.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bungey.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker amd Members of the House of Representatives in the Commonwealth Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth whereas:
We therefore do ask the Government of Australia not to take the action that is believed intended.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bungey.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system, and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron.
Petition received.
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 Members of Parliament recognise the contribution of the Trade Union Movement to the development of Australia and the living standards enjoyed by its citizens through such reforms as the eight hour day, the 40 hour week, annual paid holidays, workers compensation and industrial safety regulations.
That most Australians are trade unionists or dependants of trade unionists.
That the protection of living standards is the basic duty of trade unions.
That strikes are used only as a last resort by workers to preserve their living standards, and that current strike action must be viewed in the context of the current economic situation where the average worker is $22 a week worse off than when the Fraser Government was elected in 1975.
Further, that the right to organise in free trade unions is a basic right in a democratic society and is one of the major strengths of such societies. by Dr Cass.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of representatives in Parliament assembled.
The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That a grave threat to the life of refugees from the various States of Indo-China arises from the policies of the Government of Vietnam.
That, as a result of these policies, many thousands of refugees are fleeing their homes and risking starvation and drowning. Because of the failure of the rich nations of the world to provide more than token assistance, the resources of the nations of first refuge, especially Malaysia and Thailand, are being stretched beyond reasonable limits.
As a wealthy nation within the region most affected, Australia is able to play a major part in the rescue as well as resettlement of these refugees.
It should be possible for Australia to: establish and maintain on the Australian mainland basic transit camps for the housing and processing of 200,000 refugees each year; mobilise the Defence Force to search for, rescue and transport to Australia those refugees who have been able to leave the Indo-China States; accept the offer of those church groups which propose to resettle some thousands of refugees in Australia.
The adoption of such a humane policy would have a marked effect on Australia ‘s standing within the region.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Cass.
Petition received.
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 changes to the system of telephone charging announced by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications on Tuesday, 5th June, 1979, fail to meet the needs of the people of the Division of Macquarie in the following respects:
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House take action to give all necessary directions to have those subscribers presently in the 047 Zone included in the Sydney Telephone District.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Innes.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.
The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
There is a definite limit to the quantity of Australia’s mineral resources.
Accordingly our resources should be managed and developed under Australian ownership and control.
Publicly owned trading enterprises and corporations have been established and operated for the benefit of Australians since Federation.
The Commonwealth Banking Corporation, Trans Australia Airlines, Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, Australian Wheat Board, were all designed to operate to the benefit of our Nation as a whole under public ownership.
The Fraser Government’s irresponsible proposals to sell off our Nation’s interest in the Ranger Uranium Mine, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, and to dispose of other successful statutory corporations such as Trans Australia Airlines, would be contrary to the Nation’s interests.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will reject outright proposals of the Fraser government to sell the Ranger Uranium Mine, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, Trans Australia Airlines, and other publicly owned enterprises.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Innes.
Petition received.
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That, as it is clear that unemployment is a long term problem in Australia, the Government should extend to the unemployed the same assistance as is given to any other disadvantaged member of the community. There is an urgent need to alleviate the financial hardship and emotional stress that the unemployed are suffering.
Your petitioners therefore pray:
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kerin.
Petition received.
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 our support for the extension of the Sydney Telephone District to include the 047, 046 and 045 Telephone Zones.
Your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government will immediately transfer the centre of the Sydney Metropolitan Telephone Zone from Martin Place to a point near the centre of Sydney, i.e. Parramatta.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Staley.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, assembled:
This petition of concerned inner-Sydney residents respectfully showeth that
Both the standard and availability of low cost housing in this area has reached crisis proportions. There is an alarming rise in the number of homeless people, particularly large families, pensioners, blacks, single parents and the unemployed.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will
Restore funding to levels commensurate with the magnitude of the housing crisis, under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, and other Federal Housing programs including The Homeless Persons Assistance Program. The States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Housing Agreement and The Aged Persons Housing Program:
Develop and adopt specific policies to assure low-income families can secure adequate housing in the area they regard as their home; widening access to home ownership for lowincome families; finance for cooperative housing ventures; action against those private developers transactions which disadvantage the existing local community;
Develop a coordinated housing policy, to best use the available monies and resources, producing a Housing Budget Paper to assess all housing-related programs that affect the inner city, and securing a commitment by Cabinet to coordinate the various housing programs.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Uren.
Petition received.
page 3352
Notice of Motion
– I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:
That the House censures the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs for his action in quoting from a bogus document based on information obtained illegally, and then misleadingly claiming it to be an official Labor Party document.
– I am prepared to accept that as a censure motion so that the matter may be dealt with immediately.
-I indicate to the Leader of the House that when a notice of motion of censure is given it is within the Standing Orders for a Minister to indicate that it will be accepted as a censure of the Government and thereby receive precedence. There is no such provision to adopt that course of action when the motion of censure is directed against an individual Minister. If it were the intention to take the matter immediately, it would be necessary to suspend the Standing Orders.
– I am quite happy to move for the suspension of the Standing Orders to enable the motion to be taken immediately.
Suspension of Standing Orders
Motion ( by Mr Viner)- by leave- agreed to:
That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving forthwith the motion of censure of the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs of which he has given notice for the next sitting.
Motion of Censure
– I move:
I resort to the procedure of moving a motion of censure against the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) because the Standing Orders leave no other way in which a substantive debate on a matter such as this can take place in the House. It is essential that such a debate take place. There are disturbing implications in the way in which a bogus document has materialised in the past several days, specifically the way in which it has materialised in the hands of Ministers such as the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, and the sleazy way in which it has been dribbled into the hands of some innocent Press people.
Government members- Ha, ha!
– Well, I confess that that is a malapropism. Perhaps I should have said ‘trusting’ rather than ‘innocent’. The document which has materialised is headed ‘Strictly Confidential- ALP Campaign Planning’. It purports to be a strategy and tactics document of the Labor Party. It is no such thing. It is a concoction and it has been presented by Ministers of the Government. The Liberal Party is implicated. It is bemusing to note the hilarity extensively in the ranks of the Government when clearly their own party has been involved in criminal behaviour in some way. If this were merely a matter of a leak there would be no room for complaint, although there might be room for feeling aggrieved. But it is not a leak, I repeat. There is clear evidence that this bogus document has been drawn together from illegally, criminally illegally, obtained material. David Combe -
Government members- Oh!
– I can see the tactic of the Government- orchestrated behaviour like louts; pretending that this is all a lark. I guess that the Government has become so case hardened after such a rapid and extensive succession of scandals affecting its Ministry that it is indifferent now when the latest outrage, the latest scandal, befalls it.
Let me quote what the advertising agency has to say about this, so that we can get some official status to commence the debate. Malcolm Macfie, Managing Director of Mullins, Clarke and Ralph Pty Ltd, the advertising agency which handles the account of the Labor Party, wrote to me today and said this:
Yesterday I examined a document of 26 pages, dated October 1 979. This document carried a cover as below:
ALP CAMPAIGN PLANNING
ALP planning document: -
1 ) Themes, for the pre-campaign and the campaigning proper.
Attitudes of the swingers- communicating with this segment of the electorate.
Agency’s note on campaign preparations.
Agency briefing for ALP candidates- communicating the political message.
Macfie concludes:
No such document has been prepared in this form by myself or any person authorised by this Company. After careful comparison between this document and our own files I am of the opinion that the document I examined has been assembled without authority from confidential material obtained illegally from this Company’s offices.
The Federal Secretary of the Party writes a confirmatory letter on that point. I do not want to delay the House on that. Just let me make one point for the record, however. The bogus document which has been circulated by certain representatives of the Liberal Party is not a Labor Party document. It has not been compiled either by the Labor Party or by any agency working for the Labor Party. It is true that the data which are included in that document draw substantially on a number of separate documents which the Labor Party’s advertising agency, as distinct from the Labor Party, has compiled as working papers to present to the Labor Party. In that respect, the Labor Party is no more committed to what has been prepared and presented than the Liberal Party is committed to documentation which has been prepared by Masius, WynneWilliams and D’Arcy-MacManus (Australia) Pty Ltd, the advertising agency which works for it.
The first occasion on which reference to this document surfaced was last Saturday. The Prime Minister said this:
I am heartened by a current ALP strategy document -
Let me repeat that- ‘a current ALP strategy document’. That is a lie. There is no such ALP strategy document, and the Liberal Party knows it because the Liberal Party prepared the document. The Prime Minister said:
I am heartened by a current ALP strategy document which says, and I quote:
We live in the best country in the world, rich in human and natural resources.
The quotation continues. It comes from page 2 of the bogus document that the Liberal Party has distributed.
The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs in the Parliament this week referred several times to the ‘David Combe report’, the Australian Labor Party strategy papers’ and the Combe strategy papers’. He then went on to say:
Mr Speaker, I was quoting directly from the document.
He meant the Liberal Party concoction, the fabrication, the most dishonest exercise ever undertaken by any political party. Let the Liberals laugh that off. Their organised brouhaha may reassure them, but it will not reassure the community which will recognise immediately that this country’s affairs are being conducted by a party which comprises a gang of rogues.
Government members interjecting-
– Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The conduct of this debate is not going to be contributed to by the noise, nor will it be contributed to by statements like that from the Leader of the Opposition. I remind the honourable gentleman that his motion is directed against one Minister. That does not give him licence for comments of that kind directed against other members of the House. I therefore ask him to withdraw.
-I withdraw, Mr Speaker. On page 3178 of the House of Representatives Hansard, the Minister is recorded as quoting an extract from this bogus document. The extract appears on page 1 1 of the document. It is very important to tie in the Prime Minister and the Minister and another office-bearer of the Liberal Party, whom I will identify in a few minutes, with this document and the way in which it has become available publicly. The fact is that it is possible to establish beyond any doubt that there can have been only one source for this document- the advertising agency.
Let me give honourable members the summary of the justification on that point. There were several documents which had been drawn upon to compile this spurious documentation which the Liberal Party has put together and which it is seeking to distribute in the community. The summary is: Three of those four documents upon which the compilers of this bogus document have drawn were held by the agency and included material not available in any of the copies of those documents circulated elsewhere. Yet all this additional material appears in the ‘stolen document’ as we will call this bogus document. The fourth document involved in this collection of documents from which information was illegally extracted was a single document held by the agency. It was not circulated. The evidence is compelling that material quoted in Press reports this week, by the Prime Minister last Saturday and by one Minister in Parliament comes from a collection of confidential papers which could have been obtained only by illegal means from the offices of the Labor Party’s advertising agency in Sydney.
It may be argued, I guess, as a flimsy defence, that this is the product of a leak. That is nonsense. There has been a pattern of illegal and unethical behaviour by some persons unnamed who are clearly associated with the Liberal Party and Liberal Party representatives. For instance, on 26 October, a person was discovered in the office of Mr Macfie of our advertising agency, who handles our party’s account, going through Mr Macfie ‘s briefcase. That person was apprehended by the police and I understand that the police are still investigating this matter. On 12 November the offices of our advertising agencies were broken into, forcible entry was made and a safe was drilled and broken into- a safe bust job. The significance of that is that, in the view of the experienced police officers from the breaking squad who investigated this matter, the person who conducted the safebreak was a particularly professional safebreaker, the office of an advertising agency is not the sort of office which carries much in the way of cash and professional safebreakers do not waste their time going to offices that carry only petty cash.
All that was removed was $200 in petty cash. But what was in the safe- this would probably have been known in some quarters, or at least suspected- was the comprehensive files concerning the Labor Party at both the State level in New South Wales and the Federal level. It would have been an easy matter for those files to have been removed, copies made, the files replaced and then, to give some verisimilitude of illegal activity associated with the removal of money, the petty cash removed. No one who has any experience in this sort of matter believes that a self-respecting professional safebreaker will waste his time breaking into such a safe. I have experience as a former member of the Criminal Investigation Branch in Brisbane. From that experience I recognise the behaviour of so many members of the Liberal Party.
What pattern of undetected behaviour has there been prior to these two occasions, especially the instance when the person was located on the premises rifling through the briefcase of the executive of our advertising agency who handles all of the detail of our program and the things we are developing in association with our proposed campaigns? That is the Sydney end. It is a matter that is being investigated. The facts are clearly these: The document that the Liberal Party has prepared draws upon several documents which are available only in the agency of the ALP- Mullins, Clarke and Ralph Pty Ltd. There is evidence that there has been illegal entry to that agency, including a safebreaking, and that the safebreaking was undertaken in such a way as to suggest that the theft of money was the purpose of the safebreaking. Clearly, it is the view of experienced police investigators that no professional safebreaker would go to the office of an advertising agency carrying small amounts of money to undertake such a risky venture for such a small return. There was another motivation. One does not use a Rolls Royce to collect cut lunches. Let me come to the Canberra end of the connection.
Honourable members interjecting
-Order! The House will come to order.
- Mr Speaker, I would like some protection from you. I think you are notably reticent today. I want some silence. I would love the Liberals to hear this. Let me come to the Canberra end of the connection- the Baudino connection. Mr Baudino is the national public relations officer of the Liberal Party. On Monday an article appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald. It was trustingly reported by the journalist who had received the document that the story was based on ‘a confidential ALP analysis of voting trends in Australia’. On Tuesday an article appeared in the Australian. It referred to a confidential national campaign strategy’ and an ALP document’. In both cases the journalists had trustingly accepted documentation which had been handed to them, dropped to them in the gallery. The fact is that Mr Baudino, the Liberal Party’s national public relations officer, was responsible for providing that documentation for those two people. In the immortal description of the late Sir Robert Menzies of a former colleague of his, he is a contemptible little squirt.
Let me go further and refer to an even closer and higher association in the Liberal Party- that of its national secretary, Mr Eggleton. It is known that on last Monday week the Australian Financial Review obtained a confidential document about tactics for the Liberal Party. A copy of that document is now floating around this building. I draw the attention of honourable members to some obvious and major similarities in the typing presentation of this document, Tactics for Election Year’ signed ‘Tony E and the bogus document prepared by the Liberals and distributed by the Liberals- Baudino, that contemptible little squirt, as Sir Robert Menzies would have called him, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs. In both cases, one does not have to be an expert to recognise the clear similarity, not only in the typing face but also in the style of setting out pages, the way in which each page is concluded and the indication of the succeeding page.
One does not have to be particularly skilled to draw together the obvious conclusions that the Government, through the Liberal Party, has embarked on a sleazy exercise to propagate information which is quite dishonestly presented as a Labor Party document; that the collation of that information has been carried out in the Liberal Party offices; that a senior officer of the Liberal Party has hawked it to some journalists in this building; and that Ministers are seeking to do likewise. It does not take much intelligence, although it is quite a challenge for most members of the Liberal Party, to recognise that at the Sydney end of this connection clearly criminal behaviour has been associated with break-ins and unauthorised entry into the office of the agency of the Labor Party and that information from documents held there and there alone has been provided for the Liberal Party. It cannot be suggested with any conviction that this information has been obtained in this illegal way and then dribbled to the Liberal Party as a leak. No professional is going to do a Union Carbide Building bust job and just to keep his amateur status leak the information for the benefit of the Liberal Party. Believing that is like believing that whores are in business solely for thrills.
How was the Sydney-Canberra connection bridged? How did Mr Baudino and Mr Eggleton of the Liberal Party obtain this sort of information? Clearly, all of the evidence establishes irrefutably that the information must have been obtained illegally; that it reached the hands of the Liberal Party; that the Liberal Party has now undertaken a particularly active campaign to disseminate this information; that it is a bogus document prepared within the Liberal Party offices; that the national secretary of the Liberal Party, Eggleton, is clearly implicated in some way; and that Baudino, the national public relations officer, is also deeply steeped in the whole arrangement of this bogus exercise designed in some way to embarrass the Labor Party. All that has happened is that the Liberal Party, the Government, has been exposed. It never anticipated that the documentation upon which the Party drew to fabricate this document was held exclusively by the agency of the Labor Party and that it would be impossible to leave doubt on the shoulders of anyone else.
The fact is that the Fraser Government is a scandal-ridden Government. It is a Government that stands on impropriety. It is a Government that has lifted unethical conduct to a high art form, and it does that only through persistent practice. Look at its background: An allegation that goes to the court of attempted bribery of an election opponent, involving a Minister; electorate rigging, involving two Ministers; fixing computer tenders, involving the Prime Minister; widespread tax avoidance, involving numerous Ministers; malfeasance, involving a private company on the part of a former Minister; and rigging land deals on the part of a former Treasurer. The Government gives every indication that it is steeped in villainy. This is a clear case of political espionage. There are associated features of unauthorised entry, breaking and entering, safe breaking, theft and illegal removal of information. In all respects, the strong circumstantial evidence is that the Liberal Party is deeply involved in this escapade; that the national secretary is somehow involved; that Mr Baudino, the national public relations officer, is clearly involved; and that a number of Ministers are involved, including certainly the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs. It is a dishonourable Government and it deserves to be rejected. It ought to resign.
-Is the motion seconded?
– I second the motion, Mr Speaker. What we have witnessed in the last day or so is another milestone in the depths to which the Liberal Party will sink to gain electoral advantage. The law and order party is again breaking the rules of Australian politics, of the Australian people and of ordinary standards of decency. It will get right down into the sewers. Whether it is constitutional vandalism, burglary or just plain criminal activity, nothing is too hot or too heavy for the Liberal Party. One of the chief rodents in the sewers is the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) who is sitting in front of us.
-Order! I remind the honourable gentleman that, although this is a censure motion against the Minister, that language will not be accepted in the Parliament. I ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw that remark.
– I withdraw it, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs have been quoting for days from a Liberal Party document- not a Labor Party document- which they have been falsely misrepresenting as a Labor Party document. The Minister has been claiming in the Parliament, and the Prime Minister claimed at the Liberal Party conference, that it is a Labor Party document. They know full well that it is not. On Tuesday of this week the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs stated:
But not only that, the Combe strategy paper-
He called it ‘the Combe strategy paper’ when he knew very well that it was a paper from his own party. He went on to quote the document as stating, with reference to the swinging voters:
He did not even quote directly from page 2 of the document; he quoted selectively. The first line of that paragraph stated:
They-
The swinging voters- think Fraser is a fair sort of all round bastard.
He left that out. How right they are. It says something for the perception of the swinging voters in Australia that they really have the Prime Minister well and truly tabbed. But the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs did not mention that. He just went on to quote from the document and to say that it was a Labor Party document. The Prime Minister referred to the document at the Liberal Party conference. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) has already quoted Mr Macfie. I will quote him again. He said:
No such document has been prepared in this form by myself or any person authorised by this Company. After careful comparison between this document and our own files I am of the opinion that the document I examined has been assembled without authority from confidential material obtained illegally from this Company’s offices.
That blows completely the idea that it is a Labor Party document. It proves definitely that it was prepared by the Liberal Party. Even worse, Tony Eggleton wrote to the Prime Minister on 18 October 1979 and in the second paragraph of his letter he stated:
As a ‘companion paper’ to this, I will shortly be letting you have -
I emphasise these words- a report and assessment of the ALP’s pre-campaign and campaign tactics.
It was not the ALP’s report and assessment, but a report and assessment obviously from his own party. Obviously the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs knew that it was a Liberal Party document, compiled by the Liberal Party, with extracts stolen from the Labor Party’s advertising agency. That is obviously beyond argument. The Liberal Party’s director forwarded that document on 18 October. The Leader of the Opposition has already indicated to the House that Mr Robert Baudino, a member of the Liberal Party secretariat, handed the composite document to journalists this week, also alleging that it was a Labor Party document. We now know that quite clearly the document contained extracts from an agency document which could only have been in the hands of the agency. It dealt with the number of Ministers stood down and dismissed by the Fraser Government. A correction from six to seven Ministers was made in October. The sheet which was corrected was never copied, never distributed. It was stolen from the safe of the advertising agency and it ended up in the hands of Malcolm Fraser, Ian Viner, Tony Eggleton and Robert Baudino. They are apparently the happy receivers of stolen goods.
Opposition members- The gang of four.
– The gang of four: that is for sure. It gets down to this issue: What motive could there possibly have been for anybody to burgle the offices of Mullins, Clarke and Ralph Pty Ltd, the Labor Party’s advertising agency, if it were not for political espionage? Obviously the Liberal Party wanted to gain access to the Labor Party’s campaign thinking not only in New South Wales but also in the Commonwealth sphere. There has been an arranged break-in and a burglary of those offices. The questions have to be asked: Is Robert Baudino the Charles Colson of the Liberal Party? Is Tony Eggleton the knowing receiver of stolen material? Did he realise that it was stolen? The New South Wales police now realise that it was stolen. There was only one copy of it. If it was stolen, what is Tony Eggleton ‘s attitude? He is one of these great figures of the establishment; the erstwhile member of the Commonwealth Secretariat; a Press secretary for former Liberal Party Prime Ministers; and a confidante of the present Prime Minister. Did he realise that it was stolen material? Did he realise that his own organisation had arranged- or probably arranged- for this break-in to occur?
What is the attitude of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs to the fact that they are purveyors of stolen material themselves, that they are shunting stolen material right across the political landscape of Australia? This is a most serious charge levelled against the Government. It is levelled directly against the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs as a member of the Government, and the Prime Minister who has made these documents public. It is a serious charge against the Minister sitting at the table and a serious charge against the whole Liberal Party organisation. The Liberals may guffaw and try to write the issue off, but it is quite clear that there has been a burglary. It is now being investigated by the New South Wales Police. The material stolen was received by the Liberal Party. It was rewritten by the Liberal Party. It was purveyed by the Liberal Party. If honourable members opposite can be happy in government that their organisation, their Prime Minister and their Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs are the purveyors of stolen material, well, they can laugh their heads off. But I know that if it had been the Labor Party in this position it would have been hounded out of office and howled down for the Watergate-style activities which are involved here.
A document was tabled in the Senate today by Senator Carrick, and I will read from it. It is from the Liberal Party of Australia. It states:
Labor’s campaign strategy papers have now received sufficient public exposure in the Press . . . to enable us to start using them to our own political advantage.
The ALP plans (attached) are particularly relevant in respect to current grandstanding by Hayden and Young about unemployment. The campaign strategy points to the hypocrisy of the Labor Parliamentarians- while they are professing their concern about the unemployed, their Party’s campaign ‘blueprint’ virtually ignores unemployment as an election issue.
Government members interjecting-
– You are a gang of bloody crooks, for God’s sake, and you think it is funny. You would take the pennies off the eyes of a dead man. There is one of you in trouble for that.
-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will remain silent. I remind the House that serious allegations are being made and because they are serious allegations it is obvious that they are not going to be heard in silence. I cannot expect such allegations to be received in silence, but I am not prepared to accept interjection which is continually orchestrated in the way in which it was just done.
– The document is headed ‘The Liberal Party of Australia, FEDERAL SECRETARIAT, PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL’. It is addressed to the Right Honourable P. R. Lynch, Senator the Honourable J. L. Carrick, the Honourable A. A. Street and the Honourable Ian Viner. It is signed by Tony Eggleton- ‘TE.’. The word ‘blueprint’ is in inverted commas. At the foot of that page beside an asterisk the document states:
ALP paper provided earlier.
In other words, the Liberal Party secretariat is claiming that it is the circulator of this paper which purports to indicate what is in the earlier part of this letter. So any allegations which are seen to be allegations by my leader, or by me; that the Liberal Party is the source and the receiver of this stolen material, are in fact well and truly indicated in this letter- this filthy, snivelling letter written by that corrupt mind, Eggleton, to these corrupt criminals on the front bench of the Liberal Party.
-Order! The honourable gentleman will withdraw that remark.
– Why? I will not withdraw that Eggleton is corrupt. I will withdraw that honourable members on the front bench are corrupt, but I will not withdraw that Viner is corrupt.
-Order! I cannot hear what the honourable member for Blaxland is saying, because people behind him are interjecting.
– I will not withdraw that Viner is corrupt. I withdraw that the others are corrupt. I will not withdraw that Eggleton is corrupt.
– I have not called upon the honourable gentleman to withdraw other than his statement that the front bench members are criminals and are corrupt.
– That is fair enough, Mr Speaker, because you would not have got a withdrawal anyway. Let me go on to say this: The Liberal Party really has made a gaffe on this occasion. It has put its foot right in it. It has mounted a burglary of the Labor Party’s advertising agency. It has stolen material from the Labor Party. It has rewritten that material and has tried to pass it off as a Labor Party document. It has had its agent wandering around the Press Gallery and handing it out as though it was an authentic Labor Party document. Obviously, it is just part of the dirty tricks campaign which Tony Eggleton and the other thieves over there are thinking up. They are people who have no more integrity than the people who were convicted in the United States for breaking into the Democratic Party campaign headquarters. That matter went to the President of the United States and he was finally dragged out of office. It is not too fine a point to say that the present Prime Minister is far more directly linked to this burglary than Richard Nixon was ever linked -
– To the burglary of the Watergate premises.
-Order! The honourable gentleman will withdraw that. I remind him -
– Why? There is a direct link. Mr Speaker, let me indicate the link.
-Order! 1 remind the honourable gentleman that the motion is one of censure directed against the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs. In relation to that Minister, I will permit certain things to be said.
– I will include that Minister as well.
– If it is in relation to another member of this House, I will not permit that statement. I call upon the honourable member to withdraw.
– I will withdraw that and make it clear that there is a direct link between the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs and the burglary in Sydney in that he is purveying a document in Parliament and quoting from it as ‘the Combe report’, a page of which could only have been stolen from the advertising agency. The sort of letter which we now see published by the Liberal Party is part of a general campaign to besmirch and smear the Labor Party and to gain some kind of political espionage advantage for the Liberal Party at the cost of the Australian Labor Party. The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs- a man without any reputation in this House, a man who sold the Aborigines down the drain in Queensland and had to be shifted from his portfolio, a man who is a gigolo of the Prime Minister, a hired gun, a smart mouth who will come in here and say and do anything- is now tied up with a criminal action involving a police investigation of a burglary of an advertising agency representing the Australian Labor Party. This is a serious and sad day for the Australian Parliament. It is a serious and sad day for Australian democracy. But it is a more serious day for the Liberal Party of Australia, for its Federal secretariat, for Baudino, for its parliamentary party, for its Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs and for the Prime Minister. The motion moved by the Opposition should be carried, and carried with acclamation.
Opposition members applauding-
-Order! Honourable gentlemen have been here long enough to know that that behaviour is foolish.
- Mr Speaker-
– Are you not getting -
-Order! The honourable member for Adelaide will remain silent. I want it to be understood that in conducting this debate -
– Don’t lecture us now.
-Order! Honourable members will remain silent. I remind honourable members that accusations have been made against the Minister which are indeed very serious. Therefore I expect the House, when a Minister is under censure, to listen to the Minister’s explanation.
– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker, about the inconsistency of your conduct of affairs in the House this morning. There was unbridled misbehaviour when I was speaking and you scarcely noted it. You are now lecturing the Opposition about a proper standard of conduct- something that I applaud but, I suggest to you, something that has arrived rather belatedly. These people on the other side of the House behaved like street-corner louts this morning -
-Order! There is no point of order. The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.
– When a serious offence was being discussed and allegations were being made against the Prime Minister, Ministers and the Liberal Party -
-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.
– You sat there deaf and mute.
-I call the Minister.
– Let me make one thing quite clear right at the outset. The document which came into the possession of the Liberal Party of Australia came from a Labor Party source.
Opposition members interjecting-
-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. It is not possible for the Minister to be heard while that continual interjecting persists.
-What I said at the outset of my reply to the censure motion was that the document which came into the hands of the Liberal Party of Australia came from a Labor Party source. I suggest, Mr Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), instead of looking for a scapegoat on this side of the House, should look for the Judas within his own ranks. That is what he should be doing. Let me also make some facts absolutely clear. The document from which I quoted the day before yesterday was a document typed by the Liberal Party of Australia from the source material to which the Leader of the Opposition refers. That is what he refers to as a bogus document. But it is quite clear from what the Leader of the Opposition has said today that the authenticity of the contents of this document has been verified. There is no question whatsoever about that. I table the papers to which I have referred in the House. The front page is a frontispiece typed by the Liberal Party. The headings are typed by the Liberal Party. All the contents of the document are authentic from the source material as verified by the Leader of the Opposition.
– We prefer to have tabled the stolen documentation upon which that is based.
– Let the Leader of the Opposition deny the authenticity of the contents of that document. He cannot do so, of course, because he knows from his own checking that the contents are correct. Perhaps, when I referred to the Combe report, I should have referred to the Mullins report- the report from Mullins, Clarke and Ralph Pty Ltd. There is no question that the material was prepared by the advertising people of the Labor Party, the propagandists for the Labor Party, and was available to the Labor Party. So what we clearly have here today is an attempt by a classic smear campaign to overcome the Labor Party’s own inefficiencies.
– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What the Minister is saying is that two days ago when he described this document as a Labor Party document he was lying and seeking to mislead the House. I ask you to judge on that.
-I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the statement that he has just made.
– Well, Mr Speaker, if you believe that he was not lying, in the light of what he says, you would be sold the Sydney Harbour Bridge on a sunny Sunday afternoon.
-I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the statement.
– Yes.
-I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the statement.
-I said: ‘Yes’; I have.
-I ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw.
– I withdraw. Is that sufficient for you?
– Let me quote the Leader of the Opposition as reported at page 3279 of the Hansard of 71 November.
– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister just tabled a document. Under the Standing Orders Ministers have the right to table documents relating to the Crown, documents of state. Does a document obtained by the services of a hired criminal have the status of a document of state?
– The Speaker would probably think so today because he has been going against us.
-The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw that remark.
– I will withdraw that, too.
-I indicate to the Leader of the Opposition that he has made very serious allegations against a Minister. If he wishes to make the allegations, I think in fairness he ought to let the person against whom the allegations are made reply.
-Mr Speaker, I am merely trying to make the point of the inconsistency between your standard of control of the House now and earlier.
-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The honourable member for Corio will indicate to me the Standing Order to which he is referring.
-I am sorry; I do not have the Standing Order. Standing Orders on the tabling of documents give the Minister -
-Order! I will not interrupt the debate at the moment. I will defer my decision on that matter until I have had a chance to look at it and then I will decide whether the document can remain tabled or whether it will be withdrawn.
– I quote from a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition on 21 November. Page 3279 of Hansard states:
There are strategy papers which have been drawn together by the Labor Party. Those papers have not been collated by the Labor Party . . . into a compendious document -
The Leader of the Opposition said that there are strategy papers which have been drawn together by the Labor Party, and they are the documents to which I referred. I also inform the House of advice that I received this morning. On 12 November five other offices in the building occupied by Mullins, Clarke and Ralph (NSW) Pty Ltd were burgled- broken into- and had cash stolen. On 13 November it was reported that only cash had been stolen. Further up the street, in the permanent building society building nine other offices were broken into. Is the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that the burglar who is supposed to have stolen the Labor Party advertising document did a magnificent cover-up by burgling 13 other offices? As my colleague in the Senate, the Leader of the Government (Senator Carrick), pointed out, this particular document has been circulating since some time in Octoberwell before the burglary of that building on 12 November. The document was known widely to be available. So much for a very transparent attempt to label the material as bogus material, to label the document as a bogus document and to allege that somebody within the Labor Party burgled the premises of Mullins, Clarke and Ralph Pty Ltd.
It is also apparent that this censure motion, transparent as it is, is a last desperate throe by the Leader of the Opposition to regain some credibility within his own party. The document to which I have referred, under the heading of ALP and “Swinging” Voter’, shows the crass stupidity and the rank hypocrisy of the Labor Party and the fact that its Leader holds no credibility whatsoever within the Party or among members of the back bench, who are sitting mute at the moment. The document refers to the swingers; those who show any willingness to change. It states:
Remember that contrary to the popular myth, they -
The swinging voters- are not discerning upper middle class professionals who carefully reason through their vote. They are basically ignorant and indifferent about politics. They vote -
Says this Labor Party document-
So much for the regard that the Labor Party has for the electors of Australia.
- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. There are two issues here. The first one is that the Minister has claimed that it was a unitary strategy document of the Australian Labor Party. He has now denied that and said that it was a Liberal Party typed document. It came from the Labor Party’s advertising agency, not the ALP.
-Order! The honourable gentleman is arguing the point. There is no point of order.
-I further quote from this document:
They -
The swinging voters- think Fraser is a fair sort of all round bastard. Despite this -
Say the Labor Party’s propagandists- they will be only vaguely interested in voting for Bill Hayden -
I would put it at even less than vaguely. I think that by the time the next election comes we will find that the swinging voters will not be interested at all in voting for Bill Hayden. Before long Bob Hawke will be breathing so closely down his neck that he will be able to feel it every day he sits in this House.
-I will read the rest of the document at the invitation of the Leader of the Opposition. It states:
Does anybody really think he can be given a profile? Not even the members of the Opposition in this House think that. It continues:
Giving Bill Hayden some kind of profile in the minds of these people therefore, is the only communications objective that offers the slightest hope of success.
Because of the indifference of these people, and their information consumption patterns, this objective can be achieved only with a minimum number of thoughts repeated a maximum number of times.
We have heard the shadow Minister for Employment talk about technology. What he is suggesting is that the Leader of the Opposition go in for word processing. I repeat:
The document continues:
When you are sick of saying it, they’ll just be starting to notice it.
It is a strange phenomenon that every time a Labor Party document is leaked it is alleged that there has been a break-in; yet every time a Liberal Party document is leaked, it is a leak. What has happened in this case is that a leak has developed within the Labor Party and the Leader of the Opposition has quickly gone to water. I suggest that not only can he not walk on water but he cannot even swim through the engulfment surrounding him at the moment. When we come back for the autumn sitting, every day that the Leader of the Opposition sits in this House Bob Hawke will be breathing so closely down his neck and he will be so worried that there is no possibility at all that he will be able to have a profile within the House or amongst the voters.
-i take a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would the Minister put his money on it that Bob Hawke will be the Leader of the Labor Party?
Government members interjecting-
-Order! It really was not that funny.
– I think I will invite the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) to be the first one to put some money on that bet. As I was saying, the Labor Party, instead of facing up squarely to its own internal shortcomings, seeks to escape into the realms of fantasy. Today we have witnessed a transparent and, if I might say so, stupid attempt to contrive a political scapegoat. As I have said before, instead of looking for scapegoats in this House, the Labor Party would be well advised to search out the Judas within its own ranks. What warped minds and imaginations came up with this preposterous allegation of a break-in by the Liberal Party? Only the Labor Party could dream up allegations of this kind. It dreamed up an allegation when supposedly there was a burglary at Curtin House last year. That has gone the same way as this allegation will go. Shades of the stupidity that gave us the Iraqi breakfast that we all remember so well. It is one thing for a political party to try to cover up for its political embarrassment, but today’s performance really demonstrates the depths to which the Labor Party and the Leader of the Opposition feel they must go; the depths to which the leadership of the Labor Party in this House has sunk. That is why I am prepared to put my money on Bob Hawke. One could almost feel sorry for Labor members if they were not so malicious and deceptive in what they say. The facts I gave to this House at the outset of my speech show that the allegations that this is a bogus document and that there has been a burglary by the Liberal Party are transparent because of their crass stupidity.
The Labor Party has been wounded. Everybody in the Press Gallery of this House knows that the Labor Party has been wounded by the revelation of this document and the revelation of what the Labor Party and its propagandists think about the credibility of the Leader of the Opposition. That is why, when this document became notorious from the fact that I referred to it in this House, the Leader of the Opposition scrambled around the corridors of this Parliament so fast that he scattered the dust everywhere. He has not been able to come up with anything of any credibility. Because of the truth of this matter, as I have given it to the House, it is clear that a monstrous charade has been perpetrated on this House and a monstrous charge without any foundation has been made against me, against the Government and against the Liberal Party. There is no reason at all why this censure motion should be accepted and it will be defeated when a vote is taken.
-Order! The honourable gentleman’s time has expired.
-What this House is dealing with is a crime. It is not just a crime directed against the Labor Party; it is a crime directed against the very fabric of our political structure. What are the demonstrable facts? The first demonstrable fact is that there was a break-in into the offices of the organisation carrying out work for and on behalf of the Labor Party. It is a demonstrable fact that material was taken from a safe in that office and that the material which the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) has relied on in this House was obtained from that safe, because there was no other place where the material was recorded.
Let us deal with the credibility of this Minister because not the least serious of the aspects of this matter is that the Minister has lied to the Parliament, clearly and deliberately. Let me quote what this Minister said in the Parliament last Tuesday, as recorded at page 3178 of the Hansard. You were in the chair at the time, Mr Speaker. The Minister described this document as the Combe strategy paper. He did not use the term ‘documents’. He did not talk about a number of documents. He described the document as the Combe strategy paper referring to swinging voters. The Minister in the House today has admitted that there was no one document. He has admitted that the document which was circulated to the Press was typed by the Liberal Party. It is a document based upon a stolen document and it is a document that emanated from within the Liberal Party. The Minister knows that it is one document and last Tuesday when he stood in this House and lied to this Parliament he knew that he was using a document which was the fabrication of his own party, and he admitted that today. The best he could say today was that the document was verified. By whom was it verified? Was it verified by some of his ministerial colleagues, one of whom had to be stood down because of his sleazy operations with land developers who were slinging into the slush funds of the Liberal Party?
-Order! The motion relates to one Minister. That does not give licence to make those comments about another Minister. I ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw that latter part.
– Let me remind you of your own ruling last Tuesday, Mr Speaker.
-The honourable gentleman will withdraw.
– I want to remind you of your ruling, Mr Speaker.
-The honourable gentleman will withdraw.
-What am I to withdraw, Mr Speaker?
-I will not repeat what the honourable gentleman said for that will only worsen the situation. The honourable gentleman knows that he made allegations.
-I will withdraw, in deference to you, Mr Speaker, but I will state this: The Minister says that the document was verified. I want to know who verified it. I am entitled to know,
Sir, on your own ruling of last Tuesday when you were prepared to allow this Minister to lie to the House. That is what he did in the presentation of this document. You allowed him to use that document because he alleged that it was relevant to the motivation of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden). I now want to look at the motivation of the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs and I want to look at this person whom he says verified this document. Was it one of his ministerial colleagues who was up to his eyes in land development finance with a couple of sleazy land developers who were named in the Victorian inquiry into land scandals? Was it a former Minister who had to stand down because he was manipulating electoral procedures? Was it another former Minister who is currently facing serious charges? The Minister talked about verification. Who verified this document?
Two days ago the Minister said that it was one document, the Combe document. He said that it was a Labor Party document. That was the Minister’s statement when he lied to the Parliament. Today he said that the document was typed in the offices of the Liberal Party. He admitted that it was not one document. He said that it was based on a series of documents. The problem isperhaps he was not to know this; perhaps he did know- that it was based upon a document which was in a safe which was burgled. It is as simple as that. What the Parliament is entitled to know when the Minister says that the document has been verified is whether it was verified by the person who did the breaking and entering. He would be the only person who knew where it came from. Was it verified by Mr Baudino, the Liberal Party representative who circulated this material?
– Oh, go on. You leaked it yourself.
– The Minister for Health is entitled to defend another Minister who has been caught in the act of lying but he does his own honour and credibility no good at all. As a lawyer who has acted for criminals in the past he is entitled to try to defend a Minister against his criminal actions in this matter. They are criminal actions. It is very simple: If an employee of this Government receives a stolen document he is a receiver of stolen goods and the Government will prosecute him. The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has used a document which he admits was a Liberal Party fabrication. He tried to produce the document and use it in the Parliament knowing at the time he so used it that the document was a Liberal Party fabrication. He knew at the time that it had been produced in the offices of his own party. Yet he walked into the
Parliament, gave the document a title which he knew as false, and purported to use the document in a debate in a way that was grossly misleading and untrue, having regard to the Minister’s own state of knowledge which he admitted to the Parliament today.
I ask any honourable member to look at the statements made by the Minister in the Parliament last Tuesday. On any honest and objective assessment there can be no doubt that what the Minister was purporting to do was to say: ‘Here is a document. It is called the Combe report. ‘ He even gave it a title. He said: ‘It ought to be accepted as evidence in this House of the strategy and the attitudes of the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party.’ I noted his statements today. He now says that the document that he used in that way last Tuesday was typed by the Liberal Party of Australia. He also said that the document was not collated by the Labor Party into a compendious document.
What he is saying very seriously today when he is the subject of a censure motion is that a series of separate documents came into the hands of the Liberal Party Federal Organisation who put it together. Obviously, officers of the Liberal Party put it together. Who gave it the title? It had no title when first obtained by the Liberal Party. That was admitted by the Minister today. Who called it the Combe report? It was the officers of the Liberal Party or the Minister who purported to present that document to the Parliament on the basis that it was an original Labor Party document, titled the Combe report. At the time of making that statement the Minister knew that he was lying to the Parliament.
The Minister is a self-confessed liar. It is as simple as that. It does not come as any surprise to any of us on this side of the House. We have seen the Minister shamelessly use personal correspondence. We have seen him smear and malign people outside the Parliament. His difficulty was that last Tuesday he did not know that the document which was a Liberal Party fabrication contained material which was not even available to the Labor Party. It contained material in a safe which was broken into. The House is entitled to hear from the Minister who verified the document. Did he believe that it was an authentic document? At no stage did the Minister attempt to tell us that. He has lied to the Parliament. He has attempted to deceive the Parliament. He has done so in a way that demeans this institution and the whole of our political process. That is a serious matter. It is not a matter to be treated in some jocular way.
This Government is so desperate that any rules can now be broken. There are no rules governing political behaviour in this society. There is no element of honour or decency left when a Minister of the Crown can use in the Parliament a document which he knows is a fabricated concoction which has come out of the office of his own Party. He knew that last Tuesday. He has admitted knowledge of that today. He stands condemned. When one looks at the parliamentary record one sees that he tried to foist on the Parliament and people of Australia the view that this was a document that emanated from the headquarters of the Labor Party. Has a more mean, despicable and dishonourable act ever been committed by a Minister of the Parliament? Ministers opposite try to laugh it off and say that it is not a serious matter. After all, it is only a break-in! I suppose that it is all right to break into Labor Party headquarters! The Minister for Health chooses to associate himself with these actions. He is equally to blame. I would have thought that any selfrespecting Minister in any self-respecting government would not condone the introduction into our political life of Nixon-style break-ins. Such a Minister should not condone Ministers who in this House act in a way which would do great credit to Richard Nixon. The Minister for Health is a lawyer. I am sorry, I have just been informed by my colleague that he is not a lawyer. If he looked at last Tuesday’s Hansard he would know that on any reasonable and logical conclusion -
– He is an honourable man.
– He will not be an honourable man if he continues to associate himself with a Minister who has lied to the Parliament, and who is not able to verify a document, portion of which could only be obtained by a criminal act. It is as simple and as clear as that. The House is entitled to expect a better standard of conduct. Whatever the differences that exist in either political philosophy or social belief, if within the Parliament and the Government we cannot establish what is to be regarded as essentially proper and honest political behaviour then our political system is in deep trouble. What the Minister has done in an attempt to smear the Labor Party is to involve himself in actions which are throughly dishonourable and criminal and which demean him and his government. The Minister does not escape today simply by repeating the false and specious allegations and relying upon the numbers of the Government to carry him through. If the Government is prepared to use its numbers on this occasion, as undoubtedly it will, it is demeaning this institution and the whole concept of political honesty and fair play. It is doing untold damage to our political structure. The Minister has lied to the Parliament and to the people of Australia. He deserves the strongest censure of this House.
-There has been a little wagering this morning about Bob Hawke. My ministerial colleague said that he would put his money on Bob Hawke. I will not put my money on Bob Hawke for the simple reason that the Opposition will screw him up just as it has screwed up everything else. It will destroy his idealism. Members of the Opposition front bench now- this is partly what this is all about- are men of ambition, men such as my friend, Lionel Bowen, Mick Young -
-I think the Minister should refer to members by their proper titles.
– And the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating). All of them are contenders for the seat occupied by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), and they have the strange belief that at some time they might occupy the seat of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). I tell them now that that will not happen. This is a miserable attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to defend the weak position in which he now finds himself, both inside the Labor Party and also in the wider electorate. This is an attempt to cover up his own inefficiency as a leader and his own ineffectiveness. That is partly what this matter is about. The rest of what it is about is this: Quite clearly, in all probability there is somebody in the Labor Party who handed over some documents which in substance are contained in the document the subject of this debate.
-Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I object to the Minister suggesting that a criminal act in New South Wales, which involved the robbery of a safe, was committed by a member -
-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.
– If the Minister was honest he would give the name of the person who provided him with the document to the police in New South Wales so that that person could be prosecuted for his illegal action.
-The honourable member for Corio knows that he transgresses the rules very badly by continuing to speak when I have asked him to resume his seat.
– Sorry.
– There is no point in his apologising afterwards because he, of all people in this House, ought to know just how serious that offence is. I call the Minister.
– He accused the Labor Party of breaking a safe, because that is where the document came from.
-The honourable member for Corio will resume his seat.
– The point I want to make is simply that when any reasonable minded person, including members of the Press- at this stage they can be reasonable minded- looks at the facts as I will cover them, he will conclude that somehow, somewhere, somebody who is associated with the Labor Party has handed over these documents. I have very little doubt that that is what has happened. In this Parliament and in the Press, documents are being quoted continuously that have been leaked from one source or another. Leaking is a despicable act. It is as despicable in the Labor Party as it can be in our party. The Opposition should face up to the fact that that is the real issue. Let us see what the facts are. This document -
– The facts are that you know who stole that document and you are covering up for a crook.
– The document that was tabled, which is headed -
Opposition members interjecting-
- Mr Speaker, do I have to be interrupted?
-The Minister need not appeal to the Chair for silence because all speakers in this debate have been subjected to interjections.
-I will take it as the natural course of events.
-I will intervene when I think it is proper.
– For the benefit of honourable members, I remind them of what I understand my colleague said earlier, that is, that the document which has been tabled- is it here? Where is the document that was tabled?
-The honourable member for Reid took the document, I think.
-Who has the document? Where is the document?
Government members- He has stolen it.
– Even in the Parliament somebody takes the document out.
-I think the honourable member for Reid asked the Clerk for the document. I have not seen it returned. I have not given a ruling as yet as to whether the document can be tabled. When I recover the document I will give a ruling on that. It is not a tabled document as yet.
-I remind honourable members that the document has a frontispiece, if I can call it that, which admittedly was prepared and typed by the Liberal Party secretariat. There are headings to a number of sections on the next page, two of which state: ‘ALP Themes’ and Pre-Campaign and Campaign Proper’. There are headings to other sections of this document. It is not in dispute that those headings were put in the document by the Liberal Party. What is clear, however, is that, apart from that, the contents of this document, which has been tabled and is the subject of debate, were in the hands of the Liberal Party secretariat as long ago as early October. I rely on Tony Eggleton for that information, and I stand on his word. The contents of this document have been in the hands of the Liberal Party secretariat since early October. That gives the complete lie to the assertions that have been made in this House today.
Honourable members interjecting-
– The contents of the document have been in the hands of the Liberal Party Secretariat since early October.
-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. When allegations are made across the table I must permit a response to them. But I am not prepared to permit orchestrated interjection. At the moment it is from both sides of the House. I ask honourable members to cease.
-I did not want to repeat what I was saying, but it really is the basis of this whole debate. The substance of this document, which is the subject of the censure motion today, has been in the possession of the Liberal Party secretariat, according to Tony Eggleton, since early October. There is no question that the Opposition admits that the substance of this document- that is to say, the various parts of itcomes from strategy documents prepared by or for the Labor Party. In other words, it came out of its own camp. There is no question about that.
-Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Minister is misleading this Parliament. He is stating that this document was prepared by the Labor Party. It was prepared by a firm of consultants, and the Labor Party had nothing to do with it.
– There is no point of order. The The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.
– It is time he named the criminal who stole this document.
-The honourable member for Chifley will remain silent.
– Members of the Opposition are really in a bind. On the one hand, they want to say that we stole the document out of a safe on the night of 12 November, when apparently there were five other burglaries involving the pinching of cash in the same building and nine others in the same street, according to the information we have been given. Opposition members say that we pinched the document, yet in the next argument they say: ‘ It is not our document’. What are they talking about? They should make up their minds whether it is their document or not. Of course, it comes out of their stable.
– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a statement by the advertising agency which says that one page of the document could only have been its document. It could not have been with the Liberal Party on 15 October. That is nonsense.
-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. That is not a point of order, it is a point of argument.
– On 20 November, the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs said:
The Australian Labor Party strategy papers are most revealing in what they say -
Later, on 21 November, as recorded on page 3219 of Hansard -
– You are still as crook as Barwick.
-Order! The Minister will resume his seat.
– It does not matter, Mr Speaker.
-If the honourable gentleman is not asking for a withdrawal, we will proceed.
– Opposition members go on with that sort of thing. It just goes over my shoulder. It will not affect me; it will not touch me. I do not take any notice of it in here or outside. So they should give up. In this House on 2 1 November the Leader of the Opposition stated:
First of all, there is no David Combe report. There are strategy papers which have been drawn together by the Labor Party. Those papers have not been collated by the Labor Party- I stress that- into a compendious document such as the Minister quoted from yesterday.
Then he went on. It is quite obvious from those two parts of the Hansard record that the document about which we are talking, which honourable members opposite say has been stolen from a safe, is made up of material that has come out of the Labor Party stable. It has come out because somebody in the Labor Party stable has been disloyal. That is how it has come out, just as documents are leaked out of the Public Service and out of the Liberal Party because people are disloyal. Honourable members opposite are entitled to feel upset about that, but they should not use it as a basis for attacking this Government.
– Name the person. Get yourself off the hook by naming the person. Name the person.
-Order! I recognise that the honourable member for Chifley has a very loud voice, but it is really too loud.
– Really, I felt sorry for the Leader of the Opposition. He was a policeman. It is no wonder that he left the force. He thinks there are self-respecting burglars. I was awakened, I think it was earlier this year, by a burglar. I did not find him self-respecting. I have seen burglars from time to time, in court and outside, but never have I seen a self-respecting burglar. No doubt that is why the Leader of the Opposition left the police force. But what a pity he did not continue with his law course. If he had done so he would not have attempted to put his brief before this Parliament today. It is a baseless, unfounded brief. It has no substance. What is right at the heart of this matter is the fact that whether this document belongs to the Labor Party or to its advisers- it has under a heading which relates to the swinging voter- it constitutes what is basically a slander on the average Australian. No wonder Opposition members are embarrassed. It also throws grave and serious doubt on the capacity of the Leader of the Opposition.
We can understand Opposition members being embarrassed when they read in this document that the swinging voter is vaguely interested in what the Leader of the Australian Labor Party stands for but so far does not have a clue. Of course, that is an admission that the Leader of the Opposition is not getting through to the average Australian, that he is having no effect on the average Australian. No wonder honourable members opposite feel embarrassed. No wonder, on what we understand will be the last day of this session of Parliament, they are driven to desperation to bring forward a motion such as this in this way.
The document states:
Remember that contrary to the popular myth, they are not discerning upper middle class professionals who carefully reason through their vote. They are basically ignorant and indifferent about politics. They vote on instinct for superficial, ill informed and generally selfish reasons.
In other words, these people who Opposition members think will put them into power are not interested in what Mick Young wrote in his book. They are not interested in unemployment; they are not interested in anything but themselves; they are ill-informed; they are generally selfish. They are the sorts of people to whom the Labor Party, according to its own advisers, is trying to appeal. This is a slander on the average Australian. I would like to believe that the average Australian is interested, that the swinging voter is interested in unemployment and in all the big issues that face us. This document is completely and utterly an embarrassment to the Labor Party.
-Order! The Minister’s time has expired.
-Mr Speaker-
Motion ( by Mr Fife) put:
That the question be now put.
The House divided. ( Mr Speaker- Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden)
AYES: 72
NOES: 34
Majority……. 38
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Original question put-
That the motion (Mr Hayden’s) be agreed to.
The House divided. ( Mr Speaker-Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden )
AYES: 34
NOES: 72
Majority……. 38
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
page 3367
– I ask that all questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
-Order! I will return to the business paper when honourable members return to their seats. The Deputy Prime Minister has asked that all questions be put on notice. He is entitled to do that and it will be done. I will return to the paper to call notices in a moment.
page 3367
-The honourable member for Reid has indicated to me that he wishes to make a personal explanation relating to the last debate, which I will permit. But I should tell him beforehand that I have decided to allow the tabling of the document in accordance with the practice of the House.
-I was not in the House, but I understand that the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) said that I stole the document that had been tabled.
– I just want to say to the honourable member for Reid that I did not say that.
-Well, what did you say?
– If any words that I said -
-What did you say?
-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. The honourable member for Reid will remain seated. We have just had an example of what happens when members- Ministers or otherwise- get to their feet without being called. There is then haranguing across the table. I will not have it. The honourable member for Reid has my indulgence to make an explanation.
– I was not in the House at the time but I was informed when I returned to the House, particularly by the boys, the members, on the Government side, that I had stolen the document that had been tabled. What happened was that, when the document was tabled, I went to the Clerk of the House and asked whether I could have the document. I took that document, with the knowledge of that officer, and handed it directly to the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding)- he was the next speaker on the Opposition side- to examine the document. That document never left that table. That was the situation. I later left the chamber. At no time did I remove the document from the chamber. Mr Speaker, what concerns me -
– I think that the honourable gentleman -
– What concerns me is that a man who is supposed to represent the law -
-Order! The honourable gentleman -
– Makes an accusation without knowing what are the facts.
-The honourable member will resume his seat.
– I would like to say to the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) that I have too much respect for him to make any allegation against him to the effect that he stole a document or would do anything that was improper, in relation to the procedures of this House, of that character. I simply sought the document and I was told by the Clerk at the table that it had been given to the honourable member for Reid. I then assumed that the document must have been with the honourable member and then -
– You assumed?
– Yes, I did because he -
– I thought you were a man of the law.
-Perhaps I had better -
-The honourable member for Reid will remain silent. The Minister has quite properly withdrawn any imputation whatsoever about which the honourable member for Reid may be sensitive. But I think that what has been said is worth saying because although it was said in jest- not by the Minister but by interjectors around the House- what is said in jest, when in print, does not have the sense of fun in which it was said. I assure the honourable member for Reid that what was said was in fun. I do not believe that it was said by the Minister but by a number of interjectors.
Mr UREN (Reid)-Mr Speaker, I rise only to object to the word that you have just usedsensitive’. I am not sensitive at all.
-The honourable member for Reid is not sensitive and I withdraw.
Government members interjecting-
– Honourable members on my right will remain silent while the honourable member for Reid and I straighten out the matter.
– I am not sensitive at all on this issue but I want to put the record straight.
Mr ELLICOTT (Wentworth-Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for the Capital Territory)- There is only one question that arises out of what the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) said; that is, why the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) did not clarify the matter as it was alleged.
– I am not going to allow that to be said. It is only making a debate of something that was said in fun.
page 3368
-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:
That this House:
1 ) Notes that on the Civil Aviation (Carriers Liability) Act 1976 the maximum compensation available in the event of personal injury or death in a domestic air accident is $45,000;
recognises that this amount is totally inadequate when compared with the level of damages being awarded to victims of motor vehicle and industrial accidents;
further notes that in June 1970 the then Minister for Civil Aviation, Senator Cotton, stated that air accidents compensation limits should keep pace with increases in average weekly earnings;
observes that in these terms the air accident compensation limit should be raised to at least $85,000; and
is of the opinion that the Civil Aviation (Carriers Liability) Act 1976 should be amended to:
raise the limits of air crash compensation to at least $85,000; and
that the Cotton formula be applied forthwith as a basis for determining levels of air crash compensation.
page 3369
– I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:
That this House:
Deplores the dominance of the Labor Party by the extreme left wing;
notes with alarm, proposals of abolition of the States, removal of powers of the Senate, and nationalisation of industry based upon Marxist Leninist dogma; and
therefore, resolves to completely reject these policies.
page 3369
– I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:
That this House views with concern:
1 ) the alarming movement within the Australian Labor Party towards socialist centralism, to the particular detriment of the less populous States and of people living in remoter parts of the nation;
Labor policy which seeks to strip the Senate of its general power to reject proposed laws;
Labor policy which seeks to amend the Constitution to provide for its alteration by a simple majority of the electorate; and
the view of at least one prominent Labor Party member that the States should be abolished.
page 3369
-Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to draw to your attention an anomaly in the records of the House. On page 1205 of the Votes and Proceedings of20 November 1979, the last two lines read:
Debate adjourned (Dr Everingham), and, by leave, the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for a later hour this day.
My recollection is that leave was not obtained. The Hansard record has not indicated this and I draw your attention to it because it was a matter of debate with the honourable member for Corio ( Mr Scholes ), earlier in the week.
– I will check the record and if it is incorrect I will have it corrected.
-Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, I wish to make a personal explanation with regard to the matter raised by the honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham ).
-The honourable gentleman may proceed.
– I approached the honourable member to see whether he would be prepared to debate the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill that night. I introduced the Bill earlier that day. The honourable gentleman agreed to that course being followed. After I had read my second reading speech, the appropriate questions were put to have the debate on the second reading of that Bill adjourned to a later hour of that day.
-The Hansard record will show that leave to proceed on that day was not, in fact, granted. As that was the substance of a disagreement with the Chair later in the day it is a matter of some substance now because, if leave had been granted, the Chair would not have been -
– I take the point that has been made by the honourable member. I do not think, one way or the other, that there is any point that may lay against any honourable member or any Minister. In fact, it is a discretion of the Chair, when the adjournment question is put, whether the Chair proposes a question to adjourn the debate to a later hour that day or another day of sitting. Generally, that discretion rests in the Chair and if there is any error it might have been because of me. I apologise to the House. I will have the record corrected if a correction is needed.
page 3369
-For the information of honourable members, I present a response by Mr President and myself to the Sixth Special Report of the Joint Committee on Publications entitled The Australian Government Publishing Service and its role in Commonwealth printing and publishing 1964-1978’. On 23 November 1978, the Joint Committee on Publications presented its Sixth Special Report, entitled ‘The Australian Government Publishing Service and its Role in Commonwealth Printing and Publishing 1964-78’.
Mr President and I gave the report our earnest consideration. However, because of the fact that most of the recommendations contained in the report came within the province of the Government we withheld our comments until the Executive’s response was made to the Parliament. This response was given on 18 October 1979. As expected, most of the Executive Government’s comments related to the internal administrative arrangements connected with the AGPS, the Government Printer, the Department of Administrative Services, and user departments and authorities. Nevertheless, there are certain matters of principle affecting the Parliament to which Mr President and I wish to refer. I suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have the terms of response incorporated in Hansard rather than have me read it out.
The response read as follows-
The first relates to the Government’s response to Recommendation 1 of the Report. Recommendation 1 is as follows:
That at the commencement of each Session of Parliament, a Resolution be agreed to by both Houses of Parliament similar to the following:
That the Government Printer be responsible to the Presiding Officers for the printing of all Parliamentary publications and be provided with the necessary resources to meet Parliamentary printing requirements. That at all times, the Government Printer give priority to Parliamentary work.
The question whether a Resolution be adopted by the Parliament as recommended by the Committee, is, of course, a matter for the Parliament itself to determine, and we do not presume to comment on that particular aspect. Rather, our concern lies in the Government’s response to the recommendation.
With respect to the Government’s comments on the status of the Government Printing Office, we acknowledge that, in relation to the strict administrative responsibilities of Government and its overall publishing requirements, the Government Printer is an agency of Government. However there has been a long-established practice, dating as far back as the establishment of the Printing Office in Canberra, that the necessary priorities of Parliament have been accepted and have constituted a considerable element in the functioning of that Office. We agree with the Government’s comment that the working arrangements for the printing of parliamentary publications have proved satisfactory and we shall be anxious, and vigilant, to ensure that, with mutual co-operation, they remain so.
The next matter of concern also relates to the principle declared above. Recommendation 10 of the Committee’s Report states:
That the Government Printing Office, wherever possible, operate its plant and associated personnel in such a way as to achieve the most effective utilisation of these resources.
The Government, in accepting the recommendation, emphasises difficulties which might be expected from time to time through changes in Government policies, workloads and priorities. Mr President and I would expect that changing workloads and priorities of the Parliament would require similar consideration.
The theme of Government decision-making directed towards Executive rather than parliamentary requirements is continued in the responses to recommendations 92 to 97. The nub of the Committee’s attempt to combine administrative flexibility with accountability to the Parliament may be summarised as follows:
That a Board of Review be established on an inter-departmental basis to supervise Commonwealth printing and publishing, in accordance with a Charter of Responsibilities to be drawn up by Cabinet after consultation where appropriate, with the Presiding Officers; that a permanent secretary and support staff be provided by AGPS; and that the Board report at least annually to the Joint Committee on Publications.
The Government decided not to accept the Committee ‘s recommendation to establish the Board of Review, adopting instead the creation of a Standing Interdepartmental Committee on Government Printing and Publishing. While we appreciate that such a decision was the Government’s to make, we are concerned that, in accepting the proposal of the Committee for a Charter of Responsibilities, the Government has decided that Parliament be excluded from consultation in the drafting of a Charter in so far as that Charter affects the Parliament. Further, there will be no requirement for the IDC to report to Parliament through the Joint Publications Committee.
The Parliament, having special requirements and responsibilities distinct from the Executive, should, in our opinion, be involved in framing the parliamentary aspects of the Charter. We note that the views of the Publications Committee, as expressed in the Report, will be taken into account when the Charter is prepared. Clearly, however, the modifications imposed by the Government’s decision to establish an IDC will necessitate Parliament’s taking a more active role in formulating the Charter. We believe that this role should be undertaken either by the Presiding Officers, as recommended by the Committee, or by the Committee itself. The Government’s failure to provide a formal mechanism for specialist parliamentary scrutiny of publishing activities is also of concern to us.
The final matter of principle we wish to raise relates to the Government’s response to recommendation 108, which states:
That the Standing Orders of both Houses of Parliament be amended to enable the Joint Committee on Publications to:
move from place to place; and
The Government rightly points out that this matter is one for the Parliament to determine. We therefore find it curious that the Government has chosen to proffer the comment that it sees no need for a power to move from place to place. We note that the Committee has previously sought and obtained the permission of the Parliament to move from place to place. We, of course, would be guided by any decision made by both Houses, and would ensure that, within the limits of financial and staffing constraints, the wishes of the Houses if the amendments proposed by the Committee were accepted, would be respected. We propose to take the recommendation of the Committee to the Standing Orders Committee of each House for consideration.
Other matters arising from the Report:
Recommendation 70:
That the Parliament undertake an investigation into the requirements of a complete inquiry and information service for the general public and that the results of such an inquiry be laid before the Parliament as soon as possible.
Comment: This is a matter for the Parliament to determine.
Recommendations 106 and 107:
That the Presiding Officers continue their examination of the most suitable computer information retrieval system for introduction into the Commonwealth Parliament.
That all necessary resources be provided to ensure that the introduction of a suitable computer information retrieval system is introduced into the Parliament at the earliest practical time.
Both of these recommendations have been taken into account in the preparation of a brief to commission an information systems consultant to investigate the information systems of the Parliament. The consultant is expected to begin his investigation in March 1 980.
In conclusion, we note with satisfaction that the Government has already implemented recommendation 42 of the Committee ‘that a mail order service for Members of Parliament be introduced and operated by AGPS Bookshops, excluding Canberra’. We understand that the service has already proved of great assistance to Members and Senators.
We reiterate our concern, however, that the Government should recognise the practical extent of the Government Printer’s responsibilities to the Parliament as an institution.
page 3371
– For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Australian Shipping Commission 1978-79. Copies of the report are available from the House of Representatives Table Office and the Parliamentary Library. Bulk copies will be distributed during the recess.
page 3371
– For the information of honourable members I present a report by the University of Adelaide Road Accident Research Unit entitled Adelaide In-Depth Accident Study 1975-79, Part 1 : An Overview ‘.
page 3371
– For the information of honourable members I present a substitute version of the annual report of the Australian Shippers Council 1978-79 which I initially presented on 15 November 1979. This is necessary because the final page of the initial report was omitted.
page 3371
-Pursuant to section 14 of the Beef Industry (Incentive Payments) Act 1977 I present the interim report on the operation of the Beef Industry ( Incentive Payments ) Act 1977.
page 3371
Pursuant to section 10 (2) of the Primary Industry Bank Act 1 977 1 present a report on the Operation of Part 2 of that Act for the year ended 22 November 1979.
page 3371
– For the information of honourable members I present a statement in response to the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on the Middle East.
page 3371
– For the information of honourable members I present a statement on the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on the Torres Strait Treaty.
page 3372
– For the information of honourable members I present a statement on the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on Australia and the Indian Ocean Region.
page 3372
-For the information of honourable members I present a statement on the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on Australia and the South Pacific.
page 3372
– Pursuant to section 162 of the Superannuation Act 1976 I present the annual report of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and the Commissioner for Superannuation 1976-77.
page 3372
– Pursuant to subregulation 8A(2) of the Papua New Guinea (Staffing Assistance) (Superannuation) Regulations I present the report by the Commissioner for Superannuation on the operations of the Papua New Guinea Superannuation Board and the Contract Officers (Papua New Guinea) Retirement Benefits Board 1 976.
page 3372
– For the information of honourable members I present the Government’s response to the report of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Specific Learning Difficulties.
Motion ( by Mr Fife) proposed:
That the House take note of the paper.
Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.
page 3372
– Pursuant to section 33 (2) of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission Act 1977 I present the annual report of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission 1978-79.
page 3372
– Pursuant to section 35 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973 I present the annual report of the Law Reform Commission 1979.
page 3372
– For the information of honourable members I present a report by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies on the Social Impact of Uranium Mining on the Aborigines of the Northern Territory.
page 3372
– Pursuant to section 314 of the Bankruptcy Act 1 966 I present the annual report on the operations of the Bankruptcy Act 1979.
page 3372
– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs 1978-79.
page 3372
– For the information of honourable members I present the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Review 1979.
page 3372
– Pursuant to section 40 of the Curriculum Development Centre Act 1975 I present the annual report of the Curriculum Development Centre 1978-79.
page 3373
– Pursuant to section 30 of the States Grants (Technical and Further Education) Act 1974 and section 20 of the States Grants (Technical and Further Education Assistance) Act 1976 I present a statement of payments to the States under the States Grants Act.
page 3373
– Pursuant to section 8 of the Independent Schools (Loans Guarantee) Act 1 969 1 present the statement of the payments made in 1978-79.
page 3373
– For the information of honourable members I present a report by the Minister for Education on Progress in Education 1979-80.
page 3373
– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Postal and Telecommunications Department 1978-79. As final printing of the report will not be possible until late next week, limited numbers of the report are available from the Parliamentary Library. In addition, other copies of the report are available for interested members from my office.
page 3373
– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Department of Productivity 1978-79.
page 3373
– Pursuant to section 38 ( 1 ) of the Parliament House Construction Authority Act 1979 I present the first annual report of the Parliament House Construction Authority 1979.
page 3373
-Mr Speaker, could I have your indulgence. The Minister for Foreign Affairs presented responses to the reports of the
Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on both the Middle East and the Torres Strait. I was a member of that Committee. What procedure does one go through to have those responses noted? I have not seen the Minister’s response or the Government’s response to the reports. I think both matters need to be debated in the Parliament. They are both important issues.
-My understanding was that the paper was a report by that Committee and that it was tabled for the information of honourable members. The honourable member for Hawker, I suggest, should discuss with the Leader of the House whether a motion might be moved to take note of the paper.
– I will do that, Mr Speaker.
– Which papers is the honourable member referring to?
– The response of the Minister.
-It is not a response; it is an information paper. Which areas is the honourable member referring to?
– The Government has made a commitment in fact to respond to the reports of the committees of the Parliament. The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence has presented three reports. The Minister has just presented responses to those reports.
-I think that matter ought to be put aside for the moment until clarity is obtained.
page 3373
– Pursuant to section 60 of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 I present the annual report of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 1978-79.
page 3373
– I seek leave to make a short statement under section 5 (3b) of the Statutory Rules Publication Act 1 903.
Leave granted.
-Amendments of the Public Service (Salaries) Regulations, being Statutory Rules 1979 No. 220, were not available for purchase at the time of publication of the notice of their making in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. G 42 dated 23 October 1979, as required by subsection (3a) of Section 5 of the Statutory Rules Publication Act 1903. Copies of Regulations purporting to be Statutory Rules 1979 No. 220 were made available for purchase at the place specified in the notice on 23 October 1979. However, on 6 November 1979 printed copies as distributed were found to contain an error resulting from the inadvertent transposition of two lines of type during the final printing of the regulations. A corrected reprinting of the regulations was thereupon undertaken and correct copies were made available at the specified place on 12 November 1979. Distribution of the reprinted regulations has been completed.
page 3374
– I present the report of the Committee of Inquiry concerning Public Duty and Private Interest and seek leave to make a statement.
-Is leave granted?
– Leave is granted. I invite the Minister to move that the House take note of the paper at the appropriate stage.
Leave granted.
– Honourable members will recall that that the Committee was established by the Government in February 1978 to consider whether principles and measures could be drawn up to promote the avoidance and, if necessary, the resolution of conflict of interest situations in regard to those who hold public office in the Commonwealth sphere. The members of the Committee were the Chief Judge of the Federal Court of Australia, Sir Nigel Bowen, Sir Cecil Looker and Sir Edward Cain, all persons of widely recognised experience and ability. The terms of reference were drawn up broadly to allow maximum scope for the Committee to explore this difficult subject. The Committee has produced a comprehensive and commendable report. The report contains a full examination of the complex and often sensitive issues involved and provides detailed recommendations on additional measures for the regulation of conflicts of interest. In view of the many and sometimes complex recommendations, the Government felt it desirable to give the report very careful consideration in order that it might indicate at the outset the position it has taken on the various recommendations. The Government believes that this will assist the consideration of the report by honourable members and by other persons pending the next sittings of Parliament when there will be an opportunity to debate the matter.
The report covers the whole range of persons who hold office in the Parliament and the Executive. Its recommendations affect members of parliament, Ministers, public servants, statutory office-holders and associated staff. I shall refer collectively to these persons- as the report does- as office-holders. The keystone of the report is a Code of Conduct which should apply to all office-holders. The report contains detailed proposals for the implementation of the Code in regard to the various categories of office-holders. The establishment of new parliamentary committees is proposed, and also special machinery to investigate alleged misconduct in a limited number of cases. New rules are proposed to avoid undesirable conflicts of interest in regard to the movement of officials from government service to the private sector. The Government has accepted virtually the whole of the Committee’s recommendations in regard to Ministers, public servants and other officials.
Other recommendations will be of more direct concern to the Parliament, touching as they do on Parliament, its procedures and its members. Whilst the Government is, generally speaking, favourably disposed towards those recommendations, it would wish to see them considered and debated in the Parliament before any decisions are taken. The Code of Conduct to which I referred embodies principles to be observed by all office-holders. In view of their importance I propose to read them. They are:
An officeholder should not:
The Government has accepted the Code in principle as the basis for particular action to be taken in regard to particular categories of officeholders. The Code is a statement of the broad principles to which effect will be given, in the first place, in relation to Ministers, public servants and other officials. The Government accepts, as the report proposes, that every effort should be made to secure the widest possible familiarity with an observance of the Code. I draw attention in particular to the fourth principle in the Code, which requires disclosure by an office-holder of an interest he possesses which conflicts or might reasonably be thought to conflict with his public duty, or improperly to influence his conduct in the discharge of his responsibilities in respect of some matter with which he is concerned. Other principles spell out clearly the obligation that rests on those who hold public office to avoid taking advantage of their position for their private gain. The emphasis on the disclosure by an office-holder of a possible conflict between a particular private interest and public duty in relation to a particular matter is fundamental to the approach adopted in the report. This approach places a clear obligation on an office-holder to keep under consideration the possibility of conflicts of interest and to declare any such conflict at the appropriate time.
The Government recognises that declaration of private interests will involve an intrusion upon the privacy of those involved, including in some circumstances the privacy of family members. This is a price that has to be paid in the interests of the accountability and integrity of public administration. Concern to minimise the intrusion upon privacy is one of the factors that led the Committee to recommend against the adoption of a general scheme for the registration of interests. The Committee pointed out that a general register is directed to the contingency that an interest might affect an office-holder’s actions. It concluded that the proper practice should be aimed at revealing an interest when it does so, that is, by declaration of an interest when a possible conflict arises. The Committee expressed grave doubts about whether it would be possible to devise a register so as to eliminate lawful avoidance. It concluded that to introduce a register which could easily be avoided would fail to achieve any useful objective; it would be little more than political ‘window dressing’.
The Government finds the arguments against a general register compelling and does not propose to adopt that approach. As I have stated, the emphasis will be on disclosure of interestsdisclosure is all that a register is about- when the relevance of a particular interest becomes apparent. That is the time when disclosure serves a purpose; to alert others to the existence of a possible conflict so that appropriate action can be taken in consequence. The report proposes that the Code should be implemented by means of standing orders, resolutions, staff rules and guidelines as appropriate for the various categories of office-holders, and that enforcement of the Code should be built into existing discpilinary procedures for those categories.
The recommendations in regard to the Code of Conduct and members of parliament are broadly as follows:
That each House be invited to adopt the Code in its Standing Orders or by resolution;
That this House be invited to consider the desirability, in considering the recommendations about declarations by members, of strengthening Standing Order 196 which presently provides that a member shall not vote on certain matters in which he has a pecuniary interest;
That both Houses be invited to consider adopting requirements for disclosure of interests in debate along the lines of a House of Commons resolution;
That both Houses be invited to consider including provisions about the time when declarations should be made and the recording of declarations when made; and
That the House and Senate be invited to consider their relevant Standing Orders to see if any amendment is required to avoid conflicts of interest in respect of Committee members.
I should note that the report contemplates that a member should be required to abstain from voting or speaking in exceptional circumstances only- normally a declaration of interest should be sufficient- and that divestment of interests is hardly an option for members except possibly in exceptional circumstances in relation to membership of certain committees. The report recommends that each House consider the adoption of a practice that would apply to the Presiding Officers similar rules as are proposed for Ministers in regard to retention of outside interests. The report also makes proposals for the application of the Code of Conduct to the staff of members of Parliament. The Government sees merit in action along the lines proposed for members and their staff, including, in particular, action to clarify or strengthen the obligation upon members to declare pecuniary interests that are relevant to matters upon which they speak in debate. However, as I have already indicated, the Government proposes to defer further consideration of these matters until there has been opportunity for them to be debated.
I should add that the report recommends review of the provisions in the Constitution that provide for disqualification of members, that is, sections 44 (iv), 44 (v) and 45 (iii) of the Constitution. The Government has referred this matter to the Attorney-General for examination and report.
The report recommends that the application of the Code to Ministers be recognised by a letter from the Prime Minister to each Minister and recommends the reinforcement and extension of existing arrangements for the avoidance of conflicts by Ministers, and for declarations of interest, in relation both to the administration of their departments and to Cabinet business. Ministers would be required in certain circumstances to divest themselves of shares and similar interests. The report recommends that the current practice by which Ministers are required to inform the Prime Minister of their interests should be continued and that additional items should have to be disclosed. It is recommended also that existing guidelines concerning gifts received by Ministers should be continued and guidelines concerning acceptance of sponsored overseas travel should be drawn up.
The Government has accepted the recommendations in regard to Ministers and steps are being taken to implement them. Ministers will be required to inform the Prime Minister of their interests in companies, trusts, partnerships and real estate and of their liabilities other than ordinary short term credit arrangements. As recommended in the report, the returns of Ministers’ disclosures of interests will continue to be made to the Prime Minister but will be kept for him on a confidential basis, by the Secretary to Cabinet. The Prime Minister will be able to consult senior Ministers in relation to those returns if he sees the need. As has been the position hitherto, Ministers will have to disclose to their colleagues interests that would conflict with their duty in relation to a matter under consideration by Cabinet.
Disclosure to the Prime Minister will also be called for, so that appropriate action can be taken, where there could be conflict of interest in regard to a Minister’s direction of the business of his Department. In some instances the possibility of such conflict will call for divestment by a Minister of shares or other interests. Requirements similar to those applying to Ministers are proposed for ministerial staff members and the Government has accepted those proposals too.
In regard to public servants, the report recommends that the Public Service Board issue the Code as a general order or some other form of instruction, and that the Public Service Act and regulations should be reviewed to ensure consistency with the Code. There are specific recommendations in regard to declarations by a public servant to a designated officer of an interest which could conflict with his public duty, for the recording of such a declaration and either for the public servant to be authorised to proceed or for other arrangements to be made. The report also deals with steps to be taken to avoid the holding by an officer of interests which could conflict with the duties of his position. The report recommends action to clarify the position in regard to acceptance of certain gifts by the family of a public servant and in regard to acceptance of hospitality. The Government accepts these recommendations concerning public servants and the Public Service Board will consider and report to the Government on details of implementation.
The Government has also accepted the recommendations in the report regarding the application of the Code of Conduct to the Defence Force, parliamentary departments, consultants and contractors, statutory officeholders and the staffs of statutory officeholders and appropriate action will be set in train. Broadly speaking, members of the Defence Force and staff of the parliamentary departments will be required to observe requirements similar to those proposed for public servants. Amendments are proposed to the Public Service Board’s document ‘Consultants and Contractors for Services: Guidelines for Departments and Authorities’ to deal with the possibility of conflicts of interest arising with the engagement of consultants. The proposals in regard to statutory authorities are directed to introducing the requirements of the Code of Conduct, including such matters as avoidance or declaration of conflicts of interest, while having regard to the varying character and role of such authorities. Relevant provisions in the legislation establishing statutory authorities will also be reviewed.
Machinery for dealing with conflict of interest cases
The Committee’s terms of reference required it to give consideration to the procedures that should be followed in determining whether there has been any breach of the standards of conduct required of those in public office. As I have indicated, the general approach taken by the Committee in its report is that implementation and enforcement of the proposed new rules should be built into the existing framework and procedures relevant to the various classes of officeholders. The report recognises, however, that the established machinery for dealing with misconduct or misbehaviour on the part of officeholders may be inadequate or inappropriate in exceptional cases where a high degree of public concern is evident. The Committee saw a need in particular for strengthening the present arrangements for the investigation of allegations of conflicts between public duty and private interest concerning members and Ministers. The Committee concluded that special machinery should be established to deal with a very limited number of matters.
The Committee has recommended in the first place the strengthening and formalising of the existing parliamentary machinery for dealing with allegations of conflict of interest concerning members. It has recommended that each House be invited to do this by establishing a Standing Ethics Committee empowered to report to the House from time to time on changes in the Code of Conduct and to receive, investigate and report upon complaints of departures by members from the Code. While considering those committee arrangements along the lines proposed may be called for, the Government will defer its consideration of the proposals until the Parliament has had an opportunity to debate them.
Secondly, the Committee has recommended the establishment of special machinery- a Public Integrity Commission- to investigate cases where the ordinary machinery for dealing with misconduct or misbehaviour may be inappropriate or inadequate. The Commission would be a standing statutory body with powers of a royal commission. Its members would be part time and appointed by the Prime Minister after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. The Commission would not act on its own initiative but would investigate and report on matters referred by the Prime Minister concerning Ministers, by a House concerning a Minister or member, by the Public Service Board concerning a public servant or by a Minister concerning a statutory office-holder.
The Commission would be required to report to the person or body by whom the matter was referred. The Commission’s report would state the allegations that had been made, the nature of the misconduct in question, and its findings as to whether the allegations had been substantiated. Any disciplinary action in consequence of the facts found by the Commission would be the responsibility of the person or body by whom the matter was referred, not the Commission. The Commission would be an investigatory and factfinding body only. Provision would be made for reports of the Commission to be tabled in Parliament subject, the Government would have in mind, to appropriate qualification in any case where criminal action might follow.
I emphasise that the Commission as proposed would deal with exceptional cases only. In the ordinary course, allegations of breaches of the Code would be dealt with by the relevant House, the Prime Minister, a Minister or the Public Service Board, as appropriate. The Government believes that a Commission of the kind proposed could be of value in exceptional cases. However, having regard to the proposed link between the Commission and the Parliament, the Government will give the matter further consideration following parliamentary debate on the report.
Post-separation Employment
The Committee was specifically requested to consider the question of the employment of former officials in the private sector following separation from government service. The report concluded that mobility from the public to the private sector may occasionally raise conflict of interest problems, and that there may be a need for a time lag before certain classes of officeholders take up particular forms of employment after leaving office. The report has accordingly proposed that senior public servants and certain other officials should obtain official consent if they wish to take up certain forms of employment in the private sector within two years after leaving government employment. Procedures would be laid down for an officer to apply to a committee of officials who would recommend to the appropriate Minister. There would be a discretion to reduce the two-year limit in particular cases. No restrictions are proposed on movement from the private to the public sector.
The Government agrees with the views of the Committee that mobility between the public and and private sectors is in general unobjectionable and even desirable, but that in certain cases it may raise conflict of interest problems. The position of government employees who are involved in procurement and tendering processes is a case in point. The Government accepts the recommendations for restrictions in certain cases on the acceptance of post-separation employment, and for requirements in regard to the reporting of job offers, and action will be put in hand to implement them. In line with the views expressed by the Committee, additional legislation is not at this stage proposed for this purpose.
The report makes proposals in regard to the criminal law to which I should refer. The Committee has recommended amendments to the present bribery provisions in the Crimes Act 1914. The amendments would extend those provisions to certain situations that may not be covered now, such as where a Commonwealth officer obtains a bribe for a third party, and to cover members of parliament. The Government has agreed to these proposals and will bring forward appropriate legislation in due course. The Committee has also recommended the amendment of the Crimes Act to make it an offence to misuse official information. This proposal, involving as it does the creation of a new offence in a complex area, will require detailed examination.
Categories excluded by Committee
The Committee refers in the report to certain categories of persons for which it has not proposed measures for the regulation of conflicts of interest. Those categories include federal judges, persons associated with media organisations and lobbyists. The Committee did raise the suggestion that bodies presently concerned with the maintenance of standards of conduct in the Australian media should consider adoption, with such modifications as may be necessary, of recommendations of the British Royal Commission on the Press 1977 which are relevant to the disclosure of interests. The British Royal Commission’s recommendations covered, amongst other things, disclosure by a newspaper or periodical of its interests when reporting or commenting on matters in which its publishing group has a business interest.
As I indicated earlier, the report of the Committee covers a lot of ground and deals with difficult questions. It is apparent that the members of the Committee have put a great deal of effort into the inquiry and the report. On behalf of the Government, I express our appreciation to them. The matters dealt with by the Committee are of importance to the maintenance of proper standards by those holding public office and to the integrity of public administration. Honourable members will have an opportunity to consider these matters before they are debated in this House. In the meantime, the Government will proceed, as I said earlier, with the implementation of proposals made in the report that affect Ministers, public servants and other officials. I present the following paper
Motion ( by Mr John McLeay ) proposed:
That the House take note of the paper.
– The Opposition wants once again to put a number of matters before the Parliament. I say at the outset that I think the report is very weak. It is a very unsatisfactory report and one which I do not think we should adopt. There are reasons for my remarks. First of all, if we look at what is happening in the Parliaments in the States at present, we will notice that in Victoria an effort has been made to deal with this problem. In Victoria there is a register wherein members of parliament will disclose their pecuniary interests. If they do not do so, they are liable to a fine of $2,000 and are likely to be charged with contempt of Parliament. The Victorian legislation also provides for a code of ethics which sets out that all the financial interests of the families of the members of that Parliament also will be disclosed. So we see there an attempt, not completely satisfactory, but at least an attempt, to make it very clear that, if a person holds public office in Australia, his interests should be disclosed.
Whilst we recognise the question of privacy and whilst we recognise the significance of having information disclosed, it is important to look at the matter from the point of view of democracy being strengthened to ensure that people elected to public office or appointed to public office do not get any financial gain by holding that office. That is one of the real issues that the Labor Party has been talking about. We have suggested that our own remuneration and emoluments should be adequate, indeed high enough, to guarantee that people will not be attracted to the idea of using their office to make substantial gain, either directly or indirectly, when it relates to their families.
In New South Wales, it has recently been announced that, as from next year, all members of the Parliament will be required to register their assets with the Clerk of each House. I will indicate the nature of what that would mean. It would mean that, if a member had shares in companies or if he had debentures, they would need to be noted. All a member’s sources of income and the capacity in which that income was derived would have to be noted. All the positions that a member held, whether in partnerships or professions, would be noted. All a member’s interests in real property and the location of that property would be noted. All gifts exceeding $500 in value and all gifts which, in aggregate, exceeded $500 in value in any one year would be noted. Sponsored travel or holiday sponsorship where there was some suggestion of commercial link would have to be registered also. Overseas transactions relating to benefits that a member obtained either directly or indirectly would also have to be noted. Members would be required to make a statutory declaration of their interests for the previous year within three months of the appropriate motion being passed. I make this point: In New South Wales, any member who wilfully withholds information or who wilfully gives wrong information will be in contempt of Parliament and will be liable to suspension or expulsion.
– Is that the law in Sydney now?
Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.
-Before the suspension of the sitting we were discussing the report of the committee of inquiry concerning the public duty and private interest of members of parliament and office holders. The Opposition is critical of the Government’s attitude and the report. I was making the point that in Victoria and New South Wales there are much more stringent obligations on members of parliament to disclose in the register their pecuniary interests. The
Labor Party in its submission to the Bowen inquiry made the point that it did not think that it was too difficult to draw up a statement of principle to detect where private interests may conflict with public duty. In order to give a strong democracy a chance to survive we think it is essential that a register of pecuniary interests be made available to the public. Those of us who have been here for some time are also aware of the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests, which was commonly known as the Riordan Committee. It was the committee which discussed this very matter. That Committee quite properly said the discovery and prevention of dishonesty was not the principal aim or perhaps not even an aim at all, of the proposal for declaration of members’ interests. However, action taken to restore, or perhaps to endow, the public with faith in the democratic process is essential.
During the hearings of the Riordan Committee it was suggested by witnesses that stringent financial disclosure might deter potential candidates. The Committee said:
We consider that the absence of such requirements breeds cynicism and the widely held view that politicians are crooked’. Members of Parliament are entitled to private lives, they are not, however, entitled to withhold from the public information directly related to the public interest and the public trust which they carry.
Those comments were contained in the unanimous report of the Riordan Committee.
– And a very good report.
-It was an excellent report. We have said before that people who want to go into public life should be encouraged so to do. We want the very best that we can get in Australia. They should be well paid and have adequate remuneration but we think that the suggestion that they should also have other sources of income, assets and other means whereby either they or members of their families will benefit through their office detracts from democracy. The public is entitled to know all the details of our pecuniary interests. I propose to move a motion in this regard at a later stage.
The Committee that has produced the report has failed in what we would have liked to have seen achieved. I say this advisedly. The Committee may have felt that it was protecting us but I think that what it suggests in its report leaves us open to further problems of self-regulation. The Committee makes the point that self-regulation may be abused to the point that there is no regulation at all. Undoubtedly, one of the factors that encouraged the move for the imposition of a statutory obligation enforced by the court on members of Congress in the United States was a belief that in the past Congress was not prepared to discipline its own members. That was so even though facts showing serious misconduct were widely publicised. We can get into the same position if we make laws for ourselves which are different from those we make for other people. We should not be in that position. Whilst both Victoria and New South Wales have gone some way along the road towards public disclosure, we ought to go the full way. In the submission that the Labor Party made to the Bowen inquiry we said:
The Government’s proposals do nothing to restore public confidence in politicians or in the Parliament. The key weakness in the Government’s decision is that there will be no public register outlining all the pecuniary interests of all members of parliament and their immediate families; nor is there any adequate penalty for failure to disclose potential conflicts of interest. The Cabinet is out of touch with reality. The public would say that the political arena has been discredited already, particularly over the last few years, by a lack of probity. There is not much point in trying to suggest that everything will be all right if the judicial commission were to be called the integrity commission. There is no hope with a slogan; we have to get to the fundamentals. I think that Government back benchers are a little closer to reality. They virtually laughed the suggestion out of the party room when it was proposed. I understand that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) had to do something about it, with good cause. Even the Hamer Liberal Government in Victoria has gone further than this Government with its pecuniary interests legislation.
– And the South Australian Labor Government.
-The South Australian Labor Government did too. The Wran Government in New South Wales is also doing something about establishing a register and implementing other measures which are far more stringent, as they should be, than what this Government now proposes. We think that the report is very weak. It can be deemed to have failed to grapple with the problem. It will only bring disgrace on us if we implement its recommendations. That is putting it mildly. There is only one way in which to solve the conflict between public duty and private interest, and that is by total disclosure. That was the tenor of our submission. Yet the Government not only is not prepared to support the rules of disclosure but also is prepared to take the view that this information should not be put on the public record.
In the course of the Bowen inquiry the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) insisted on giving his evidence in camera. That set a very poor lead as to whether the Committee would be strong enough to talk about public disclosure. The Committee was invested with the task of resolving the conflict between public duty and private interest. I regret to say that it has come down very much on the side of private interest. The Deputy Prime Minister in his statement said:
Concern to minimise the intrusion upon privacy is one of the factors that led the Committee to recommend against the adoption of a general scheme for the registration of interests.
In our submission we made the point that Labor policy is committed to legislation and constitutional reform to protect individual rights and the right to privacy. We are also committed to the right of the public to be informed about the processes of government. That is a superior right. It is one which we support. Clearly there can be a conflict between private interest and public duty. Let me refer to what the United States Deputy Comptroller stated in testimony before the Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Government Relations of the House Committee on the Judiciary. He said:
Obviously, the Congress faces a difficult dilemma in seeking to accommodate the policy considerations underlying requirements for public disclosure of personal financial information and the right of personal privacy which affects all of us.
The Committee on the Judiciary summed it up in the following way:
Here the primary concern is promoting confidence in public officials through a code of ethics and full financial disclosure of their personal financial status.
That is the Labor Party’s position. The reporting provisions in this report for members of parliament are totally inadequate. The Minister said:
The Government finds the arguments against a general register compelling and does not propose to adopt that approach.
One could ask why the Government finds the arguments so compelling. It is the intention to protect the private interests of members, particularly Ministers, in the Parliament but not to take the public into our confidence, I see no real value in that sort of compulsion. We will have a situation of continual questioning in the Parliament, obviously encouraged by members of the public, when we try to find out from Ministers and what their interests are or whether there has been a conflict. A register of those interests would get over that problem. They would be known. We would not have the son of exercise that takes place in the House. The Deputy Prime Minister also said:
The Committee expressed grave doubts about whether it would be possible to devise a register so as to eliminate lawful avoidance.
I think that is an insulting situation. To suggest that we cannot devise a register whereby lawful avoidance will not take place is virtually to say that members of Parliament will be able to evade their obligations. To suggest that the Committee thought that does not help the situation and I am surprised that the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia would create the impression, probably unwisely, that members of Parliament would take lawful or unlawful means to avoid publicly declaring their interests. If they did fail to declare their interests I am certain it would come out in public, and we would deal with them. In fact, they would be removed from public life. I do not think any member of Parliament would be anxious to avoid the register.
The Opposition would introduce provisions requiring the disclosure of all shareholdings, directorships, interests in land, gifts, liabilities, and incomes of members of Parliament and their spouses and dependent children. In our view, any member of Parliament who tried to circumvent those provisions should face a substantial fine or imprisonment. In other words, that would be the end of his political career. The threat of imprisonment is the only way to bring out the honesty of a government. It is important to point out that what the Deputy Prime Minister has said will lead only to dishonesty, and we emphasise that point. Other countries- I instance Canada and the United States of America- are taking action to require the public disclosure of financial interests by Ministers. This Government takes the view that members of Parliament should disclose their interests only when they believe that those interests might conflict with their public duties. We have had this problem before. (Extension of time granted). I appreciate that extension of time. I did not look at the clock, and I thank the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) for that courtesy. The Opposition wishes to move an amendment. So that there is no further delay, I move:
That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: the Government be condemned for not making it obligatory for all Members of Parliament to disclose their pecuniary interest and that of their immediate families in a register available to the public’.
That amendment is consistent with our submission and it is consistent with what I have been saying. I think it is the only way to provide some stability in what we are about. I will continue with the point I was making, and I will be brief. We have in public life what is called a shareholding provision. In this Parliament we deal with all sorts of interests that could well mean a rapid escalation on capital gain in certain areas, whether it be in the transport industries, Ansett Airlines of Australia or coal marketing. All these matters can be the subject of decision by governments. It does not augur well if there is a suggestion that the decision was made because of shareholding interests. If those interests are disclosed on a public register they will be obvious to all. But we will always run the gauntlet of it being said that it was done because of private interests. There were difficulties in the Government relating to what could be called the Victorian land revaluation and rezoning position, and a capital gain was made in certain circumstances which meant that a Minister had to leave his portfolio. That was not a Federal matter, but it related to the propriety of conduct on the basis of whether profit was made in circumstances in which it would not otherwise have been made. That brings odium to the situation.
The Opposition is saying that this report is not a good one. It is a shoddy document. It does nothing to respond to the improprieties of people in office, and that includes all of us. The Committee was appointed to try to overcome the odium that attaches to this situation because of past behaviour. It has taken some two years to bring this report to light. The Committee and the Government are saying virtually that we have to go on in the way we did before. That is not good enough. I make the point that there should be public declaration by members of Parliament of all their interests, including their incomes and liabilities. The declarations should be tabled annually. Public servants advising the Government should declare their interests to their permanent head. The permanent head should declare his interests to his Minister. All advisers to Ministers and shadow Ministers should declare their interests to both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. It is for those reasons that I have moved the amendment.
-Is the motion seconded?
– I second the amendment, and reserve my right to speak.
Debate (on motion by Mr Viner) adjourned.
page 3381
– Following a request earlier today from the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi), I formally present a statement on the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on the Torres Strait Treaty. I move:
Debate (on motion by Mr Jacobi) adjourned.
page 3382
– Following a request earlier today, from the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi), I formally present a statement in response to the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on the Middle East. I move:
Debate (on motion by Mr Jacobi) adjourned.
page 3382
– by leave- The Commonwealth Government is concerned about the problems of young people in making the transition from school to work or to further education, and is prepared to join with the States and the Northern Territory in developing a comprehensive policy to assist them. The Commonwealth will provide additional grants to a total of $150m over five years for a special transition program involving matching contributions from the States and the Northern Territory in the later years. The Commonwealth’s contribution in 1980 will be $25m, rising to $40m in real terms in 1984. It is envisaged that a range of developments in the interests of young people making the transition from school to employment will be stimulated or extended as a result of this initiative and that in the longer term the education system as a whole will become better geared to the needs of young people in the changing circumstances of the 1980s. Our primary concern is the 50,000 young people who now leave school each year with poor employment prospects. We wish to provide appropriate education and training courses for them and also tackle the problem of those in the schools who are likely to be in similar difficulties when it comes their turn to leave.
Developments likely to occur in 1980 with support from the Commonwealth’s provision of an additional $25m include:
Expansion and development of transition courses in technical and further education institutions, including pre-apprenticeship, prevocational and pre-employment courses.
These would be full time courses up to one year in duration to prepare young people for vocations, particularly in the trades and technical occupations where shortages of skilled workers still exist.
Expansion of the number of places available in the Education Program for Unemployed Youth-EPUY.
It is expected that an additional 7,000 places could become available in these TAFE courses in 1980, with substantial further increases in later years.
Development of improved services and techniques for identifying potential early school leavers.
Expansion of school counsellor, vocational education and guidance services to provide more intensive and comprehensive assistance for students at risk and their parents.
Development of alternative courses in schools for potential early leavers.
Establishment of after-school and vacation programs of vocational education and counselling.
Development of ‘link’ courses involving students’ participation in programs combining elements of secondary and TAFE courses.
Teacher development programs- in-service courses and re-orientation programs to fit numbers of teachers for their roles in the development and implementation of alternative courses and identification and counselling of at risk ‘students.
Community education projects to include increasing employers’ and parents’ understanding of school activities and programs to increase teachers’ awareness of specific employment requirements for new employees.
The Government acknowledges that a number of measures is already available from the States and the Commonwealth to assist young people to be better prepared for the world of work. It considers, however, that there is a need for substantial changes and development in education, training and preparation for initial employment for a significant minority of young people who have unsatisfactory experiences at this important and formative stage of their lives. The Government has decided, therefore, to commence a program of special action directed to the transition from education to working life.
The aim of the Commonwealth ‘s policy is that ultimately all young people in the 15 to 19 years age group be provided with options in education, training and employment, or any combination of these, either part time or full time, so that unemployment becomes the least acceptable alternative. Progress towards this objective is seen as involving development of improved techniques for identifying children at school who are likely to be at risk in transition from education to work, improved vocational education and counselling services and provision of alternative courses for at risk* students. Other developments might include extension of work experience and community service programs involving students at school and of ‘link’ courses combining elements of secondary and TAFE courses. Teacher development programs may need to be supplemented or adapted to prepare larger numbers of teachers to implement the changes successfully. In addition, expansion and development of TAFE programs, such as pre-apprenticeship and preemployment courses and the EPUY program, which contribute to the successful transition of young people to employment is regarded as an important element of a comprehensive transition education and training program. In the development of programs the Government would wish to see attention given to the particular problems which girls have in making the transition from education to employment.
It will be important to the success of the new policy that effective guidance and counselling services be available. In addition to making some provision for this in the special funding arrangements, the Commonwealth wishes to review with the States the existing vocational guidance services to see how they can be improved and rationalised. Over a period the Commonwealth wishes to see the pattern of allowances and benefits for young people, and of related assistance to industry, reorganised to ensure that these separate measures provide the appropriate incentives to participation in education and training. This important aspect of a comprehensive policy is being examined, but we do not intend to withdraw or reduce the unemployment benefits presently available to young people.
The developments the Commonwealth proposes follow from the consideration the Commonwealth and the States have been giving to issues in transition for some time. They are consistent with the deliberations of the Australian Education Council, which led the State, Northern Territory and Commonwealth Ministers for Education who constitute the Council, at its meeting last month, to endorse the need for a comprehensive policy on transition from school to work. In my capacity as Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs I was able to attend that meeting. The developments are also a natural consequence of the findings of the Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training. The additional funds will be available for agreed programs in government school and TAFE systems and non-government school systems from the beginning of 1980. They will be provided, as special grants, in addition to the programs of the Tertiary Education Commission and the Schools Commission. Commonwealth grants will be made available under the program for a period of five years as follows, with expenditure adjusted after 1 980 to allow for inflation:
The Commonwealth’s contributions are being offered on the understanding that in 1981 the States and the Northern Territory will contribute a total of $9m for the agreed program and that in later years they will match the Commonwealth’s spending on their government systems dollar for dollar. The particular purposes for which the grants may be spent will be worked out in discussions with State, territorial and nongovernment education authorities to commence immediately the States and the Northern Territory accept the Commonwealth’s offer. The Government will invite the Tertiary Education Commission and the Schools Commission to take account of this new policy in the development of their program proposals.
The problems of transition are not, I stress, an area for government action only. A comprehensive approach to the problems requires the interest, understanding and support of the whole community. Teachers have an obvious and crucial part to play. Parents need to encourage and support their children and to be interested and involved in the vital work of the schools and the decisions made by authorities affecting their children. To a large extent the motivations and attitudes of young people are affected by the expectations their parents have of them and the encouragement they receive at home. Employers should develop closer links with education systems, particularly at the local school level, in the interests of, on the one hand, schools understanding better the requirements of the work place and, on the other hand, employers appreciating more clearly the education processs and the difficulties faced by young people and their teachers in preparing adequately for the complex requirements of life and work in the 1980s and 1990s. Organisations of employees should lend their support and participate in the working out of the new arrangements.
The Government is presenting this initiative as an important and substantial contribution to the difficult problem of equipping our young people for the world of work. With the co-operation and support of the community, the opportunity is now being given to develop a comprehensive approach to the transition from school to work of all young people which, given time, will ensure that the teenage years are productive, constructive and satisfying, and that unemployment is not an option that they would seek rather than participate in the opportunities opened up by a comprehensive transition policy. I present the following paper:
A Comprehensive Policy for Transition from School to Work- Ministerial Statement, 22 November 1979.
-by leave-Mr Deputy Speaker, my colleague, the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass), and I have made an arrangement with the Leader of the House, the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) to share the time that the Government has allotted the Opposition in which to speak to his statement. The statement cuts across two areas- the way in which schools and educational institutions may be used under and helped by the scheme announced by the Government, and the impact on young people of their entering the work force. As the statement cuts across two areas we would both like to say a few words about it.
Anybody going through the statement which the Minister made today would realise that the scheme, encompassing the expenditure of some money for what the Government now calls the transitionary stage from school to work, is of absolutely no assistance in the year 1979-80. The school leavers, the 250,000 young people who are expected to leave the educational institutions over the next few weeks, will not be assisted one iota by the scheme which was announced by the Government today. I only wish that the back bench members of the Government, who were reported to have put pressure on the Government to announce some job creation scheme, had been successful in their claims on the Government.
The great difficulty is not the preparation of people for the work force; it is the supply of work which is the problem in Australia today. We have 400,000 people who are registered as looking for work, but we know that there are far more than that. We have 250,000 people coming on to the work force from the schools. That is a net increase of 1 10,000. We have an undersupply of jobs. It does not matter whether we send every school leaver through the universities of Australia and give them all the training that our educational institutions can give them, there are still just not enough jobs to go around for all the people who require work.
The Government has been attracted to one of the Australian Bureau of Statistics surveys which showed that a little over 7 per cent of the people interviewed said that they had not received employment because they did not have the necessary educational qualification or skills. The Government horned in on this one result of the survey and said that it was going to do something about the problem. But 47 per cent of the people interviewed said that they did not get a job because there was absolutely no job available. Unless the Government moves to create jobs, we are going to have to live with a permanent army, a very high percentage of unemployed in this country. The Government cannot expect that members on this side of the House or people observing the Government’s actions outside the House are going to take this announcement seriously. Just three months ago, on the first day of the Budget sitting, the Government announced it was going to slash $55m or 69 per cent from the Special Youth Employment Training Program; $55m was taken off on the first day of this session; $10m has been given back in another program on the last day of the session. In spite of the inadequacies of the program, the $55m was helping people to go into the work force. The Government does not seem to understand that a lack of jobs is the problem. It is not necessarily the training, the educational qualifications or the skills of people. This year the Government announced, and beat its chest, that it was going to spend an additional $ 18m on apprenticeship training. But when we got down to the tin tacks and analysed what this additional $ 1 8m was going to do, we found there was going to be an increase in the intake of apprenticeships in Australia of between one per cent and two per cent.
We are still short of 10,000 skilled tradesmen a year in Australia. The Government still intends to bring 10,000 skilled migrants into this country to make up the shortfall here while we refuse to train our own people. Why cannot the back bench say to the Ministers that this is where they have to spend our resources if they are serious about putting people to work? The Government is not serious about putting people to work by saying to someone who has finished three years of high school that he will be better equipped if he finishes five years of high school, in spite of the fact that there is going to be no job available. The Government is not going to assist people to get work by increasing the intake of our universities by 5 per cent a year unless it makes the jobs available in the work force. Unless that is done the Government is not going to be able to put these people to work. That is the real inadequacy of the situation in our economy today. The Government is not facing up to reality; it is not facing up to what is required in this country. It is being condemned throughout the country for a lack of foresight of the problems that we are running into. It was expected- no doubt the Government considered this-that the Government would abolish the payment of unemployment benefits for school leavers. It was quite a serious consideration when it was placed before Cabinet in the last few months of its considerations.
Fortunately, pressure from this side of the House and from people outside the House has made the Government do away with that idea. It could not dare do it politically, but it might do it next year.
The announcement made by the Government today will do absolutely nothing to assist people into the work force. We have a substantial oversupply of labour. While the Government continues with its philosophy of not assisting job creation we are going to have to live with that oversupply of labour. We are going to live with broken families, with crime, with drug offences, with alcoholism, with all the things which come out of high unemployment in this country because the Government refuses to recognise what has to be done. But there are many other people who do recognise it, not just the Labor Party, but a lot of apolitical people outside the Parliament. I hope they will get their opportunity of telling the Government what they think of it about this time next year.
– by leave- I am speaking because the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) has put out this statement simultaneously with the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner). My colleague, the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) has already mentioned that the funding provided is chicken feed compared with the cutback in the various schemes offered by the
Government previously for people who need further training. I will not dwell on that point. In the statement the Minister says his primary concern is for the 50,000 young people who now leave school each year with poor employment prospects. I think he is underestimating the problem. As my colleague pointed out, over a quarter of a million young people are going to leave school. About 64 per cent of them will have had less than three years’ secondary school training; so they are hardly trained people. Let me be generous and say that perhaps half of them will get lost in some way or other. I would suggest that the figure the Government is worrying about is closer to 100,000 young people, not a mere 50,000. The inadequacies of the funding is highlighted even more when one looks at the figures in those terms.
The Government is proposing expansion and development of transition courses in technical and further education and full time courses for up to one year in duration to prepare young people for vocations, particularly in trades and technical occupations where shortages of skilled workers still exist. My colleague pointed out that for years the Government has relied on bringing immigrants into the country to fill these vacancies. Now at last the Government is coming round to the view that maybe it should train some of the people here. I agree wholeheartedly. But there is still a further problem which the Government has to consider It is not that we have never trained these skilled people. They keep their jobs, but they soon find that, for a variety of reasons, the conditions of the job are not satisfactory and the rates of remuneration are inadequate. They leave the skilled jobs and go into more congenial, unskilled jobs where they can get more money. For years the Government has been using immigrants to fill these positions. But when the immigrants have been here long enough to learn the language and the ropes, they too learn that it pays them better to get out of these skills and to go somewhere else.
So, sadly, this scheme will not succeed unless the Government does something about that very real problem in relation to the work force and gives a proper reward for people with skills. There are lots of other suggestions made, namely, improved services and techniques for identifying potential early school leavers, and more intensive advice for parents as well as students. These deficiencies in the education system have been known for years. In a speech I made in this House on the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill on 14 November I quoted Judith O’Neill. She pointed out that of the early school leavers-most of the children are early school leavers- 64 per cent do not get beyond third year high school. Most of these early leavers are totally ignored. She stated:
That position will be barely changed by this suggestion because the policy is totally inadequate. Advice on this course of action has been given over the years, not the least by the Williams committee which was set up in 1976 and took three years to pontificate. Finally it suggested that it was very important to consider schemes which deal with the problem of youth unemployment, the place of schools and of technical and further education in helping the community and the young unemployed to deal with this problem. In addition, the Schools Commission itself has been reporting along these lines for ages. Those reports were available in time for the Government to have considered the matter for inclusion in the Budget we have just passed for this year, but it was ignored and left. The scheme will not get off the ground next year. Even though the Government is providing funding, nothing will be done, practically nothing will be spent next year. No doubt we will find that although $25m has been allocated, when it comes to the Budget next year most of the funds will not have been spent.
The Government mentions the aim of its policy is that ultimately all young people in the 1 5 to 19-year age group would be provided with options in education, training and employment, or any combination of these, either part time or full time, so that unemployment becomes the least acceptable alternative. I will conclude on this note: That strikes me as a most ominous aspect of this policy. Is the Government serious? Is it really conscientiously wishing to train young people or has it at last recognised that when they leave school and are unable to obtain jobs that they have to be paid unemployment benefit? Is this move now going to be seen as a very clever technique to force them to stay on at some sort of schooling with some financial support less than the unemployment benefit with the threat that, if they do not accept this extra schooling, with the lower support, they will not qualify for unemployment benefit. It implies that the financial support for these young people will really come not just from the Government but significantly from their own families who are already in financial difficulty. In most cases this is probably why the children leave school early as they feel that they have to get out and help their families. Is this proposal that the Government is offering really an alternative, or is it a veiled threat?
Further on the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) says:
Over a period the Commonwealth wishes to see the pattern of allowances and benefits for young people, and of related assistance, to industry, reorganised . . .
He also says: we do not intend to withdraw or reduce the unemployment benefits presently available to young people.
I do not know why it was necessary for him to make that statement. Is this a hint? I repeat: Is it a hint? In fact, once the scheme is going, is it the Government’s intention to use this as a device to force the children once again back onto their parents so that the parents will have to shoulder most of the financial responsibility for keeping the children at school and in training.
-It won’t.
– I hope not. I see some honourable members on the opposite side whom I respect and I trust that it is not the intention of the Government. Let us keep our eyes and ears open to ensure that this does not happen. I am prepared to accept the assurances, but let us note the danger. If the Government does that, it will be consistent with what it is doing on the question of the national health scheme. The Government is quite surreptitiously and consciously on its part, forcing the cost of health care back onto the individuals in the community who are ill and can least afford to pay for it. I fear that this may be what the Government might do in relation to the young unemployed. I hope that I am wrong.
page 3386
– by leave- I wish to make a statement to the House concerning developments at the London Constitutional Conference on Rhodesia, and concerning the nature and extent of Australian participation if the anticipated settlement is achieved at that Conference. The conflict in Rhodesia has for many years been a most serious international problem. The unilateral declaration of independence by the administration of Mr Ian Smith in 1965 sowed the seeds of a political struggle in Rhodesia between black nationalists and white settler parties that a few years later erupted into a bloody civil war. That war has brought great suffering to the peoples of Rhodesia and the surrounding countries, and has exacerbated racial tensions throughout the region. It has created dangerous opportunities for outside powers to expand their power and influence, and has jeopardised the peace and stability of the entire African continent.
The Australian Government has over the years taken a closer interest in developments in Rhodesia. The internal elections this year, which resulted in the installation of Bishop Muzorewa as Prime Minister, were a step forward as far as the internal situation in Rhodesia was concerned, but they were held under an undemocratic Constitution, and they did not allow for the participation of all Rhodesian political elements. It was almost inevitable, therefore, that the war would continue unabated, with neighbouring countries continuing to support the Patriotic Front guerrilla forces against the Muzorewa Government. The Lusaka Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, held in August of this year, took place against a most difficult and disturbing situation in southern Africa. It was a situation that was described by the Commonwealth Secretary-General, Mr Ramphal, as one of escalating conflict, with increasing military, economic and social pressures on the African front line states, and in the background a deepening intransigence on the part of Pretoria. The increasing sense of frustration and of anger of black African leaders and their people made it not unlikely that the Lusaka meeting would see a polarisation of the Commonwealth and a possible confrontation that could split the Commonwealth and threaten its very survival.
The Government took the view that the situation then existing in southern Africa was morally wrong, and we believed that it would only enhance the interests and activities of hostile outside nations, including the Soviet Union and its supporters. The Government believed that, if a lasting peace was to be achieved, there was a need for a negotiated settlement between all the parties to the conflict, with the support of the front line states. We were aware of the very great difficulties and the failure of earlier attempts to achieve a settlement, but we saw the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting as providing perhaps the last opportunity for a peaceful settlement. Because of this, and because we value the Commonwealth as a body, the Government worked vigorously to develop a consensus at Lusaka on principles that might allow a settlement to be made. At Lusaka, agreement was reached on six principles that might underlie a peaceful all-party settlement. Shortly thereafter, the British Government convened a conference in London of the opposing parties.
The Conference has been a difficult exercise. Agreement has now been reached on an independence constitution, and on arrangements for the transitional period leading to the holding of free and fully democratic elections in Rhodesia. The Conference is now in its third and final phase- negotiation of arrangements for establishing and maintaing a ceasefire during the transitional period. Provided that this third phase can be successfully concluded, a British Governor will shortly thereafter arrive in Salisbury to assume control of the administration of the country in the transitional period. President Kaunda’s call for a mobilisation of Zambian forces demonstrates the tensions that exist in the southern African region and underlines further the need for a prompt settlement to be reached in London to benefit not only the people of Rhodesia itself but also those in the neighbouring countries.
In the hope and expectation that an all-parties package agreement may be achieved in London, the British Government has sought Australian assistance in the implementation of that agreement in two respects. Firstly, and as the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) announced on 9 November, the British Government has requested the Australian Government to contribute a contingent to a Commonwealth military ceasefire monitoring force. This request came at a difficult point in the negotiation of arrangement for the transitional period. The Australian Government agreed in principle to this request, subject to an all-parties settlement being reached in London and subject to satisfactory arrangements being worked out for the operation of the Australian contingent. We have since learned that our agreement, and that of the other Commonwealth countries asked to contribute contingents, greatly assisted the successful negotiation of arrangements for the transitional period.
Discussions are proceeding with Britain on these matters, and planning for the Australian contingent is well advanced. The Australian Government has also agreed in principle to assist with the movement of a Fijian contingent from Fiji to Rhodesia, and has agreed to consult with Fiji about the extent to which Australia can provide in-country support to the Fijian contingent. The Commonwealth ceasefire monitoring force will include teams from Britain, Australia, Fiji, Kenya and New Zealand. It will not be physically involved in the maintenance of the ceasefire; nor will it have any responsibility for the maintenance of law and order during the transitional period. Its sole function will be to observe and to report that the agreed ceasefire is being correctly maintained. The safety of the
Australian contingent- and also of the Australian election observers in Rhodesia, to whom I shall refer in a moment- is a matter of particular concern to the Australian Government. In the event of any serious breakdown of law and order in Rhodesia in which the lives of Australian personnel could be at risk, they would be immediately withdrawn after appropriate advice to the British Government. The Australian defence authorities are giving close consideration to all aspects of the physical security and legal protection of Australian soldiers taking part in a Commonwealth ceasefire monitoring force in Rhodesia.
The anticipated duration of the assignment is governed by the length of the transitional period leading up to the elections. It has been agreed at the London Conference that this period would be limited to two months. Allowing time for the announcement of election results and the installation of the new Government, and travel between Australia and Rhodesia, the Australian contingent could be expected to be outside Australia for a maximum of Vh months. The Deputy Prime Minister indicated on 9 November that Britain had requested 10 teams of 1 1 men each-a total of 1 10 men. With a national headquarters staff, this could require a total Australian force of up to 135. It is possible that in the event, a smaller Australian contribution may be all that is needed, depending on the final assessment of the monitoring requirement.
The second area in which Australia has been asked to assist is the sending of election observers. The Lusaka agreement provided for Commonwealth observers to be present during the elections. The British Government has now invited Australia to send a group of such observers to Rhodesia for the pre-election period and the elections. The Government has agreed to send eight persons, provided that a settlement is reached which is in accordance with our understanding of the Lusaka agreement. The composition of the group and its travel and financial arrrangements will be decided following consultations among interested Ministers. The main task of the group will be to report to the Australian Government and Parliament on the conduct of the elections. A small Australian liaison office will be established in Salisbury for the duration of the transitional period. It will maintain liaison with and provide political advice to the ceasefire monitoring contingent and assist the Australian election observers. It will also serve as a direct point of contact between the Australian
Government and the British authorities in Salisbury.
I also wish to state the Government’s position on the removal of the sanctions that have been in force against Rhodesia since the unilateral declaration of independence in 1965. It is possible to engage in some fine legal distinctions about the obligations of United Nations members in regard to the lifting of sanctions. It seems clear to the Government, however, that when all the Rhodesian parties concerned and the British Government have freely agreed to an independence Constitution, freely agreed on arrangements for the holding of elections and the implementation of that Constitution, and when British authority has been re-established in Rhodesia for the purpose of instituting those arrangements, then the objectives for which sanctions were originally imposed will have been achieved. We recognise that for a number of reasons there may be some delay before the United Nations Security Council might be able to take the formal steps which may be thought necessary in respect of sanctions. We hope this process will not be long. For Australia, however, as we are likely to have Australian military and civilian personnel and an Australian liaison office in Rhodesia during the period leading up to independence and as we will, in the circumstances I have described, be satisfied that the objectives for which sanctions were imposed have been achieved, the Government considers- I believe all Members of the House will agree with this-that it would be inappropriate for it to maintain sanctions during that time. A further announcement will be made on this matter in due course.
Finally, I wish to emphasise that the Government’s intention in making this statement is to inform honourable members of the Government’s present intentions and commitments regarding Australian involvement in a Rhodesian settlement, in the event that events at the London Conference proceed to a successful conclusion along the lines that we now hope for.
However, I must end on a note of caution. While it is now reasonable to be generally optimistic about the London Conference’s chances of achieving a final agreed settlement- bearing in mind that the Conference has made enormous progress against heavy odds already- we cannot be certain that it will do so. The agreements achieved so far in London are conditional on an agreed total package, and the discussion of ceasefire arrangements will throw up further difficulties. The Australian Government will therefore take into account developments in the final phase of the London Conference in determining its final position on participation in Rhodesian settlement arrangements. The success of the London Conference to date is most gratifying to the Australian Government.
– Thanks to the Minister.
-Thank you, indeed. Thanks are also due to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). It offers real hope that the hatreds and suspicions of the past decades may finally be overcome, in the spirit of the Lusaka agreement. If this can be achieved then the people of Rhodesia can look forward to a happier future that has been for so long denied to them. All Australians will, I am sure, share my hope that the settlement that is now in sight in London may be achieved. I present the following paper:
Rhodesia- Anticipated Settlement- Ministerial Statement, 22 November 1979.
Motion (by Mr Ellicott) proposed:
That the House take note of the paper.
– The Opposition welcomes the statement on Rhodesia and notes particularly the concluding remarks of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) when he spoke about the hatred and the suspicions of the past decade being finally overcome. I say at the outset that it is with some sense of concern that the Opposition notes what is happening in Rhodesia at the present time. I advert to the fact that one of our young Australians, a young Australian Broadcasting Commission correspondent, has been seriously and dramatically involved in an incident this morning which could well cost him his life. Tony Joyce is his name. He has been shot in the head and his chances for survival will be difficult. We hope and trust that he will recover. He was shot in circumstances which, to some extent, will concern all Australians. He apparently was in a police vehicle at the time he was shot and the shot came from outside the vehicle. There was, allegedly, a confiscation of a camera.
I place on record the great work that is done by Australians in this area of the gathering of news. These people risk their lives. We saw the great tragedy in East Timor of five Australian newsmen losing their lives. A shadow has been cast over both governments- I make no excuses; the Labor Government and the present Government- for what happened there. I make that point because obviously with this type of news the situation there is not really as stable as we would have hoped.
– May I simply say that I endorse the remarks which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made regarding Tony Joyce, as I did at the Press conference. I inform him that I have dispatched an officer from Dar-es-Salaam.
-I thank the Minister. I mentioned this matter to him this morning, and he was good enough to let me know that he had already sent an officer to Lusaka. I know that the Minister, in accordance with his normal interests and efficiency, will do everything possible to assist. I give him top marks in that regard.
The point I am trying to make relates to the problem we have in Australia in trying to get through the message of what a democracy is about. I do not know that we always succeed. In my experience in the Federal Parliament I had the opportunity to go to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Jamaica in 1975. The most firm impression I came away from the conference table with at that time was that of President Kaunda and President Nyerere warning the world in April 1975 that there would be severe bloodshed in Rhodesia. They said that they could not stop it. In fact, they understood that it would happen because there was no democracy in Rhodesia. We do not want to get into that argument, but the warning was clear. Big problems exist at the present time. We still see military action taking place in Zambia. There are guerrilla movements and we know that in many cases they are related to other influences. The issue involves freedom, free elections and equal suffrage. All those conditions have to be present if there is to be more stability in the world. This statement is welcome. It embraces the past conflict, the agreement, the British being able to re-establish their authority by way of a governor, the difficulties that Kaunda has experienced in Zambia, the use of a monitoring force, a transition period, election observers, sanctions and what is called a final phase. The total package is still to be delivered. I understand all that. I refer now to the situation in recent weeks.
We cannot avoid querying the involvement of Australia in the past in justifying the Smith regime. There always appeared to be a strong influence in this country, particularly on the Government’s side, to try to prop up that regime because it was argued that it had a future. It has no future. There is an understandable struggle for human rights and self-determination. We can recognise the grave problems for all of us from racial conflict between white and black which creates enormous problems in the world. We can understand the problem but there is no solution in a few phrases. I am mindful of the fact that the air force of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia is probably carrying out fairly extensive military operations in Zambia. The air force is led by a Queenslander, I am told, who is actively involved as the Air Vice-Marshal. Death and destruction is flowing. We have to mention these matters. When Todd and others visited this country some years ago, they warned of all these dangers. Kaunda and Nyerere were warning of all these dangers. The big hope we have is that a peaceful solution may arise. The present difficulties appear to be coming to bear more than ever on Kaunda. I am looking at news as recent as 1 1 November. I quote from the Sunday Mail. It states:
Zambian President Kenneth Kaunda ‘s peacemaking role in Zambabwe-Rhodesia is costing him dearly.
This is a matter of concern to the Opposition because while a peace keeping discussion has been going on and while Kaunda has been playing a leading role in the negotiations, there has been escalating activity against his country on the basis of trying to beat the guerrillas. The article states further:
Rhodesian Army raids into neighbouring Zambia and Mozambique have picked up since the peace force talks started nine-and-a-half weeks ago, culminating in the dynamiting of the Zambian Chambesi River bridge three weeks ago. The vital bridge carried the railway to the Tanzanian port of Dar Es Salaam, and was being used to import 300,000 tonnes of desperately needed maize into Zambia.
Honourable members will see that while these negotiations are going on and the President of Zambia is making a very important effort- as evidenced by what happened in 1975- his own country is getting into more difficulties because of the war being waged against it. Starvation is occurring in Zambia. The Minister for Foreign Affairs said that there is concern that the Zambian forces have now been mobilised. I cannot see how we can reconcile the fact that there has to be a severe escalation of military activity against Zambia and the destruction of its infrastructure which will cause many problems for that country. As honourable members know, the situation could well bring down Kaunda if he cannot control it. What a tragedy it would be if we attributed this merely to guerrilla activity. Our own Tony Joyce was caught up in the conflict this morning when he was trying to film news in relation to a bridge that had been destroyed. He became involved in a dreadful accident, to say the least.
We are also concerned about the type of action that Australia is taking. The action is welcomed from the British point of view but is it the safe attitude for Australia? We are sending a very small force to Zimbabwe-Rhodesia which will total about 135. I am mindful of some of the statements that I read in the London Financial Times. An article states:
The British Government seems to think that a ceasefire runs itself . . . But it can’t be quite as simple as that In the run-up to elections there will certainly be a great deal of intimidation on all sides, if only because the outcome of the election, in which many parties may be competing, is itself so uncertain. Remember, one black party or coalition of parties must get nearly 64 per cent of the black seats if it is to have a majority in the Lower House. What happens if there is an accident’, or if Nkomo or Mugabe fail to discipline their followers?
It is one thing to be a monitoring force, and another thing to be a supervising force. The article makes the point:
If there are flagrant violations of the ceasefire . . . two possible consequences follow: either the Salisbury regime’s security forces will stay in barracks and remain ‘ neutral’, and there may or may not be pitched battles between the followers of Muzorewa and those of the Patriotic Front; or else the security forces will attempt to restore ‘law and order’ and the British governor may find himself in charge of a continuation of the war against the guerillas. In that case, it is difficult to see how he can extricate himself from Salisbury, or how Rhodesia can proceed through elections to freedom and legitimacy.
Honourable members will notice that the guerrillas themselves say that the forces suggested are not large enough; they should be much larger. That statement comes from the guerrilla front itself. The guerrilla leaders want a six-month transition period rather than one of two months. They seek an independent military force, possible from the United Nations, to help to supervise- not monitor- a ceasefire. I draw that distinction. I know that the Government will take these matters into consideration, but the concerns of a number of Australians obviously have to be mentioned. The British have been having discussions about why sanctions are being withdrawn in such a hurry. In opposing sanctions Callaghan mentioned: . . the danger that the Government’s action in appeasing its own back benchers who were not prepared to vote for a renewal of sanctions would be misunderstood abroad.
That seems to be the situation that we could get here. I emphasise again the strong military action against Zambia. A thousand South African and Zimbabwe-Rhodesian troops crossed into Zambia in October. Much damage was done. Death and starvation came to the Zambians. People thought that the situation would be all right if a British governor were there. What would happen if a ceasefire broke down? What would happen if we withdrew sanctions? We want to see peace and we want to see the ability to bring that peace about. Should we not be doing more to comply with the wishes from all sides, not just the wishes of those- well meaning as they may be, and misdirected as they may be- who think that the problem will be solved by a scrap of paper. The issue involves the flesh and blood of people who now have very bitter memories of tragedies of some 16 years of illegal existence.
I have highlighted, in the course of my remarks, the statements which I think are going to be made by many people in the next few weeks. The withdrawal of sanctions leads to recognition of the Rhodesian passport and virtually to the recognition of the entitlement of refugees, whatever race, coming from that area. I think that has to be mentioned. Whilst I can understand the Minister’s saying that he wants to have a withdrawal of sanctions now, I think we ought to wait a little while to see that we are going to get the final result that we want. I am convinced that President Kaunda is far from satisfied with what one might call the integrity of what has been happening from the point of view of the merits of a settlement. He has been belittled and betrayed. There has been an escalation in the war against him and his country and death and destruction in Zambia. I think we ought to be taking more cognisance of that fact rather than rushing into the withdrawing of sanctions to help the situation. Frankly, unless something is done to control the intelligence forces which, in many cases, are masterminding the activities of the Zimbabwe-Rhodesian regime, we will have more troubles in Africa.
Australia is not directly involved. But it will be involved if there is a refugee flood. Australia would be the area to which refugees would come if everything were legitimised and sanctions had been withdrawn. I can well understand that this matter cannot be solved by us talking to each other. Australia had a lot of influence in the past. I put it on record that the British failed in the past. Kaunda and Nyerere have been pleading for years about the problems concerning Rhodesia. They could not get any recognition of the problems of that area. The British Government, of both shades of opinion, seemed to walk away from giving the solution that they want. It appears that a solution may now be reached, but from a military point of view the governor has no real support. I understand that if difficulties arise we will discuss the matter further with the British, but I do not know whether that will get us very far along the track, bearing in mind the tension existing in the region. It has been stated that if there is any serious breakdown in law and order Australian troops will be withdrawn after appropriate advice to the British Government. I can understand that, but we have to talk about the situation a bit more constructively.
In summary, we would like to see Australia comply more with the wishes of what the guerrilla forces in terms of enforcing the ceasefire and maintaining supervision in the area. We would like to see the British more directly involved, to guarantee some maintenance of law and order. I think the question of sanctions should be delayed until such time as we get some tangible evidence of a solution to the problems in that region.
-Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) on the statement but I do not wish to make a statement at this stage. I just want to say that in a way it is a pity that this statement is being brought down on the last day of the sitting because I am sure that many members of Parliament would have loved to have spoken on this matter. Many of them have had a long interest in Rhodesia- southern Africa. It is to be regretted that we will not be able to debate it.
Mr PEACOCK (Kooyong-Minister for Foreign Affairs)- With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker: I share the regret of the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) but events are moving in London. We had been holding back until we saw how they were going. I did not want the House to rise without some statement of indication should an agreement be reached while the Parliament is in recess. One would have expected some principles to have been laid down at some stage. I share the honourable member’s regret. I would look for a debate possibly early next year.
– That is what I was going to ask for. I hope that early in the new year we can have a debate on the subject of southern Africa.
-I thank the honourable member.
Debate (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) adjourned.
page 3391
The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests:
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1979-80.
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1979-80.
page 3391
-As it is now past the time provided for the grievance debate, Order of the Day No. 1 will not be called on.
page 3392
-Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The increased burden on Australian families of government initiated cost increases.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
-Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House.
-Only six members of the Opposition are present.
-Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House.
-The proposed discussion lapses.
-Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence?
– We have called for a quorum.
-A quorum is called for.
– It was called before you called for members to rise in their places.
-No. I called for members to rise first. ( Quorum formed).
-Order! According to the daily program, that is, the blue sheet, the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence was due to come on before the discussion of a matter of public importance. Although I did call for members to rise in respect of the discussion on a matter of public importance and only six members of the Opposition were present, in deference to the Opposition I will again call for members to rise in their places.
Government members interjecting-
-I believe this is the only fair way in which the Chair can make a decision in this matter in view of the fact that the presentation of the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence was deferred. I think this is only fair to the Opposition, and I intend to adopt that course.
I repeat: Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The increased burden on Austraiian families of government initiated cost increases.
I again 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 Deputy Speaker -
Motion ( by Mr Ellicott) agreed to:
That the business of the day be called on.
Mr HURFORD (Adelaide)-Mr Deputy Speaker, if I may have your indulgence, the Opposition understands the circumstances of the Government deciding that the House should rise by about S.30 this afternoon and that because of the censure motion the Opposition would not be allowed to discuss this matter of public importance. But we did want to show our sincerity in proposing this matter by being present in the House. In spite of the rather small time attitude of some back benchers who are attempting to interject, the fact is that the order of business set out on the blue sheet was departed from. The blue sheet is put out each sitting day and when a matter listed on that sheet is not to be dealt with in order it is normal courtesy for those who are involved to be informed. That did not happen this time.
-Order! I have already made that point. I do not think it is necessary for the honourable member for Adelaide to make it again.
– I want to thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your courtesy in this matter.
page 3392
Bill presented by Mr Howard, and read a first time.
– I move:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill that I now bring before the House, together with an associated tax rates Bill, gives legislative form to previously announced changes in the basis of taxing income of trusts and of dependent children. Also included in the Bill are provisions dealing with the taxation value of housing provided to employees by their employers. Previously foreshadowed measures to counter schemes of tax avoidance that seek to exploit the deduction for bad debts are another part of the Bill. The Bill will also confer tax deductions for gifts towards relief efforts in Kampuchea and East Timor.
Let me deal first with the last of these matters. The Government believes that the level of human suffering in Kampuchea and East Timor is such that we should add to Australia’s support by allowing tax deductions for gifts to the appropriate appeals. Accordingly, the special concession of a deduction for gifts of $2 or more will apply to gifts made in the current financial year to the International Disaster Emergencies Committee Kampuchean Relief Appeal and to the Australian Red Cross East Timor Appeal. The response to the appeals so far clearly indicates that the granting of tax deductions has been welcomed throughout Australia.
Honourable members will recall that I announced broad proposals on the taxation of income of trusts and dependent children at some length on 26 July last. After a careful examination of the many responses to this announcement, from individuals and organisations, the Government decided on a number of modifications to eliminate potential anomalies and unintended consequences. Details of these were given in my statement to the House last week. Against that background, I think that I can in this speech confine myself to the main features of the proposed arrangements as reviewed and modified.
Broadly speaking, the new system applicable to income of dependent children will apply to the taxable income, whether derived directly or through trusts, of children under the age of 18 years at the end of the year of income. But there are to be several important exceptions. Thus the new system will not in any way affect children who are married at the end of the year of income or are in full time employment then. There are also to be exclusions for double orphans and handicapped children. These exclusions will, quite properly, keep the income of a large number of children entirely outside the new system. Income not so excluded will, at base, bear tax under the proposed new system. Particular categories of income, whether derived directly or through a trust, will, however, be excluded and will attract tax only according to the tax rules applicable to individuals generally.
Thus, income from deceased estates, or from property left to the child by a deceased person will be outside the new system. So too will income from the investment of other sums coming directly to a child on a person ‘s death, such as the proceeds of a life insurance policy or a lump sum from a superannuation fund. Income from property transferred to a child by another person to whom the property was left by a deceased person, if transferred within three years after the death of that person, will be excluded if within limits set by relevant rules of intestacy. A child in full time employment will, of course, be outside the new system altogether but, as regards a child not categorically excluded in this way, employment income from part time work and income from a business conducted by the child alone or with another minor will both be outside the new system. Income from the investment of compensation paid for damages, for example, for loss of parental support or for personal injury is not to be subject to the new system. Neither is income from funds raised by public appeal for the relief of persons in necessitous circumstances. Income from court-ordered settlements arising as a result of divorce or judicial separation, income from the investment of a child’s lottery winnings and income from the investment of savings out of any of the excluded categories of income make up the balance of the classes of income excluded from the new system.
Experience regrettably having shown that there will always be some who will seek to take unintended advantage of provisions designed, as these exceptions are, to provide relief in particular circumstances, the Bill contains a number of safeguards against exploitation of the exceptions to avoid tax intended to be charged. These safeguarding measures aim to ensure, for example, that profits are not diverted to a child ‘s business by relatives or other persons not at arm’s length, and that income from a child’s investment is not inflated by similar diversions.
Income to which the new system appliestermed in the legislation ‘eligible’ income- will for 1979-80 be taxed at a minimum marginal rate of tax of 47.07 per cent in the hands of the person who is taxable in respect of the income. However, if the eligible income does not exceed $1,040, the special rate will not apply. That means that if the total taxable income does not exceed $3,893 and the eligible income does not exceed $1,040 no tax will be payable. If the eligible income exceeds $1,040, ‘shading-in’ arrangements will apply so that the special rate will not be fully applicable until the eligible income exceeds $3,625. Up to that point the average rate of tax will, of course, be lower than 47.07 per cent. As I have explained previously, if a person has other income as well as eligible income in excess of $ 1,040, the other income will be taxed in the normal way. This means that the zero rate will apply to the first $3,893 of other income, and the standard rate of 33.07 per cent to other income between $3,894 and $16,608.
Trust income to which a child under 18 years of age is, or is deemed to be, presently entitled is already taxable in the trustee’s hands and will be taxed under the new system on the same basis as would apply if the child derived the income directly. This means that, as to trust income to which the new system applies, the trustee will be taxed at the minimum marginal rate of 47.07 per cent, subject to the $1,040 threshold and shading-in arrangements. As to other trust income, the trustee will be taxed at ordinary personal tax rates including the zero rate on income up to $3,893.
As I indicated in my statement on 14 November, the Bill will authorise relief, by way of a rebate of part or all of any increase in tax payable as a result of the new system, in respect of income arising from arrangements entered into on or before 26 July 1979. An applicant for relief will need to establish to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Taxation that the circumstances are such that it would be unreasonable that the whole of the extra tax should be payable. The basis for this relief in the ordinary case where one or both parents have a taxable income is spelt out in the legislation. It is to the effect that a child, or the trustee for a child, will be eligible for a rebate to the extent that the tax otherwise payable on the relevant eligible income is greater than the tax that would have been payable on that income if it had been derived by the parent, or the parent with the higher taxable income. If the child has minor brothers or sisters also in receipt of eligible income, the eligible incomes of all of them will be added to that of the relevant parent in ascertaining how much tax the income would have borne in the parent’s hands. In determining the amount of any rebate under this provision, the fact that a parent’s income has been reduced by artificial tax avoidance arrangements may be taken into account by the Commissioner.
The Government believes that this rebate, together with the specific exceptions and exclusions provided in the Bill, should ensure that application of the new system will operate appropriately. However, to make doubly sure, the Commissioner will be given a discretionary power to allow a rebate of part or all of the extra tax payable as a result of the application of the new system if cases should arise where it is shown to his satisfaction that exaction of the full amount would entail serious hardship. In both of these discretionary areas, the Commissioner’s decision will be open to the usual rights of objection and appeal.
As previously foreshadowed, the Bill will, again with some exceptions, alter the arrangements for taxing accumulating trust income, that is to say, income of a trust to which no beneficiary has, or is deemed to have, a present entitlement. At present, this income is taxed in the trustee’s hands, either at the maximum personal rate of tax or at ordinary personal tax rates but not including, except in relation to the first three years of a deceased estate, the zero rate of tax on the first $3,893 of income. The first change proposed is that a beneficiary who has an indefeasible vested interest in accumulating trust income will be treated as being presently entitled to the income.
Other accumulating trust income will be taxed at the maximum personal tax rate, 6 1.07 per cent for 1979-80. However, subject to rules designed to guard against their exploitation for purposes of tax avoidance, there will be significant exceptions. First, the accumulating income of deceased estates will continue to be taxed as at present; that is, the income will bear ordinary personal rates of tax, including the zero rate for the first three years and will attract the benefit of a minimum taxable income of $417 and associated shading-in arrangements thereafter. Secondly, bankrupt estates, and trusts of moneys received as compensation for a particular event, trusts of moneys payable on the death of a person and funds raised by public appeal for persons in necessitous circumstances, will continue to have accumulating income taxed at ordinary personal rates of tax, without the zero rate but with a $4 1 7 minimum taxable income and associated shading-in arrangements.
As the legislation will not be considered in the Parliament until the autumn sittings, the Government has decided that it would not now be appropriate to impose an obligation on people concerned to pay provisional tax for 1979-80 on the basis of the proposed new arrangements. This decision means that the new arrangements could be seen as having a double effect when assessments on income of the year ending 30 June 1980 are made after the end of the year. These will, of course, show both tax for 1979-80 and provisional tax for 1980-81. Accordingly, taxpayers who wish to avoid this apparent doubling-up effect may do so by applying to have 1979-80 provisional tax varied under the existing self-assessment procedure. The Bill also provides an option for those not otherwise liable to pay provisional tax for 1979-80 to pay that tax on the basis of the new arrangements. I should emphasise at this point that, whilst the Government would be happy to receive representations on technical aspects of the legislation before it is considered in the autumn, we have already given very careful thought to the substance of the trust and related measures. The changes that I announced last week, and which are incorporated in this legislation, represent the Government’s considered response to the representations it has received.
I come now to the subject of employees’ housing. Honourable members may recall that on 13 June 1979, following completion by the Government of its review of the provisions dealing with taxation of the value of housing accommodation provided for employees, I foreshadowed certain changes to those provisions. As I indicated on that occasion, the Government believes that a general provision which brings to account for taxation the value of employee benefits is a necessary part of an effective system of personal taxation. Such a provision must, of course, operate in a practical manner having regard to the many and varied circumstances which it must cover. To assist in that direction, amendments proposed by this Bill will make it clear that the Commissioner of Taxation is to take into account all relevant matters in assessing for income tax purposes the value of any housing accommodation provided to an employee. In particular, the amendments proposed will ensure that, to the extent appropriate in the circumstances, specified matters will be brought into consideration as factors tending to reduce the amount of the taxable benefit.
Remoteness or isolation of the area in which the accommodation is located is one such factor. Any lack of choice by employees in the matter of accommodation and whether occupancy is subject to any onerous conditions imposed on the employee concerned are others. Whether the quality or size of the accommodation provided exceeds the standard of accommodation that the employee would ordinarily seek is another. All these stated factors will ensure that, as far as possible, full account is taken of those circumstances which might ordinarily reduce the value to an employee of housing benefits granted by an employer. To the same effect will be a specific requirement for the Commissioner to take into account whether it is customary in the particular industry for employers to provide free housing for employees or to provide housing at a low rent. This matter is to form part of the valuation criteria because the Government is conscious of long-standing arrangements between employers and employees in some industries under which accommodation is customarily provided either without charge or for a charge less than the fair rental value of the accommodation. These arrangements are common in respect of industry and employment outside the capital cities and in relatively remote or isolated areas of Australia.
The valuation criteria to be expressed in the law are to apply in respect of 1977-78 and subsequent income years. The Bill will authorise amendment of assessments for 1977-78 and 1978-79 made before the Bill comes into operation where the new measures would result in a reduction of the value of housing benefits included in the assessments. Such amendments may be made whether or not the employee has exercised the rights of objection and appeal that the law provides. The backdating to 1977-78 will not, of course, retrospectively create any liability for tax on housing benefits.
Finally, the Bill contains amendments foreshadowed in my statement of 12 June 1979 to counter tax avoidance schemes that exploit the income tax deduction for bad debts. This is done through arrangements under which the loss claimed to be suffered by way of a bad debt is effectively recouped in a non-taxable form. Amendments to provide a counter to tax avoidance schemes of the recoupment type that exploit deductions ordinarily available for expenditure incurred in borrowing money, in discharging a mortgage, in the acquisition of trading stock or by way of interest or rent were foreshadowed in my statements of 24 September 1978 and 1 March 1979. They were approved by the House recently when it considered the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1979. The amendments now proposed will extend the operation of those provisions so that they apply also to bad debt schemes.
Reflecting my statement of 12 June, the amendments will mean that a deduction will not be allowable for a bad debt where the debt is incurred in respect of a loan made after 24 September 1978 as part of a tax avoidance arrangement entered into after that date. For the amendments to apply it will be necessary that the arrangement involves the receipt by the taxpayer or an associate of a compensatory benefit the value of which, when added to the tax benefit sought in respect of the bad debt, would effectively recoup the taxpayer for the loss incurred in respect of the loan so that no real loss is suffered.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you will note that the amendments proposed by this Bill are to apply to loans made after 24 September 1978. This is the date on which the Government’s intention to act against recoupment arrangements was originally announced and is in accord with the warning I gave at that time that, if further recoupment schemes were to emerge, the Government would, with effect from that day, act against them as outlined in that announcement.
My statement of 1 March 1979 with respect to schemes of this type entered into to exploit the deductions for borrowing expenses was an earnest of the Government’s intention in this regard. Despite that, the bad debt schemes emerged and it has again been necessary to act. I trust that by now the Government’s determination to put an end to these schemes in which taxpayers seek deductions for losses or outgoings which, in a practical sense, they do not bear is clear both to those promoting the schemes and to taxpayers contemplating paying fees to promoters for access to deductions under such schemes. However, should this still not be the case, I repeat again that the Government will not hesitate to amend the income tax law to counter any other schemes exhibiting similar features and with effect from 24 September 1978.
I also announced on 12 June that losses generated by bad debt schemes would not be permitted to be carried forward for deduction into a future income year. This is in accord with the policy of the Government announced on 24 May 1979 that paper losses produced by tax avoidance schemes, including recoupment schemes, are not to be allowed to be carried forward as income tax deductions. The amendments proposed will mean that losses created by bad debt schemes in 1 977-78 or earlier years will not be allowed as carry-forward deductions in 1978- 79 or in subsequent income years, while such losses manufactured in the 1978-79 income year will not be deductible against income of 1979- 80 or subsequent years. As is usual, the technical features of the Bill are dealt with in an explanatory memorandum. Copies of the memorandum are not yet available, but will be provided to honourable members within the next few days. I commend the Bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Willis) adjourned.
page 3396
Bill presented by Mr Howard, and read a first time.
– I move:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill will amend the Income Tax (Rates) Act 1976, which declares the rates of tax payable by individuals and trustees. Its purpose is to declare the rates of tax payable on income of dependent children, and trustees for them, that comes within the scope of the new system for taxing such income proposed in the Bill that I have just introduced. In speaking to that Bill, I mentioned that the income in question is to attract a minimum tax rate for 1979-80 of 47.07 per cent. That rate is declared in this Bill, which also provides for the special tax threshold of $1,040 that is to be available. Full details of technical aspects of the Bill are contained in an explanatory memorandum that will be made available shortly.
I should perhaps add that it will not be necessary to amend the Income Tax (Rates) Act to give effect to the changes I have announced in the rates of tax applicable to income of trusts to which no beneficiary is presently entitled. Because of the structure of the relevant legislation those changes will flow from amendments being made to relevant provisions of the Assessment Act.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Willis) adjourned.
page 3396
– I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of Holsworthy Army Development, Stage 2.
The proposal is for the provision of permanent working facilities and associated engineering services for Army units at Holsworthy. The works proposed include: Headquarters, administrative, storage and workshop facilities and gun parks for the 8/ 12th Medium Regiment; military instruction block; warehouse and administrative facilities for 1 Field Supply Company, including covered vehicle shelters; administrative, storage and workshop facilities for 104 Signals Squadron, including covered vehicle shelters; storage facilities for 2 Reconnaissance Regiment; barracks administration building; task force headquarters; and parade ground, roads and car parks. The estimated cost of the proposal at October 1979 prices is $ 10.3m. I table drawings of the proposed works.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 3397
Debate resumed from 20 November, on motion by Mr Staley:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House has a general debate covering this Bill and the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill 1979 as they are related measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate.
-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the two measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.
-May I begin by saying that I have always had a peculiar objection to the kind of rubric that is used to introduce the interaction of a cognate debate. I have always preferred the formula used in the Senate, where the Minister says: ‘I suggest that the second reading of these two Bills be debated cognately’. In this House Ministers always inject an element of surprise, as though the idea of a cognate debate had just occurred to them in a great moment of inspiration. These are objectionable Bills, obnoxious in principle and practice, and they ought to be opposed vigorously. The Bills were discussed at some length in another place on 15 November, when seven senators took part in the debate. Unfortunately, exigencies of time on this last day of sitting will prevent the Bills being discussed at length in this place. By arrangement, I understand that I will be the only speaker on the Bills. I assure the House that I will not take my full 30 minutes.
The main purpose of both Bills, the Australian National University Amendment Bill and the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill, although it is not obvious from reading the clauses of the Bills, is to dismember and destroy the Australian Union of Students. This is a remarkable example of extreme partisanship, showing how a small sectional group with strong influence within the Liberal Party has been able to exert quite illegitimate pressure on the Government to introduce legislation. In 1 977 the Council of the Australian National University adopted new fee rules which provided for exemption from compulsory membership of and payment of fees to approved student bodies and gave rights of appeal to any students dissatisfied with decisions on these issues. However, this did not go far enough for the youthful Liberal enthusiasts who wanted to attack and destroy university autonomy.
The objectionable clauses in the Bills are clauses 16 and 19 of the Australian National University Amendment Bill and clauses 5 and 6 of the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill, which are virtually identical in wording. The clauses tie the hands of the Australian National University Council and the Canberra College of Advanced Education Council by providing that moneys collected by way of fees shall not be made available to any student organisation- the Australian Union of Students is not actually named at this stage- unless ‘the Council is satisfied that the governing body of the organisation is representative of the members of the organisation’; and by providing that Councils may not pass statutes to authorise expenditure on ‘amenities or services that are not of an academic nature’ unless the provision of these amenities will directly benefit the University, the College of Advanced Education or its students, or promote sporting, recreational, educational, social, cultural or post-graduate interests. In other words, funds can be applied only for non-political purposes, using that term in the narrowest sense.
Let us suppose that the Australian Union of Students tried to organise a Kampuchean relief fund or an East Timorese relief fund. Let us suppose it tried to raise funds for Amnesty International, to mention an organisation in which I know you are interested, Mr Deputy Speaker. Under this miserable Act, the councils of the ANU and the CCAE would have no power to do that, even though there might be a very strong consensus of support. They simply would have no choice. It is striking, for example, that clause 19 of the Australian National University Amendment Bill and clause 5 of the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill provide that membership of student unions should not be compulsory. This is an extraordinary example of a piece of legislation which is both superfluous and offensive, because the existing rules of the Australian National University provide that membership of student unions should not be compulsory. Fifteen per cent of the student membership at the ANU is not in the Australian Union of Students. What has really happened is that Government has said: ‘No, but they might change their minds. We do not propose to allow the Council of that University to be able to exercise its own judgment as to what it thinks ought to be done. We will make the provision for them in this piece of legislation’. I might say that that is totally contradictory in some ways to the overall objective of the legislation.
The criticism of the AUS, and it is criticism that might have had a good deal more validity two or three years ago and is less valid now, is that it did not have enough people actively involved in student unions and in voting for the Australian Union of Students. The Government is saying: ‘We have a master stroke. We have a wonderful way of resolving that problem. We will cut out compulsory membership of student unions’. Inevitably that will have the effect of reducing the number of people who are likely to want to vote in student union elections.
The opponents of the AUS claim that the organisation is unrepresentative, and there is no doubt that in recent years it has had a very bumpy record. From time to time various university student groups have withdrawn from AUS. In the case of my own alma mater, Melbourne University, it ceded some years ago and then returned this year when 65 per cent of all students voted to go back into the AUS. Sydney University was another university which withdrew at one stage. Each withdrawal has necessarily made the AUS less, not more, representative. That is axiomatic. As a general principle, I believe that there ought to be a nationwide coalition of student unions. Like Voltaire’s God, if there was not an Australian Union of Students it would be necessary to invent one. If students or Ministers research officers do not like the AUS, its leaders or its policies, surely the way to solve that problem is to mobilise for political changes within the organisation. If AUS is thought to be unrepresentative, the answer is to make it more representative, to get more of our 250,000 university students to participate, to run for election, to vote, to argue, and to propose new policies. I would have thought that this is a classic example of a Liberal point of view. It dates back as far as 1 976 when somebody replied to critics who felt that there ought to be more coercive action against student organisations. That person wrote:
I share the concern of your members that any student body should promote international terrorism and antizionism. These are wholly non-Australian and they are evil concepts.
However, as within the trade union movement, the cure must originate basically from the members themselves. It is within the students ‘ unions to rectify the matter.
It is an important problem and I would be happy to discuss it further. In other days I have participated- successfully too- in the marshalling of student ideas and energies towards the democratic process.
Again, the same writer stated: in many . . . cases the fault lies with the failure of the general student body to participate in the election of office bearers and in the general critical comment of the actions of the office bearers throughout the year. If there is to be an elected body of any sort its success or failure will depend fairly heavily upon student participation.
You would agree with those views, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) would also agree with them. He nods assent. They were, of course, stated by Senator Carrick, the Minister for Education, who originated this miserable Bill. Rather, he responded to pressure and introduced this miserable Bill. That is the correct way to do it. The worst way, the method adopted in this Bill, is to destroy the AUS, to make it less representative by interfering with the tradition of academic freedom and to prohibit the councils of tertiary institutions from enabling fees to be paid except for very narrow- one might say, almost selfishpurposes confined to ‘student welfare’, narrowly defined. To give a political analogy, it is as though the Fraser Government decided that it could not win a free election in 1980 against the Australian Labor Party and that the best way to secure its political future would be to pass legislation prohibiting trade unions from making financial contributions to the Labor Party, but by exclusion encouraging trade unions to provide political sustenance to other smaller left wing parties to the extreme. That is a perfect analogy of what this miserable legislation is doing.
If AUS leadership is to be changed, it ought to be left to the students to do it. If enough people vote in elections this will happen. There is a good deal of strong evidence to indicate that there have been very striking changes in the AUS. Curiously, this legislation is really about two years too late to deal with the situation with which it purports to deal. If reasonable campuses disaffiliate, the AUS must inevitably fall under more extreme influence. This, of course, could come from the Right or from the Left. Mr Deputy Speaker, I move:
That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to exclude all those provisions relating to student fees and organisations ‘.
We believe that one of the most objectionable aspects of this Bill is the way in which the Government has stood over the Australian National University. I shall just quote what the Vice Chancellor of the University said recently. He stated:
The Government’s announcement in mid-year was the first time that can be recalled when a government had announced specific proposals for changes in the University’s Act before discussing these with the University itself. The University is dismayed at this proceeding, not only because of the absence of consultation on this point but also because the Government’s announcement marks a serious departure from the principle that the governing body of the University should have full responsibility for the determination of policies devised under broad guidelines provided by its Act.
In order to speed up the process of this legislation I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard item 1 5 of the minutes of the Australian National University Council of 9 November 1979. It relates to the determination of the ANU Students Association payment of outstanding affiliation fees to the Australian Union of Students.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows-
Item15- ANU Students’ Association- Payment of Outstanding Affiliation Fees to the Australian Union of Students
a ) Payment of Outstanding 1977-78 Fees:
It was noted that the Standing Committee of Council in its consideration of this matter on 12 October 1979 had been satisfied, through the investigations of the General Services Fee Advisory Committee, that there was a liability on the part of the Students’ Association to pay to the Australian Union of Students the 1977 and 1978 outstanding fees, and that the legal impediment to payment that had stood during 1977 and 1978 had now been removed.
In discussion it was suggested that the only test of a legal obligation was whether the Australian Union of Students was competent to sue the Students’ Association and to succeed in that suit.
It was resolved to approve, that in the context in which the Students’ Association manages its own affairs, the Association be permitted to use the sum of $5,224.81 from pre- 1 979 fees received in 1979 and the sum of $1,934.44 towards the payment of outstanding 1977-78 Australian Union of Students fees of $ 1 6, 1 25.84.
Payment of 1979 Fee:
It was noted that the Standing Committee of Council at its meeting on 12 October 1979 had referred to the Council Tor consideration the matter of whether the Students* Association should be permitted to pay to the Australian Union of Students the Association’s affiliation fee for 1979 from the 1979 General Services Fee money.
It was further noted that the Chancellor had received a letter dated 24 October 1979 from the Minister for Education concerning the ANU Amendment Bill 1979. The Minister had observed, in part, that that section of the Amendment Act dealing with compulsory fees and student organisations had, at the University’s suggestion, been made effective from 1 January 1980. The Minister asked that, as the Bill would not be effective until 1980, the University follow the Government’s policy as reflected in the Bill in the application of compulsory fees collected in respect of 1979.
The Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor assured the Council that no undertaking had been given to the Department of Education or to the Minister that the University would treat the disposition of the 1 979 fee in accordance with the prospective provisions of the Government’s amendments to the ANU Act.
The following documents were received: 3029/1979-Paper by the President, ANU Students’ Association on the payment of Australian Union of Students affiliation fees by student organisations. 3098/1979-Copy of a letter dated 24 October 1979 from the Minister for Education to the Chancellor on Amendments to the ANU Act. 3099/1979-Copy of a letter dated 26 October 1979 from the Chancellor to the Minister for Education in reply to the Minister’s letter. 3032/1979-Paper dated I November 1979 by the Assistant Vice-Chancellor on the Bill for an Australian National University Amendment Act 1979.
Copy of the Second Reading Speech by the Minister for Education on the Australian National University Amendment Bill 1979.
Copy of News Information Release dated 25 October 1979-Statement by the Vice-Chancellor on Australian National University Amendment Bill 1 979.
It was noted from the Vice-Chancellor’s statement that under the terms of the Bill the University would be prevented from distributing money from the General Services Fee other than for the provision to students of those amenities and services that are not of an academic nature and that are declared by University statute to be amenities or services that are of direct benefit to the University. The Council of the University would be given discretion to approve payments for these purposes to national bodies concerned with sporting activities, to bodies with objectives similar to that which represents Australian university law students, and to a national body representing postgraduate students. However the terms of the Bill would deny to the Council any discretion to approve payments from compulsorily collected fees to a national body representing students in a more general way even where the national body provided particular amenities and services of a non-academic kind which would clearly be of direct benefit to the University and its students.
In discussion the following comments were made:
the Standing Committee of Council had been satisfied that the ANU Students’ Association had a liability to pay outstanding affiliation fees to the Australian Union of Students;
the matter of the payment of the 1979 affiliation fee by the Students’ Association to the Australian Union of Students should be treated on its own merits and should be decided by the Council without regard to the impending University legislation and the Minister’s request;
3 ) that there was an obligation on the Council to defer a decision on the matter until the final form of the legislation was known and the legislative process completed. A decision on whether the University should apply the legislation retrospectively could then be taken;
the General Services Fee Statute made by Council on 2 February 1979 which the Governor-General had declined to sign, had set out Council ‘s views on the allocation of the General Services Fee. That expressed policy should be taken into account before any decision was made by Council in respect of the Students’ Association’s 1979 affiliation fee to the Australian Union of Students;
5 ) it was not possible for the Council to make a decision at this meeting in terms of its own preferred principles because it would require the Council to make certain judgments as to whether certain student activities would comply with the purposes of the proposedstatute on amenities;
the Council should not allow the Minister’s views to affect its consideration of the matter unless the University was in breach of some undertaking, implied or express, in the matter;
7 ) the Students ‘ Association, as a responsible body, had accorded with Council’s direction that no payments be made without Council’s express approval to the Australian Union of Students from 1979 General Services Fees money. The Association had set aside the sum necessary to pay the 1979 AUS affiliation fee and it had done this on the assumption that the Council would by now have made a decision in the matter. The Association was concerned about its financial obligation to the Australian Union of Students which it had contracted before the Council had determined its 1 979 fees policy. It considered it should be allowed to honour its commitment to the Australian Union of Students;
8 ) the Council while directing the Students ‘ Association to refrain from paying affiliation fees to the Australian Union of Students from the 1979 General Services Fee had not requested the Students ‘ Association to test the attitude of its members to the question of affiliation to the AUS and had not asked the Students’ Association to refrain from accepting AUS benefits flowing from the Association’s affiliation with that organisation. Before any decision was reached the Council should investigate whether the amenities and services provided by the Australian Union of Students to affiliates were acceptable to the University under the principles established by Council ‘s General Services Fee Advisory Committee relating to recognised student bodies within the University.
It was resolved:
1 ) to rescind any extant resolution that would prevent the Council from authorising payment of moneys collected from the General Services Fee in 1979 to the Australian Union of Students;
to request the General Services Fee Advisory Committee, using the principles it had applied already in relation to advice to Council concerning distribution of that fee to recognised student bodies within the University, to advise Standing Committee what payment if any the University should permit those organisations to make from that fee for the purpose of affiliation with the Australian Union of Students;
that in relation to resolution (2) above, the Council authorise the Standing Committee of Council to act for it;
to endorse the views of the Vice-Chancellor as expressed in his Information Release, and the Chancellor in his letter to the Minister for Education.
-I thank the House. I conclude by pointing out that the genesis of this Bill seems to be from Mr Michael Yabsley who has an interesting record. He is ex-vice chairman of the Australian Students Liberal Federation and a former research officer for Senator Knight. He is now operating on a higher plane as private secretary to the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Groom). He is a vigorous advocate for the Republic of South Africa. In an article on the AUS in the National Student of October 1 978 he wrote:
Liberal students are the unblushing assassins of AUS.
It is also known that among those organising the campaign have been the Uranium Producers Forum and the Liberal Party organisation itself.
I think this is a deplorable piece of legislation. It is notorious that student bodies are capable of great variations so far as political philosophies are concerned. There is nothing wrong with that. We would not want them to be locked into positions. Among the revolutionaries who have been thrown up by the Australian Union of Students and its predecessor, the National Union of Australian University Students- for obvious reasons, it could never have had the initials of the Australian National Union of Students- was that terrible revolutionary, Senator Peter Durack, the Attorney-General, who is a former president! He no doubt has passed through the revolutionary phase and is now an impeccable conservative. I believe that this is a bad Bill. The Opposition does not propose to force the issue to a division but we want to indicate our very vigorous opposition and, of course, our support for our amendment. It is unlikely that our amendment will be defeated -it might be a pretty close call- judging by the numbers in the chamber at the moment. We strongly oppose the Bill.
-Is the amendment seconded?
– I second the motion, Mr Deputy Speaker.
– I rise to speak very briefly in support of the Bills and to oppose the amendment which has been moved by the Opposition in relation to the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill. I do not think that I have ever had as much interest shown in a speech as is being shown in the House this afternoon. Everybody is interested to know when I will finish. There are just a couple of things that I would like to say on this legislation. The honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) tried to pin this legislation as an attack on the Australian Union of Students. Let us be quite clear about this. The thrust of these two Bills - the Australian National University Amendment Bill and the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill- represents the Federal Government’s response to the problems of compulsory membership of student organisations, so-called student unionism, and the unrepresentative use of student funds from those campuses for which the Federal Government has some sort of legislative responsibility. The legislation seeks to safeguard the very important principle of freedom of association and, equally important, freedom of non-association.
I do not have time to detail the whole of the history which has given rise to this legislation, but I think two major historical facts need to be remembered. They have largely contributed to the need for this sort of Bill. The first is the channelling of compulsory student funds by unrepresentative student organisations to every conceivable ratbag minority cause in the country and overseas. The second fact is that in the past there has been a denial of student status and student rights by some university administrations around the country to those students who refused to pay the compulsory student union levy. We are safeguarding those students, a protection that I certainly did not enjoy when I was at the campus of the University of Western Australia.
We have heard the Opposition contribution. I want to contrast that furphy with the facts of the legislation. It is to safeguard students’ rights. Let us just remind ourselves of the main provision in the legislation. Membership of student organisations will be voluntary. Fees payable in respect of membership of a student organisation will also be voluntary. No student will be penalised for not joining. That is a right which was not enjoyed by all students in the past. Compulsory fees can be used only for the provision of amenities or services. Where it is the case that the council of a university makes compulsory fee money available to a student organisation for the provision by that organisation of approved amenities or services, the council must firstly satisfy itself that the governing body of that organisation is representative of its members. When paid, such moneys will be for the provision of amenities and services which will directly benefit the university. Moneys will not be paid to any national organisation unless the council is satisfied that it is encouraging students’ sporting and recreational activities, promoting student interests in some other particular educational, cultural or social field, or promoting the interests of post-graduate students.
There is also going to be accountability in terms of the disposal of that money with details of receipts and expenditures. In summary, we have a legislative package which I believe takes a very small step along the important road of providing for the introduction of the principles of voluntary association and academic freedom. We are talking about the principles of voluntary association; simply that means the freedom to join or not to join. If one decides not to join, one is not to be penalised for that decision. It is the freedom to pay money to an organisation one supports. Any student in any tertiary institution in this capital can still belong to Australian
Union of Students or any other organisation, but this legislation goes one step further in that it provides for the freedom not to join and not to pay that money, and importantly, not to be penalised for that decision. Therefore, I find it absolutely incredible, when we are talking about such basic freedoms, that we are encountering the opposition that we have had this afternoon and that we had in the chamber only last week. I strongly support the legislation and I trust the House will oppose the amendment.
The question is: That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it.
– I think the noes have it, but in the circumstances we will not press for a division.
Amendment negatived.
Original question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.
Bill (on motion by Mr Nixon) read a third time.
page 3401
Debate resumed from 20 November, on motion by Mr Staley:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
– I move:
That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to exclude all those provisions relating to student fees and organisations ‘.
– I second the amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Original question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.
Bill (on motion by Mr Nixon) read a third time.
page 3402
– I move:
The proposal referred to the Committee for investigation and report is for the construction of the initial works associated with the proposed redevelopment of Brisbane International Airport to the north-east of the existing Airport. The initial works include reclamation of the site with sand filling dredged from Moreton Bay to accommodate the proposed new runway, taxiways, apron, building areas and roadways; the construction of a floodway channel to divert the flood waters presently discharging across the site; the construction of a 3,500-metre runway and associated taxiway system; and other associated engineering preparatory works. The estimated cost of the proposal when examined by the Committee was $98m at July 1979 prices.
The balance of the works required to complete phase 1 involves the provision of additional facilities such as domestic terminal buildings, aprons, control tower, access roads, car parks and navigational aids and system at an additional cost of approximately $74m based on July 1979 prices. In reporting on the proposed works, the Committee has drawn a number of conclusions and made a number of recommendations which the Government has considered. The Committee in its report has agreed that the proposed concept for redevelopment of Brisbane International Airport is satisfactory, that the site is suitable and that the general scope of the initial works of phase 1 is necessary for the redevelopment. However, the Committee recommends that commencement of the proposed works be deferred until at least 1986 and that in the meantime the present runway be extended for international services and the Ansett Airlines of Australia and Trans-Australia Airways terminals be expanded by those airlines.
It is normal procedure for government decisions on major investments in public works to be justified in full cost/benefit economic analysis. In the case of this project this analysis was carried out by the Bureau of Transport Economics, and subsequently reviewed by the Department of Transport in the light of the latest information available. In fact, the analysis and recent review compared the proposals referred to the Committee with an alternative similar to that now recommended by the Committee. The review concluded that there is no economic penalty in proceeding with the redevedopment immediately by comparison with delaying it and making interim improvements to the existing airport. The Committee has not challenged this analysis. Furthermore, the review brought out unquantified benefits which would support a decision to proceed now. These benefits include the virtual removal of significant noise nuisance to some 10,000 residents near the airport, the elimination of current building heights restrictions, and the reduction of the cost of air traffic delays. In short the Committee appears to have based its recommendations on minimising short term government capital expenditure without due regard to the full economic considerations in the longer term. Turning now to the Committee’s specific recommendations and conclusions I make the following comments: Firstly, based on the range of forecasts for aircraft movements until the 1990s, which is well within the capacity of the existing main runway, the Committee considers that a need has not been established for the immediate development of the proposed 02/20 runway. The Department of Transport stated in evidence that the proposed new runway was not required to provide early additional runway capacity. However, the Government is confident of the continued growth of Brisbane and Queensland generally. It believes that long term forecasts, such as prepared by the Department, reflect more accurately the growth prospects for aviation at Brisbane than do the predictions submitted by the domestic airlines to the Committee, apparently based on fairly recent trends, and that these long term forecasts are more appropriate for decision-making purposes.
Secondly, the Committee does not accept that the total elimination of the curfew at the present time at Brisbane Airport will generally provide any significant benefit to the users of passengers or freight services. Thirdly, the Committee considers that the building height restrictions within the Brisbane Central Business District are not, of themselves, sufficient reason to advance the requirement for the proposed work at this time. Fourthly, the Committee recognises the noise problem in certain Brisbane residential suburbs and agrees that eventual redevelopment of Brisbane Airport should remove or reduce this nuisance. The current noise problem is not, in itself, sufficient reason to redevelop the airport immediately. The evidence from the Department of Transport did not suggest that any one of these individual benefits on its own justified the proposed redevelopment. However, in aggregate they are complementary to the economic analysis and offer significant benefits in support of the proposal. In particular, the Government believes that the opportunity to alleviate noise nuisance to a substantial number of people should not be passed over.
Fifthly, the Committee accepts that upgrading of current domestic terminal facilities is warranted and should be permitted as proposed by Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia. The cost of upgrading required to meet demand until 1992 would be considerably higher than the domestic airlines have recently contemplated. Inevitably, these costs will be reflected into airline fares in due course. In any case the Department’s investigations show that the ultimate capacity of the present total domestic terminal area, regardless of improvements made in the meantime, will not suffice for the period contemplated by the Committee.
Sixthly, the Committee recommends the extension of the existing 04/22 runway to the north-east by approximately 300 metres be considered an interim measure to enable greater utilisation of Brisbane Airport by international operators. This recommendation relies on paragraph 113 of the Committee’s report which conflicts with advice obtained recently by the Department from Qantas Airways Ltd. The Government will further investigate this aspect to determine whether there is need to review the required length of the proposed new runway.
Seventhly, the Committee agrees that the proposed concept for the ultimate redevelopment of Brisbane Airport is satisfactory. Eighthly, the site, to the north east of the existing airport, is considered suitable for the redevelopment of Brisbane Airport. Ninthly, the Committee agrees that the general scope of the initial works of phase 1 are necessary for the ultimate redevelopment of Brisbane Airport. I have already noted the Committee’s acceptance of these aspects of the proposals of the Department of Transport. Tenthly, a new international terminal building should be included in phase 1 works.
The Department of Transport is satisfied that, subject to appropriate operating procedures, the interim use of the present international terminal would not be prejudicial to safety. However, the Government will give further consideration to the Committee’s recommendation.
Eleventhly, as it has not been effectively demonstrated to the Committee that the proposed redevelopment deserves high national priority, the increases in domestic and international air fares that will result from full cost recovery of the project are considered premature. Because of the variables involved it is premature to draw any firm conclusions on the effects of the cost of this project on air fares beyond the general conclusion that they would not be substantial. In any event, the Government has already recognised a need for special consideration to be given to cost recovery aspects of this project, and this will be done at a very early date. Twelfthly, the Committee recommends that the commencement of the works proposed in this reference be deferred until at least 1986, and recommends for consideration the works set out in paragraphs 103 to 116, which it believes will enable the current facilities to meet Brisbane’s major airport needs to the year 1 992.
For reasons which are apparent from my comments on other recommendations, the Government does not accept that the proposed works should be deferred. Deferral is not supported by the economic analysis which establishes that there is no overall economic penalty in proceeding immediately with this project. The Government believes that there are real and substantial community benefits to be derived from proceeding without delay to the redevelopment of Brisbane Airport in a manner which will provide an adequate base for future improvements to meet the long term needs of Brisbane. Upon the concurrence of the House in this resolution, detailed planning of the work referred to the Committee can proceed having regard to the comments contained in this resolution. The Government desires to thank the Committee for its thorough consideration of this large complex project.
-At the outset, I register my strong protest at the indecent way in which this very important motion is being rushed through the House and the indecent manner in which the report of the Committee -
– Stop being sanctimonious.
– I am not being sanctimonious. We are sent here to discuss matters -
– Of course you are.
-Crawl back down into your burrow.
– I object to that comment. Make him withdraw.
– Eskimoes live in the best kinds of burrows. If the honourable member is upset, I do not mind withdrawing for him. The Opposition supports the motion. However, my colleague, the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys) has some special personal views in relation to the location of runways that has been suggested in the recommendations of the report. He will deal with those himself. At this stage, the Opposition is completely opposed to any suggestion for a total abolition of the curfew, and, on existing technology for aircraft engine design, it is a matter that we will look at when the time arrives. The Opposition takes considerable pride from the fact that, contrary to some of the claims made by honourable members opposite, it initiated the land acquisition program and acquired the first land for the new airport site. In referring to the cost -
– Listen to the other comments I will make after your speech.
-Don’t you say anything. You are the man who said that more than $70m was an absolute waste. You are on record as saying that. Do not start interjecting.
– Just wait until I deal with you.
– You said that more than $70m is an absolute waste. Mr Deputy Speaker, I return to the more important subject. The overall cost of the project is estimated at $172m. In January 1979, the Queensland Director of the Department of Transport estimated the cost of the total project at $l50m at 1977 prices. The point that the Opposition wants to make is that this is a major item of expenditure. In two years, the estimate of costs has risen already by some 15 per cent- not one sod has yet been turnedfrom $ 1 50m to $ 1 72m. There will need to be absolute stringency and control over construction, design standards, and the quality of fitments that go into the whole project. Can I make this one point as strongly as I can on behalf of the people who will use the airport and will pay for the airport. Airports ought to be functional. They ought to be utilitarian. But they ought not be monumental. It is not the province of a Minister for Transport, or a government, to erect a Taj Mahal at an airport for which air travellers forever have to pay.
– What happened to Newcastle?
– That is a utilitarian, conservative type of airport terminal and was a credit to the Minister at that time. In the report of the Public Works Commission, the point is made that on the information provided to the Committee there will be a cost to each international air traveller of $1.30 directly attributable to the cost of this development. The cost to domestic passengers will be $2.10 each. These are large amounts considered in the context of the total air fare and as an addition to the cost recovery component of domestic air fares.
In his statement to the Parliament, the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) said that special consideration is to be given to the cost recovery aspect of this project. On behalf of the people who use aircraft, I ask him to provide that information as soon as possible. If it is a scheme that can be used elsewhere, we ought to know about it. I have expressed my view in respect of the Opposition’s attitude towards the curfew. It is dealt with in the report of the Committee. The valid clauses are referred to, particularly in clause 70 and 72, and the Committee’s conclusion is in paragraph 73.
On behalf of the Committee, I say that this is a detailed and very expensive project. The report was tabled yesterday. Obviously the Government has worked all night and has given detailed consideration and analysis to the content of the report, the priority of expenditure and the justification for that expenditure, and it has come up with a pre-printed document this afternoon. This makes a farce of the work of the standing committees of this Parliament. We know that the project is urgent. But the Government could have come back within a reasonable time- say within four years- after it had considered the work of the Committee. I ask honourable members to go through the statement of the Minister when they have the time to do so. I say this on a bipartisan basis: Go through the statement of the Minister and look closely at the response to each of the recommendations of the Committee. The responses are an insult. The Government has rejected the evidence given to the Committee by the Department of Transport. Its own advice to the Minister for Transport, who is sitting at the table, is rejected. A little later on -
– Don’t be personal.
-I am pointing to the table. Later on in the report the evidence given by the airlines is rejected by the Government. The conclusion drawn by the Committee in the paragraph on the extension of existing runways is rejected by the Government. I am not saying that these are the wrong conclusions. What I am saying is that better consideration should have been given to the matter and a much better argued case should have been presented. The Parliament is being treated as being totally irrelevant. I conclude with those remarks because I want to allow my colleagues time to speak on the matter. The Opposition supports the motion but it rejects the proposals to abolish the curfew at Brisbane airport.
– I speak on this matter as the Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. I wish to respond to some points made in the statement made today by the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon). I want to refer in particular to several areas in relation to which the advice he has outlined in his statement today varies substantially from the advice that his Department gave to the Committee. Firstly, the Committee was concerned with short term considerations, especially the rise in air fares. The Minister has told us today that special consideration will be given to the cost recovery factor in relation to Brisbane airport. The Committee welcomes this move because, in the Committee’s view, when money is spent on facilities before they are needed and when this cost is charged to air travellers, some special provision should be made. The very fact that the Government acknowledges that it has to do this in the case of Brisbane airport, I think to some extent acknowledges the very point made by the Committee, namely, that the expenditure is premature.
In the very limited time available to me if I am to allow other honourable members to speak, I wish to point out some of the inaccuracies in the statement and where these conflict with some of the evidence presented to the Committee. Let me deal, firstly, with the matter of the taxi-ing distance to the international terminal. It is quite clear from the evidence of the Air Pilots Guild of Australia and from Qantas Airways Ltd that there was a substantial element of danger in any taxi-ing distance greater than 5 kilometres. Aircraft could taxi for such distances with slower taxi-ing rates and the like, but there would have to be some reason for it, such as in the case of an abortive take-off.
Secondly, I come to the matter of cost recovery. The Committee was very concerned about this matter because we heard a lot of evidence to the effect that there were substantial needs in airports in other areas. The situation could be summarised in many ways. I could quote the actual evidence that was given. For instance, even the Department of Transport acknowledged that Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport was saturated and that something had to be done, but that the solution would be very costly. The air pilots see the length of the runway at the Adelaide airport as presenting the biggest danger. It says that that has to be lengthened. Qantas and some of the other airlines see the needs of the airports at Perth, Darwin, Sydney and Adelaide and even Canberra as being more compelling than those of Brisbane. They put forward their submissions along that line.
The Committee could not get from the Department of Transport a list of priorities of works to be carried out by the Department over a period. It seemed to the Committee that the Department was adopting a piecemeal approachdoing one thing at a time- and that we would have to look at the effect of that approach on the cost recovery program and air fares. It is quite clear that if the works at Brisbane airport go ahead, as the Government is now proposing, there will be an increase in air fares of at least 4 per cent solely to cover the cost of that project, unless special provisions are made in relation to cost recovery. When the cost of that project is added to the cost of other projects that are proposed, such as those at Canberra and Sydney and those which are badly needed in a number of other areas, we see that there is a requirement for cost recovery positions. The Minister’s statement referred to the capacity of the current terminals. He said:
In any case the Department’s investigations show that ultimate capacity of the present total domestic terminal area complex, regardless of improvements made in the meantime, will not suffice for the period contemplated by the Committee.
That is in direct contradiction of what TransAustralia Airlines told the Committee. It is obviously the result of a survey that has been carried out by the Department, because the Department told the Committee nothing about this. The Department obviously treated the Committee with contempt in relation to that matter.
I refer to what TAA stated in its evidence in relation to the terminal buildings. It said that the current state of the existing terminal buildings, aprons, roads and surfaces is such that it is possible with some improvement to cater for TAA forecast traffic levels for the next 12 to 15 years or about 6 years longer than 1992. TAA also told us that the situation in Brisbane is not as serious as that which exists at some other airports in Australia. So that is the situation in relation to the terminal buildings. If the Committee is to bring down a solid report it is unfortunate, I think, that we are not given the benefit of some of these analyses made by the Department of Transport. Our proceedings are conducted in such a way that the Department of Transport has the right and the opportunity at the end of the evidence to counter any of the other evidence that has been given. But we still received no evidence in relation to that matter.
In his statement the Minister says that these costs to be borne by the airlines will inevitably increase fares. The point I wish to make in relation to that matter is that these costs will increase air fares to a much smaller extent than will the total costs incurred through the cost recovery program. In fact, the amounts contemplated by the two airlines were something like $2m, $4m and $6m. In the first year of operation of the Brisbane airport development- in 1985-86- the total amount to be paid by the airlines under the cost recovery program will be something like $ 13.5m. That compares the two components that will cause air fares to rise.
There were a number of other inaccuracies in the report. Because I know that some other honourable members whose electorates are located in Brisbane wish to speak on this matter I will not say any more, except to refer to the Minister’s statement that the Government’s recommendation in relation to the extension of the runway is based on paragraph 1 13 of the Committee’s report. In fact, paragraph 1 13 of the report is almost word for word part of the submission that the Qantas representatives gave to the Committee under oath. If the Department has got further information from Qantas the Committee certainly has not been told of it. Qantas gave the Committee that information under oath and we accepted it as being true and genuine. The Department now tells us that it has other information. There are a number of other points that I could make. But, as I said, the Committee supports the general concept of the development. Our argument is in relation to the timing of it. I feel that the Government has made a mistake in adhering to the original timing proposal.
-I rise to defend the Committee’s report. Having heard the statement by the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) and having read it as he was reading it to the House, I find that this Minister, who is quite well known throughout Australia for his contempt of Parliament and all that is associated with it, was quite contemptuous of the report written by the Committee. In fact, I would be highly surprised if he even read it. It seems to me that the Minister and or the Government have treated the Committee and this Parliament with contempt. This proposal involves an expenditure initially of some $90m and eventually $172m. After taking evidence from witnesses for more than five days- all of them were under oath- the Committee came to certain conclusions on this matter, although I might say that they were not unanimous conclusions. It did not do that lightly.
The Committee presented its report yesterday afternoon, and it was ordered that it be printed. This afternoon, 24 hours later, this Minister holds the whole report in contempt. In fact, I bet that his statement had been written before he even read the report. He brought the matter back into the House today. We have limited time available to debate this statement, and he knew that. It is an old tactic of his: ‘Jam them right up and you will get them right out of the bales’. So at the last moment he brought this matter before the Parliament and he is giving us all a limited time to talk on it. The whole proposal, in my view, is based on emotion rather than fact.
If his Department were more competent than it was when it appeared before the Committee during this inquiry it would have argued strongly that a new airport should be developed in Brisbane. It did not do this. The Minister says that the Department had information that was not available to the Committee. Why was it not available to the Committee? Does the Committee have to drag everything out of the Department? Why can his Department not put together in the first instance something that does not have to be brought out by cross-examination oy the Committee? The Committee spent a lot of time just getting the Minister’s Department to give us facts and figures. Finally, the Committee had to get the Department to rewrite them all because nothing lined up; they were out of sequence. Having got all of those facts and figures before us and having marshalled and mustered and considered them- we spent a lot of time doing thatthe Committee came to the conclusions set out in its report. The Minister- I take him to task on this here or anywhere- made a rather bland statement about the inordinate taxi-ing distances of up to 6 kilometres for aircraft at Brisbane airport. The Minister in his statement said:
The Department of Transport is satisfied, that subject to appropriate operating procedures . . .
I do not know whether that means that the aircraft will be pulled around with a Ferguson tractor, but we were told if these aircraft were run under their own steam for 6 kilometres their brake linings would heat up to 1,200 degrees fahrenheit. If they were to stand for a period of 90 minutes after attaining that temperature they would lose only half of that heat. The heat would drop to 600 degrees and that is when the tyres pop. The Minister’s statement continued:
The interim use of the present international terminal would not be prejudical to safety.
If the Minister is a responsible Minister he will expunge those words because the use would be prejudical to safety. I invite him, instead of smirking to his colleagues behind him, to find out what happened at Honolulu airport when the reef strip was built. Qantas told us of that. If the Minister wants to charge Qantas with contempt of the Committee, he can go ahead and do it. That report is based on the evidence of Qantas and the operators. I know that time is running out and I do not want to delay the House more than is necessary, but I think this matter is very important. I cannot understand the Minister’s statement about paragraph 113. At the top of page S of the statement he said:
This recommendation relies on paragraph 113 of the Committee’s report which conflicts with advice obtained recently by the Department from Qantas.
I do not know how recently that advice was obtained. He stated further
The Government will further investigate this aspect to determine whether there is need to review the required length of the proposed new runway.
Who said that? Nowhere in this report does the Committee deal with the length of the proposed runway. This is what makes me suspicious. I do not think that the Minister has read the report. If he reads it he will find that the Committee is saying that with a maximum of a further 300 metres added to the existing runway- not the proposed runway- it would allow Qantas flights, with any configuration of loads- passengers, fuel, luggage and cargo- to go anywhere that Qantas might want them to go. If honourable members read the report they will find that Qantas flights can go anywhere they want to go now but the extra 300 metres of runway would allow them to go where they might want to go. So the Minister has not read the report. He is railroading this matter through the Parliament. If this Parliament were a responsible parliament it would defer this matter and hold it over until honourable members have had time to read that report and to find out how irresponsible this Minister is in making offthecuff statements about things not being prejudicial to safety. No responsible Minister can say that. I hold strongly to the view that the Committee is correct in its conclusions. I agree with all 13 conclusions. If the Government had any sense and any respect for this Parliament, and if it were not our pork-barreling, which I rather suspect it might be- a Country Party Minister our porkbarreling; goodness, gracious me, who would ever make such an allegation?- it would certainly let the matter have further investigation by the Parliament. The Government is not prepared to do that. I trust that the Parliament will reject this statement and adjourn the matter until next year.
-I want to say a few pleasant things for a few minutes. I support completely what the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) had to say. What he said is correct. He should be assured that at least two and a half million people in Australia applaud every sentence of his statement. The Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Works is a very important committee. It has a very distinguished chairman. But of course the Parliament is still the Parliament and committees do not run the country. Parliament is responsible for legislation and for the economic management of the country. I know that all sensible members here support what the Minister said. Let me go over the history of this project. I am incited to do this because of what has been said by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson). Brisbane airport has been a makeshift one since World War II. It was developed by the Americans when Brisbane was a garrison town in World War II. The airport has always been inadequate, poorly planned and in an inappropriate place.
There are those of us here who have fought for many years- well over a decade- for this event to take place. It is appropriate that at the end of the parliamentary year in 1979 the highlight is represented by the Minister’s statement. I now come to the politics of the matter. A question worth asking- I hope that everybody asks this question- is: Were this Government not on these benches, would this airport project be going ahead? I have been provoked to say that it would not be going ahead. I produce at least two imporant pieces of evidence. Every person who gets a job in constructing this airport- there will be 6,000 man years involved in its constructionought to remember that were this Government not in office, the project would not be going ahead. The McMahon Government at the end of 1971 and the beginning of 1972 stated quite clearly what were the plans for the construction of the airport. There was a program of expenditure for 1973, 1974 and 1975. That decision was predicted. In 1973 the Whitlam Governmentthrough the agency of the Coombs report- said: No airport. Put it off. It ‘s not a goer. Don ‘t do it ‘. When the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), in the election campaign in 1977, indicated that the airport project would get under way, very sadly the then Deputy Leader of the Opposition- I have not quoted this in the House before- on behalf of the Opposition said:
We are not going to pull any Brisbane airport out of a Pandora ‘s box’. Everybody should know that the Opposition, when in Government, said no. Were the Opposition in government, the project would not be in the process of authorisation of this expenditure today. The honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys) knows that I have not said this kind of thing before, but I have been provoked to say this by words that were uttered earlier in the debate.
I have two minutes left in which to deal with one or two points. The Committee’s proposal for the development of the airport by adding to the present runway, doing something to the terminals and so on, then proceeding to build a new airport half a dozen years later, would have two effects. Honourable members know that if they postpone something for half a dozen years, it will not be done. That is not in the mind of the Committee. But it is a more expensive proposition to put more money into the present site and then half a dozen years later to build the new airport. That involves an expenditure of an extra $2 5 m. More precisely, because of the immediate terminal propositions and because of those effects on air fares, it would not have been an acceptable proposition to increase air fares in six years time; it was an acceptable proposition to increase air fares today when the first brick was put on the new site, as would have to be done by Ansett Airlines of Australia and Trans-Australia Airlines and so on. That builds immediately into the cost structure. The Committee’s proposal was uneconomic. It has another fault. It relies upon estimates of the throughput of traffic at Brisbane Airport. The Committee never made a judgment about this. I am not scarifying it as I have too much respect for the Committee and its chairman, but I believe that the result was influenced too much by the inadequate and grubby evidence submitted by Australia’s domestic airlines. They have a vested interest in under estimating the throughput of passengers. They were attempting to project matters 20 years ahead and they have never done that successfully before. That should not have occurred. I support the Minister’s statement. I have made the political position perfectly clear for the first time in this House. It had to be made perfectly clear. The project will be a capital works program of enormous economic benefit and it will help the whole northern part of Australia.
– It troubles me today to have to talk against the Public Works Committee as I am a member of it. I support many of the conclusions that the Public Works Committee reached. I thought that the
Department of Transport was lackening in giving the Committee the full evidence that it required. It had to giVe the Committee two submissions. I must congratulate the Department of Housing and Construction on its magnificent effort. Today the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) justified the expenditure of public moneys to suit his own political needs. I remind the honourable member for Lilley of what he said today, and I will remind the constituents of his electorate and all the people in Brisbane. I will remind those people that the honourable member has agreed with everything that the Minister has said. The Minister has approved the lifting of the curfew when the new international airport is built. As proposed by the Department of Transport, runway 02/20 will shift the noise problem from the electorates of Lilley and Brisbane into my electorate of Griffith.
– That is not correct.
– It is correct. On the evidence of the Department of Transport the constituents of my electorate, mainly those in the areas of Cannon Hill and Morningside, will be within the 25-NEF- Noise Exposure Forecast. If the Department of Transport had given greater consideration to this matter it would have moved runway 02/20 probably a mile further north-east so that the constituents in my electorate would not have come within the 25-NEF, thereby alleviating the problem that they will be inundated with from noise pollution, air pollution and not least of all the hazards of fully laden aircraft taking off in a south-easterly direction at certain times of the year over a heavily populated area of my electorate.
The Committee did recognise in its conclusions the noise problem in the Brisbane residential area but did not think it was of such a magnitude as to justify the expenditure of the money at this time. I cannot agree with that. I feel that we should spend the money. I want to make it clear that the city of Brisbane and the State of Queensland should have a new international airport. When the Department of Housing and Construction and the Department of Transport were designing the airport they should have thought a little harder instead of playing politics and taking noise pollution out of one electorate and placing it in my electorate. This is what concerns me more than Brisbane and Queensland getting a new international airport.
As other members of the Public Works Committee have already explained in this place, when phase 1 of the project is completed there will be taxi-ing problems. The Jumbo jets will not be able to taxi the full 6.5 kilometres. They will have problems with tyres blowing out because of heat. The light aircraft that will have to taxi that distance will have cylinder head problems and will have to shut down before they can take off. Jumbo jets will be taking off with their tyres blown out. That is okay; they can take off with tyres blown out, but they cannot land. These are the sorts of hazards that this Minister has agreed to today, and so has the honourable member for Lilley. They are agreeing today that the airport at Brisbane will have a runway which will allow aircraft to taxi that distance. It is totally irresponsible of the Minister. I suggest that when he sent his officers from the Department of Transport to give evidence in Brisbane to the Committee he deliberately told them not to give the Committee the full details. The Department of Housing and Construction did give full evidence, but the evidence of the Department of Transport was lacking. It is the Minister who is playing politics. He knew that the evidence that the Department of Transport would give to the Committee would make it reach the conclusion that it did and then he could come into the House and claim to be a great man by saying: ‘We are not going to listen to the Committee. We are going to let the project go ahead ‘. It is absolutely disgraceful of the Minister and I deplore his actions today. He is saying that the people of Brisbane are going to be inundated with noise pollution, air pollution, safety hazards and they will be without a curfew. The Minister will remember and rue the day he has made this decision.
Motion ( by Mr Bourchier) proposed:
That the question be now put.
– How dare you! Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order.
-The question is: That the question be now put. Those of that opinion say aye; to the contrary no -
- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I do not believe that you could even accept a motion like that in the first place.
-Order! There is no substance in the point of order.
Question put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. H. Drummond)
AYES: 51
NOES: 34
Majority……. 17
In division-
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Original question resolved in the affirmative.
page 3410
-On behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, I present the Committee’s report on Australian defence procurement, together with the transcript of evidence.
Ordered that the report be printed.
-by leave-First of all, I thank my friend and colleague, the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton), for the privilege of tabling this report. In presenting this report, I inform the House that a separate report is in preparation on that pan of the terms of reference related to assistance to the civil power. I point out to the House that it seems that, when matters of defence come forward, by a conspiracy of circumstance, time is cut short to a point where there is practically no debate at all. I think it most regrettable that an important report of this nature, particularly at a time like this when international events are anything but encouraging, should be introduced at this very late stage.
The precise terms of reference for the present report were: ‘The implementation and effectiveness of Australia’s announced defence programs, with particular reference to procurement policy’. This reference was received on 12 July 1978 and Sub-committee C of the Joint Committee commenced hearings on 20 June. The last formal evidence was presented in October 1979. In the intervening 18 months, we took over 2,300 pages of written and oral evidence from a very wide range of sources. The report is not a lengthy document, but I put it to the House that it may be one of the more significant papers to emerge from the parliamentary committee system in recent years. It represents a year and a half of concentrated work and detailed examination of evidence in a very complex field. It was exhaustively considered before being agreed to.
This report takes ‘procurement’ in its widest sense. It examines the procurement process from the initial strategic analysis right through to the acquisition of equipment for the defence forces. We have expressed our full agreement with the strategic assessment as set out in the 1976 defence White Paper and as subsequently updated and restated by the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen). It is most unlikely that Australia could become the target of major direct attack inside the next five years. At the same time, we allude to the Sino- Vietnamese conflict and developments in Iran and, I might add, developments in Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia and here, there and everywhere, not in any alarmist way but to point out the continuing potential for sudden and unforeseeable changes.
I wish to acquaint the House with our major recommendations. Honourable members will appreciate that in a statement of this type brevity is essential, and I commend a study of the report to those who wish a full outline of the Committee’s views on the subjects I now mention. We have certain reservations concerning what is known as the ‘core force’ concept. These centre on our concern for the capacity of the Defence Force to expand rapidly enough to meet some contingencies. Our concern is sufficient to prompt us to recommend that a high-level inquiry into the expansion capability of the Defence Force be undertaken. There is a need for an interdepartmental or national approach to such an inquiry which should determine the industrial and manpower support which could be available to the force-in-being.
This Committee reported two years ago on Australian defence industry, and we have followed the matter up in the present report. We maintain our view that our defence industry base is not as good as it might be, and that we should develop it to make Australia as free as possible from dependence on foreign suppliers. We suggest that this can be achieved through the provision of stable workloads, acceptance of apparent cost disadvantages where these are not excessive, improved communication between industry and the Department of Defence and, importantly, by Government and the Department sticking to decisions previously announced.
The Committee, whilst concurring with the view that our strategic outlook is favourable, wishes to make the point that we should use this time to advantage. We consider that it would be unwise to wait for some threat to emerge before acting to enhance preparedness and further increase our self-reliance. We do not suggest in detail how this might be done, or how much money should be allocated. We recommend that Government act to determine several matters: The most effective security strategy; capabilities needed to execute that strategy; deficiencies in our present capabilities; and what is required to make good any such deficiencies. We recommend that these capabilities be introduced over a 10-year period, and wish to make the points that this will require a bipartisan approach to defence. Some form of supplemental equipment acquisition budgeting may also be required. Such funding would provide for supplemental 10-year budgeting packages to cover the development, production and entry into service of specific equipment systems. This funding would be separate from the annual defence budget. We think this an extremely important consideration. I repeat it: This funding would be separate from the annual defence budget.
The Committee received convincing evidence that there is a problem in procedures which apply to the purchase of defence equipment in Australia. We are persuaded that these procedures act as a deterrent to Australian industry and to the Department of Defence. We have recommended improvements, and suggested principles on which these might be based. We have made an exhaustive study of the Defence Department’s decision-making system. A major point arising from this study is the length of time it can take to acquire a piece of major equipment for the forces. According to standard Defence Department procedures it can take up to eight years from the issuance of a major equipment proposal, and rarely takes less than three or four. These lead times exceed likely periods of warning for some defence contingencies we may have to face. This has been accentuated over the last two or three days. The Committee has therefore recommended that, if it is not possible to reduce the contribution of decision-making to lead times, key major equipments should be acquired earlier. Our examination of the organisation of defence procurement revealed that for several reasons aspects of this function have been dispersed between various departments or agencies. The Committee considers that this dispersal can lead to inefficiencies or lack of flexibility. For this reason, we have recommended that functions related to the procurement of major military equipment now with the Department of Administrative Services be transferred to the Department of Defence.
The development of the Defence Force should be based on a deterrent posture to show that the cost of interference with Australia or her vital interests would be prohibitive and should seek to demonstrate that Australia is concerned to contribute to the security of the region. The approach used by the Defence Department to define the Defence Force requirements- the core force concept- has much to commend it in a period of financial stringency. The Committee considers, however, that there has been an overemphasis on this approach. The Committee agrees with the introduction to the 1976 White Paper on Defence which stated:
The first responsibility of government is to provide the nation with security from armed attack and from the constraints on independent national decisions imposed by the threat of such attack.
However, long lead items, high attrition rates and potential political direction of military action may dictate that future conflicts will be of relatively short duration but of very high intensity, with limited prospect of immediate resupply. Therefore, the force in being, in contrast to the core force, must be sufficient to survive the initial shock of such conflict and still establish a base of capabilities for subsequent action. If this objective is to be attained, it will require the allocation of additional financial resources to defence, particularly for the timely acquisition of new equipments. In examining the procedures, practices and constraints relevant to the selection and subsequent acquisition of specific brand names of equipment, the Committee formed the view that:
The system for procurement from Australian sources is excessively cumbersome and complex and that it poses serious problems for both the Defence Department and local industry;
The Government should direct relevant Departments and agencies to produce an improved system for local defence procurement, and that this should be a matter of high priority;
The expenditure overseas of large sums on defence equipment should in principle be supervised by Australians; and
The Department of Defence should investigate ways of reducing the contribution of departmental decision-making processes to equipment acquisition lead times, which often exceed the five year warning period spoken of before, without degrading the quality of decisions. If this is not possible, it will be necessary to acquire additional equipments well in advance- I have already stated this- of any warning period.
The evidence shows that the organisation of procurement:
Divides responsibility between too many departments and agencies, with a consequent lack of consistency and loss of fast reaction time; fails to take account of the fact, recognised in overseas reports and organisations, that procurement is a specialist activity in its own right; and so far as local procurement is concerned, is based on requirements and practices which tend to erode our defence industrial base.
Australia is separated from its overseas suppliers of defence equipment by long lines of communication. These lines of communication are vulnerable and potentially capable of interdiction although Australia’s dependence on the use of foreign shipping for the carriage of its overseas trade restricts this possibility to the context of a general threat to Western shipping. In a deteriorating world situation overseas suppliers would be likely to accord higher priority to their own needs than Australia’s. That is pretty obvious. In a conflict with a regional country, overseas suppliers may be unwilling to provide Australia with its defence requirements. For these cogent strategic reasons the Committee recommends that Australia should become increasingly self-reliant for its production of defence equipment.
It is necessary that there should be informed discussion in the electorate and the Parliament with a bipartisan approach developed in respect of defence policies and strategies, the essential requirements of the Defence Force, and the extent to which these resources should be allocated to provide these requirements. The Parliament, through its committee structure, should monitor all defence programs, and the Department of Defence should be encouraged to make a positive and continuing contribution to the informed nature of the debate by its active participation in and promotion of public seminars and by its briefing of the Parliament on defence issues. In this regard the Committee notes several innovations in recent months where this has been done. They are all to the good.
In determining priorities for development of the Defence Force consideration should be given to the following elements:
Those capabilities that are required to provide a military response to the lesser contingencies which could arise with little or no warning; those high performance capabilities relating to a general strategic requirement as dictated by the characteristics of the environment rather than by specific contingencies and required to provide deterrence against the use of military pressures or military means by a potential enemy to achieve its objectives and which could not be acquired within the period of warning likely to be available before a major threat to Australia could develop; and a representative selection of second tier or substitute capabilities- moderate cost, moderate performance, short lead time systems, that could be acquired in relatively large numbers during a period of developing threat- to enable the development of operating techniques, procedures and doctrines in a short period of crisis.
I pay tribute to members of the Committee. Each member of the Sub-Committee was completely objective in his approach to our responsibilities and I commend each member for his continued interest and the serious manner in which we examined and evaluated the evidence and finally formulated the recommendations.
I wish to thank Malcolm Hills for his intense dedication to his work and to express the regrets of the Sub-Committee that continued illness has deprived the Committee of his services.
Robert King has done a splendid job under extreme difficulties. When Mr Hills was not available Mr King was there to take over and the Sub-Committee is grateful to him.
Our two consultants, Commodore Ken Gray and Gary Brown justified the reputation they both have for their knowledge and understanding of the defence scene. The vast and valuable experience of Ken Gray and the observations and monitoring of defence activities here and abroad by Gary combined to provide most valuable assistance to the Sub-Committee.
Finally the Sub-Committee is immensely grateful to all who were prepared to appear before it and assist with their submissions.
The Minister for Defence, the Honourable Jim Killen, and the Minister assisting him, the Honourable John McLeay, never hesitated to make every possible facility available to the SubCommittee to assist our inquiries as a result of Minister Killen ‘s co-operation Defence Department witnesses of the highest possible calibre appeared as witnesses before the Sub-Committee.
Having said this, I must point out that, as this House is well aware, the inquiry which has produced this report has on occasions been controversial. On one or two occasions the controversy has reached this House.
I have to inform the House that the Subcommittee expresses concern about remarks made in the House on 26 October 1978 by the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence and on 8 March 1979 by the Minister for Defence.
We consider that the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence over-reacted to criticism which had been levelled at the Department of Defence by witnesses who appeared before the subcommittee at public hearings and which in some cases had received Press publicity. The subcommittee considers that, to a lesser degree, the Minister for Defence also over-reacted to such criticisms.
At the time of the criticisms levelled at the subcommittee, evidence favourable to and critical of the Department had been presented and further evidence was still to come. All this evidence had yet to be evaluated by the sub-committee and, accordingly, any criticisms of the sub-committee for its handling of the evidence were premature and ill founded. The sub-committee emphasises that the inquiry was carried out in accordance with the established procedures of the committee system of the Parliament and its Standing Orders. We therefore reject the criticisms that were levelled at the sub-committee, though we appreciate that the Ministers were understandably sensitive to some of the Press coverage of evidence given at public sessions of the sub-committee.
We are pleased to note that, as further evidence was received and evaluated, far better understanding obtained between the Minister for Defence and the Department of Defence on the one hand and the sub-committee on the other. As a matter of fact, it built up to a crescendo. People from the Defence Department of the very highest calibre, appeared before the Committee by authorisation of the Minister, including Sir Arthur Tange and Sir Anthony Synnot.
I have also to inform the House that certain allegations have been made regarding the alleged intimidation of some witnesses before the subcommittee. These allegations are under examination. The Minister for Defence responded in detail in this House in November 1978 to the previous report of the Committee on defence industry. This mark of attention by the Government was most welcome.
I commend this report to the House, and consider it essential that the report be debated after honourable members have had time to consider it. In that regard, I appeal to the Leader of the House (Mr Viner) to put on the program of business very early in the next sitting a debate on this report. I look forward to comment by the Minister for Defence in debate in this House after he has had opportunity to consider the matters raised in the report.
– I am aware that a number of honourable members on both sides of the House would like the opportunity to debate this report at some later time. I therefore seek leave to move a motion that the House take note of the report.
Leave granted.
-I move:
-This report covers one of the important areas of government responsibility, especially in the area of defence. It has come before this Parliament not without considerable difficulties and some traumas. Firstly, this sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence is seriously understaffed in view of the type of task it is required to carry out and the level and quality of reports it should be expected to produce on behalf of the Parliament. The people who have worked for the sub-committee have done more than should be required of such persons on behalf of the Parliament. Certainly the Parliament should examine seriously at some stage whether it wants such reports and, if it does as I indicated on another occasion when speaking on another report, it has to accept the responsibility of providing the necessary resources and finance. It is unfortunate that this House has decided that a separate committee on defence is not warranted, as I consider this subject is of sufficient importance to warrant such a committee.
The last two major reports of this subcommitteethe first on Australian defence industry and this one on Australian defence procurement- have examined two of the most difficult and important areas of government responsibility both nationally and internationally. The sums of money involved in procurement, the difficulties faced by the Parliament, which appropriates the sums of money included and the methods by which procurement becomes the private operation of a few individuals are subjects which should consistently and continually be examined by this House. During the period covered by this report a number of shortcomings, if not deficiencies, within the procurement system were exposed. Some of the deficiencies were minor, some were major. One thing which is highlighted is that one or two individuals in the employment of the Government have suffered very materially because they gave evidence honestly to the Committee about faults in the system- whether accurate or otherwise- which they believed to be correct. I think they have been treated very badly by the Department concerned and by the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen), who is responsible for that Department. He took the opportunity on one occasion in this House to make remarks about witnesses which were not warranted in any other way than as political justification.
If there is to be an honest examination of procedures, if the procurement of defence equipment in Australia is to proceed on a basis which is above any form of criticism and which is to the advantage not only of the Australian Defence Force but also of the Australian nation, continuing examination of procedures and of the results and decision-making processes is necessary by this Parliament. This report marks the commencement of the examination of a problem. The report really should be repeated in the next Parliament by a full committee of this House, with adequate staffing and facilities, to see whether some of the problems raised during the hearing have been dealt with. If they have not, the failure to deal with them should be highlighted in every possible way.
May I mention one or two practices that are a problem. Overseas tenderers for Australian equipment in many instances have substantial commercial advantages over Australian-based firms. Firstly, they are able to negotiate on the basis of estimate prices and not the actual price. Quite often they have the advantage of commercial assistance for their operations at government level which is not available to Australian firms. They are subject to different contractual arrangements which are beneficial to the overseas firms. In many cases, the actual specifications for the goods required are written in a form which denies more than one company the opportunity to tender. There was one instance in evidence where for five years an Australian firm had been seeking an alteration to the specifications for the provision of goods which are costing this Government $150,000 a year more than they would cost to buy from the Australian firm, but the Australian firm cannot tender. There are also cases of brand name tenders, which makes a farce to the tender system.
I would like to say much more, but I will refer to only one thing which I think the chairman of the sub-committee did not mention. I will conclude on this note. I thank not only those people who worked on the sub-committee but also the Parliamentary Librarian for making arrangements for Gary Brown to be made available to the sub-committee. Without him we would have been in grave difficulties because of the total lack of staff available. Two officers are not enough for such a job, and anyone who suggests that it is sufficient is a fool. I also thank the chairman for the manner in which he conducted the inquiry. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
page 3414
– I table a copy of the statement by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) on the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training. I intended to table that report when I made a statement earlier today on transition policies.
page 3414
– I move:
That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 19 February next, at 2.15 p.m., unless Mr Speaker shall fix an alternative day or hour of meeting or, in the incapacity or absence from Australia of Mr Speaker, the Chairman of Committees may fix an alternative day or hour, such alternative day or hour of meeting to be notified by telegram or letter addressed to each member of the House.
In speaking to that motion, I take the opportunity to make a few remarks at the close of this session and at the close of this year. I have been Leader of the House for only a short time. I would like to express my thanks to all those people who have so strongly supported me in this new role. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the help and assistance which you have given me and for the help and assistance which you have given the whole House in the manner in which you have conducted the proceedings of this House during these Budget sittings. As you know, Mr Speaker, you and I are both barristers. In that respect, some may think that we have earned the title learned in the law’. Others may not agree, of course. When it comes to the application of the Standing Orders, you have had occasion to point out to me the error of some of my ways in this chamber. I have been thankful for the coaching that you have given me in doing that. I hope that with continued coaching I might be able m time to learn the art of the Leader of the House. You Mr Speaker, have conducted the proceedings of this House with decorum, dignity and appropriate firmness, where that has been required. I think all members of the House appreciate the way in which you have done that.
I would like to thank the Chairman of Committees and the Deputy Speakers for the way in which they have handled their side of the business of the House. There have been some lengthy debates in Committee as well as at the second reading stage of Bills. The Chairman of Committees and each of the Deputy Speakers have handled that responsibility well and capably. I would like to thank the Clerks at the Table for the way in which they have helped me in my role as Leader of the House. I thank the staff in the Table Office and the other offices of the Parliament. I also thank the Clerks and the other staff and officers on behalf of all members of the House. Theirs is a very important role. The role of the Clerk is to advise you, Mr Speaker, the Chairman of Committees and the Deputy Speakers. If the Clerk, his officers and the other staff in this area do not operate efficiently, sensibly and wisely, then of course the affairs of this House will stumble.
I wish to make particular mention of my colleague, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), who is the former Leader of the House. I can speak very plainly on behalf of all of us on this side of the House. We were very sorry to see the way in which the honourable gentleman was treated and the circumstances in which he felt, in the highest sense of duty as a Minister and as a member of parliament, obliged to resign his ministry and his position as Leader of the House. I think we would all say that as we look at 1980 we would certainly hope that the right honourable member for New England will obtain a clear acquittal of the charges levelled against him and that he will come back to this House next year with a completely clean bill of health. We look forward to working very closely with him in the future.
I wish to express my thanks to my colleague and close friend, the Government Whip. He and I were both elected to this House in 1972. We both won seats from the Labor Party in an election when the Liberal and Country parties lost government. I thank also the Deputy Whip for his assistance to me. I thank the Opposition Whip and the Deputy Opposition Whip for the way in which they have co-operated with us within the vicissitudes of parliament and the requirements of their own party. I thank also my counterpart, the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) for the way in which we have been able to co-operate, again within the interests of and responsibilities for our own parties, to keep the business of the House running smoothly. I have appreciated since becoming Leader of the House, that the Parliamentary Liaison Officer occupies a vital role in the machinery of government. For two and a half years to the end of the last autumn sittings Roger Webb was the Parliamentary Liaison Officer to the former Leader of the House. He has now returned to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. In his place, John Fox has performed the function of Parliamentary Liaison Officer extremely well, extremely ably and with an assiduousness that ought to be commended. He has occupied that position from the commencement of the Budget sittings.
The Hansard staff, as we would judge from some of the proceedings in recent days, has a very difficult task- but nevertheless, as we know, a very important task- in reporting faithfully what has been said in this House for the Hansard record. I thank the Principal Parliamentary Reporter and his staff. Always there is the Public Service, more often than not, in anonymity behind all those of whom I have spoken up to now. I wish to thank all of those members of the Public Service who work in support of the operations of this Parliament for the way in which they have carried out their functions. I also thank the staff of the Parliament who help us in this House.
During the session there have been a number of parliamentary reforms. I will mention them only briefly. The Estimates committees were introduced for the first time. They were conducted as an experiment. I am sure that during the recess honourable members will seriously examine the operation of those Estimates committees, as will the Government. Legislation committees came into operation in the autumn sittings. Although they have not been used in the Budget sittings, I expect that they will be used in the next autumn sittings. You, Mr Speaker, have circulated a paper on the Estimates committees. Also, the Clerk has circulated a paper on the parliamentary committee system. The report of the Standing Orders Committee which suggests changes to the way in which petitions and claims of privilege are handled is before the House. I expect that during the recess honourable members will consider those papers and reports.
Mr Speaker, we are about to leave the decade of the 1970s and enter the decade of the 1980s. I am sure that my colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister ( Mr Anthony) will say to the House that the Government certainly faces the 1980s with confidence. We are very happy with the way in which the Government has operated during this year. We are also very happy with the way in which the House has been able to operate with the help and assistance of you and of the other officers whom I have mentioned. I wish to you, Sir, and to all those other officers and staff, the compliments of the season and a happy and healthy New Year. As always, we need that health so that we can carry on our work.
-Mr Speaker, as we prepare to leave this House to spend some time in our electorates and with our families and friends for the Christmas season I wish to convey to all members my very best wishes. I hope that they have a very good break and will return refreshed in the New Year.
It is not inappropriate to note that as we prepare to leave the House we cannot help looking around the world and seeing a great deal of concern. There is certainly no reason for any calmness or complacency. At the moment there are very real tensions, particularly in the Islamic world. There are tensions between nations that must be of great concern to all of us. Many lives are endangered. There are enormous difficulties in Asia. There are continuing problems in Africa. I know that all members will join with me in expressing concern at the serious wounding of an Australian journalist, Mr Tony Joyce, in an accident in Zambia yesterday. As we prepare for the Christmas season, the season of goodwill, we must all fervently hope that reason and sense will prevail, that tensions will ease, that men and women of goodwill will be able to comprehend the dangers in the present situation and that compromise and solutions will be found to their many problems.
Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) cannot be with us today, as you know, but I think I could express on behalf of all his colleagues- indeed, everybody in this chamber their wishes to him for a quick and speedy recovery. It is bad enough being sick at any time, but for a person in a high public position, carrying enormous responsibilities, it is very difficult to be able to free oneself from those responsibilities, free oneself to the extent that is necessary for convalescence when one has been damaged by illness. I know that he would like me to thank all of those people who have served the Parliament so efficiently and with so much dedication this year. Firstly, I would like to thank you, Mr Speaker, for the excellent job that you have done as Speaker of this Parliament. You distinguished yourself by the very dignified way in which you hold that great office. You have had a very busy year. I know sometimes it has been somewhat turbulent, but with your unfailing good humour you have always been able to bring the House back to its senses. You have been ably backed up by the Chairman of Committees, the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) who on a number of occasions has had to sit in for you and has done an admirable job. He too has been supported by the Temporary Chairmen who have done an excellent job with the workings of this chamber.
I would like to put on record appreciation of the work of the Clerk of the House and his officers. They provide great assistance and indeed very wise advice. Anybody from outside who might think that there are some apparent and obvious deficiencies in this Parliament must recognise that the situation would be absolutely impossible without the assistance of the Clerk and his officers. I would like to thank the staff of the Table Office for their assistance to us all. To the Parliamentary Liaison Officer, John Fox, who took over from Roger Webb during the sittings, I express my thanks for his work in making the House function so smoothly. But there are many, many people who help in the workings of Parliament and we owe them thanks. The Librarian Mr Weir, and his staff; Hansard, led by Mr Kerr; the Joint House Department, under its Secretary Mr Donnelly; the First Parliamentary Counsel, Mr Quayle and his staff; the attendants; dining room staff; transport officers; and all of those people who make life possible in this place. I would also like to mention those silent members in the Australian Broadcasting Commission box who spread the activities of this Parliament right across the nation and whom we so often tend to overlook.
I would like to thank especially the members of the Public Service who not only serve Ministers but all members as well. I believe that in this country we have a Public Service that we can be extremely proud of, a band of dedicated, efficient, skilled people who serve their nation and, in many cases, they serve with real distinction. To my ministerial colleagues who carry so many burdens of office- far greater burdens than most people realise and I think that one has to experience being a Minister to realise the extent of responsibility they carry- I offer my thanks and the thanks of the Prime Minister for their loyalty, their support and their co-operation, and indeed their hard work. I am proud of being part of a ministerial team, part of the Government team, and I know that all my ministerial colleagues are, too. To all my party colleagues in the Liberal Party and the National Country Party I offer my thinks for their support, co-operation and for their work in the Parliament, in the committees and in many other ways. Appreciation also goes to the Whips of both the Liberal Party and my own party for keeping us in an orderly state. To the Leader of the Opposition (Mr
Hayden) and to all of his colleagues, may I express my thanks for their contribution to the work of Parliament and my good wishes for the Christmas period and the year ahead.
Mr Speaker, I believe that the great majority of Australians can look forward to 1980 with a great deal more optimism and confidence than they have been able to contemplate for any year for some time. The world faces many difficulties, political problems, economic problems, the threat of conflict and the realities of human misery on a very large scale. Australia, despite its own problems, is indeed a fortunate country. Australians are fortunate people and I only hope that their goodwill will be accompanied by a sense of responsibility. We do have a responsibility to the rest of the world, a responsibility we can exercise in many ways by providing the world with food and fibre, providing the world with energy and raw materials, and by responding in a humanitarian way to the plight of the world’s poor and hungry people, to the world’s refugees, especially at the moment in places like Indo-China, and to the people of Timor. These are some of the matters we need to think of at this time of the year. Indeed, we should think of them at all times.
To you, Mr Speaker, and to all honourable members, I express the hope that you have a very restful and enjoyable Christmas and holiday break and that you all return next year ready to cope with the demands, challenges and responsibilities of another year of public duty.
– I join with the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) in conveying seasonal greetings to the many people whose work ensures that the parliamentary institution functions and, I believe, functions well. Of course, like him, I convey seasonal greetings to those very important people, the people of Australia. As he pointed out, 1979 has been a difficult year for many Australians and I would hope that 1 980 brings about the sorts of developments for which government can contribute very largely that will allow prosperity, too long escaped, to be recaptured for the benefit of the Australian community. There is literally a multitude of people working in this establishment and in other places nearby in association with this establishment who ensure that the parliamentary system does work. Their efforts, meshed together in a smooth, synchronised way, bring about a marked efficiency and impact on what we are doing. Too often they are unnoticed and most often unsung in the efforts that they contribute. An occasion like this, once a year, does at least allow us to recall the value of their efforts and how dependent we are upon them. I do not think it puts the issue too high to say that in many respects we are carried on their backs: I use that as a figure of speech. They are the spear carriers who do so much of the hard work that is not noted and certainly not celebrated but which allows us to get on with the very important task of government, of Opposition, of fulfilling our parliamentary functions.
I would not try to enumerate the various people, the various bodies which sustain this system in which we all work, but there are some people I do feel about whom I have to make some observation because their work is so proximate to where we are; the people in Hansard who assiduously record what we are saying and report us, thank God, not literally, but well; the Clerks of the House who sit there inscrutably, diligently recording the processes of the House, men of long memory but fortunately silent tongue. Mr Speaker, I have said some unkind things about you from time to time. I shall not take the opportunity to recall them. I am sure if you think it worth remembering them you will do so without any assistance from me. They are said- often in the passion of debate- most often because we feel at that time that they are justified. But on that point, if I can just dally a second, it is sometimes observed that there is some noise- more uncouth people might say a little disorder- in this parliamentary institution and people are a little aghast that it should happen.
However, I would suggest that it is a very important safety valve for the functioning of our system that people are able to generate that passion because they genuinely feel about an issue, and then allow it a healthy release in debate in this House. In other places they resort to the street; they resort to violence; and they resort to arms. Here we resort to words, sometimes elegantly, quite often I suspect somewhat brutally; nonetheless, it is part of the healthy processes of the institution.
Having said that, I had better say also, as I can almost see you blushing now, Mr Speaker- and might I add that the mild pink that is showing up contrasts well with the great white wig that you wear, and say also, for the benefit of my colleagues, that that is the only area where you become pink in politics- that you, Mr Speaker, have striven to contribute some dignity to the proceedings of the House. Generally, I would applaud what you are trying to do. I would not want my comments to be interpreted too widely.
There are some points that I would like to discuss, if not debate with you, in relation to the broader parliamentary reform. But can I say for the record: Thank goodness that someone is thinking about parliamentary reform. We desperately need to think about it in many other areas. I seem to recall that I said last year- but whether or not I did is not important and I say it for the record on this occasion- that there are many procedures that we follow in this House which are more relevant to a bygone age which represents a gap of a century or more between us and the things that were then appropriate. For instance, I do not believe that Question Time is any challenge for a reasonably intellectually agile Minister. I say that not in any sense of personal criticism of present Ministers to the exclusion of past Ministers. I speak from my own experience as a Minister. It is not a real test and it boils down to our trying to determine what we want to do in the parliamentary institution.
After having expressed some reservations initially, I believe that the move towards the estimate committee system seems to offer some opportunities for honourable members to make more constructive and concrete contributions to what the parliamentary system is about. I have said for many years in this institution- not regularly, but when the time has seemed appropriate- that we desperately need a more effective committee system functioning here. There is nothing more frustrating for a member of this Parliament than to sit on the back benches and to find that the greatest moment of glory, after extensive and diligent research- which can sometimes absorb days in the preparation of a speech- can be lost because he can be ruled out completely from speaking because of the compressed speaking time available; or after having delivered a very important and thoughtful speech which has more than just some significance to the affairs of state, finding that the best reward he can expect is a by-line or a few lines in a newspaper.
I have quoted often the experience that I had on a joint committee of inquiry into pharmaceutical benefits many years ago. I then discovered the enormous advantages of sitting away from this chamber which, by the predisposition of a debating chamber, tends to lock people into fixed positions very much like trench warfare in the First World War- many fusillades heavy bombardment, but not so much progress one side or the other in terms of moving backwards or forwards from the trenches. That committee allowed a break-up to take place, not so much on a bipartisan basis, but because the more progressive people in the conservative coalition were able to support people like myself, when we put forward constructive views, and, as more conservative people in the coalition found an odd ally from our side. In the less dramatic and less contrived situation where reflection and hard work are important it seems to me that the Committee system, developed much more extensively, has a great deal to offer our parliamentary institution and the nation. Our parliamentary institution was developed in a much earlier time. We live in a much more complex and technologically demanding age than when the parliamentary institution was at its peak. It is impossible for us properly to attend, in all of the detail which we should apply ourselves to our task, to the many things that come into this Parliament.
I am going off in a different direction and I suspect that I am starting to challenge you, Mr Speaker, as the sort of parliamentary reformer of the moment. I know better than to do that, having had enough trouble with you this year. You might be unkind enough to say that you have had more than enough trouble with me. I merely want to say that I regard this as a very important institution, and one which is capable of a great deal of improvement. Mr Speaker, I congratulate you on what you are trying to do. The fact is that you are opening debate.
There are so many other people here whom I have not been able to mention. I think of the attendants in the House who are ever cheerful, diligent and helpful. The attendants outside the House, the people in the Papers Office, the people in the Library, the people who look after the amenities in the various parts of the Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms and so on. We just could not function without them. We are extremely grateful to them. But, most of all, when we stand here on this occasion we are most grateful to the people of Australia. To all those people, the people who keep us going, the people of this great country, we convey seasonal greetings.
-I thank honourable gentlemen for comments they have made which join in the spirit of goodwill to us all and to those who serve us. This is the 24th valedictory debate that I have heard. I find that they have been improving. They used to be called hypocrisies but today I heard nothing hypocritical and that means that they have improved a great deal. We come here elected by the people of Australia.
The sovereignty of the people of Australia belongs to each and every one of them. They cannot exercise it individually and, therefore, they must have a system of entrusting the sovereignty to others; and that is the democratic parliamentary system in which we are elected, by a group of people in Australia, to come here and speak for them and represent them. We must speak fearlessly, without favour or hope for favour.
In this Parliament the truth must be spoken, the truth must be demanded, for only in that way will we fully discharge our obligation to the people of Australia. That is why I am so keen about parliamentary reform. In that way, we can ensure that what we do today fully answers the requirements of the people of Australia, so that every individual member of the Parliament can contribute to the fullest extent of his intellectual capacity, his experience, and the passion with which he holds views. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned something upon which I wish to comment, that is, that I often receive letters from people who complain about the behaviour of the House because of its noise. Often there is good reason for it, but more often there is not good reason for it because nobody comes here by invitation. Everybody who is here came here by his own effort and by his own capacity to persuade people that he can properly represent them and, therefore, when issues arise which they hold passionately they will certainly express their views passionately and strongly; and that is to be expected. There are some ‘parliaments of the world ‘ which are perfectly behaved, but they are not parliaments which in any way hold the sovereignty of the people. They are parliaments which are controlled by non-elected people. For that reason, we must take our parliamentary institution with all its faults, but ever attempt to make it a better place in which to discharge our duties.
It has been a significant year for parliamentary reform because, for the first time, we have adopted Estimates committees. Last year was a great year because, for the first time, we adopted legislation committees. I have already circulated a paper which indicated how much more time was available to the Parliament as a result of the Estimates committees. I also make the point that, whilst this is a theatre of political debate and political point scoring, when members of this Parliament are in committee it is remarkable how they can agree with each other and give unanimous recommendations which are in everybody’s interests. The year 1978 was legislation committees; the year 1979 was Estimates committees; and I very strongly hope that 1980 will be the year of the adoption of the Westminster convention of the independent Speaker.
I also thank the Chairman of Committees, my deputy, the honourable member for Wide Bay, Mr Clarrie Millar, who is a most reliable deputy and who is well respected by the House. I thank his Deputy Chairmen-Mr Armitage, Mr Dobie, Mr Drummond, Mr Giles, Mr Jarman, Dr Jenkins, Mr Martin and Mr Ian Robinson. I thank the Clerks. The Clerk of the House is called ‘the little pet’ in my office. I think it is a contraction of his name. It has nothing to do with his character because he used to fly multi-engine aeroplanes over the Atlantic during the war. I also thank his staff. I thank Hansard. There is the story about the man who said: ‘I want to be reported as I am ‘. Twenty minutes later he got the report back and it contained a single sentence. He changed his mind and he wanted to be reported as the Hansard staff edit us. I thank them for that.
I thank the Library staff. I see Mr Weir the Librarian sitting in the chamber. The Library is no longer a library in the way we understand it. It is an intellectual resource that services all back bench members of the Parliament and especially the front bench of the Opposition. Mr Weir, I regret to inform the House but not with any melancholy tone to my voice, needs to have an operation on his eye next week. He has put off that operation so that he could service us. I know he has been under very considerable personal strain as a result and I take this opportunity, on behalf of the House, to assure him of our good wishes for a successful operation.
I thank the Joint House people who look after us extremely well- the girls in the dining room, the men and girls in the kitchen and the men in the bar, although I think there are some ladies there too. Of course, few of us would know about that latter part but all of us know about the eating part. We thank them and we thank the attendants, the people who maintain order here when we are unable to do so. The attendants stand ready to back up the Serjeant-at-arms if ever he has to eject somebody from the chamber. I express my thanks to my own personal staff also. They are deserving of tremendous praise from me. Having been kind to people here I leave the chamber often and am unkind to my staff. I would like them all to accept the fact that on occasions I have to make a little protest to somebody and they, unfortunately, have to hear it. I might say that as a result of the efforts of the members here this morning, when I returned to my office after leaving the chair, I was a little bad tempered, and I hope my staff will excuse me for that.
Finally, I ask all honourable members to continue the practice that they have adopted this year, and that is of spending the first half hour of their waking day thinking about how they can be kind to the Speaker. If they continue with that practice we will have a very good year in 1980.I wish everybody the best for Christmas and the New Year.
– I realise that the time is late. I thought you would adjourn the House at six o’clock, Mr Speaker. I do not want to delay the House. First of all, I wanted to make a speech today during the Grievance Debate or at some other time but for some reason or another it always seems to be very difficult for back bench members to make speeches. That is a protest that should be expressed a little more often. The time is late, so I am not going to make a speech. I want to thank those officers and staff of the Parliament who have been so kind to me. The honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) and I have been members of this House for 21 years today. It was on 22 November 1958 that we were first elected to Parliament. During that time my service, at least- I am not speaking for Charlie- has been controversial from time to time both inside and outside the House. However, I have received nothing but courtesy from the officers and staff of this Parliament.
I thank also the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) for mentioning particularly those people in Indo-China and the people of East Timor. We in Australia are in a more fortunate country than those people. We are certainly not going through the trials and tribulations that those people are suffering in this time of goodwill to all men. This Parliament has to look at the farreaching policies of the 1980s to overcome what we call the curse of unemployment which exists in this country and which affects so many unfortunate people in our community.
Today I wanted to talk about the report of the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council which clearly stated that there is no solution to the problems of nuclear waste. However, I will put my comments on record in a Press statement. I thank the House for its patience. I again thank the officers and staff of the Parliament for being so kind to me during the last 2 1 years.
Mr VINER (Stirling-Leader of the House)With your indulgence, Mr Speaker: I omitted to thank one person and I might do that now. I want to thank my friend and colleague, the Deputy Leader of the House, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife). I thank him warmly for the assistance he has given me since I have been Leader of the House.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 3420
Motion (by Mr Viner) agreed to:
That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.
House adjourned at 6.13 p.m. until Tuesday, 19 February next, at 2.15 p.m., unless Mr Speaker shall fix an alternative day or hour of meeting or, in the incapacity or absence from Australia of Mr Speaker, the Chairman of Committees may fix an alternative day or hour, such alternative day or hour of meeting to be notified by telegram or letter addressed to each Member of the House.
page 3421
The following answers to questions were circulated:
asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 18 October 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
1974-75-213; 1975-76-150; 1976-77-121; 1977-78-137; 1978-79-125.
Those who satisfactorily completed their apprenticeships and who opted to remain with the Department have been retained in employment; however apprentices are not guaranteed employment on completion of their apprenticeship.
Department of Housing and Construction:
Australian Housing and Research Council: funded equally by the Commonwealth and States to a total of $200,000 for each of 1 978-79 and 1 979-80, from which total:
It should be noted that other Commonwealth bodies and agencies outside the portfolio of Housing and Construction (e.g. CSIRO and the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council) are also involved in the field of energy research and development
Investigations into the application and economies of solar powered building cooling systems and assistance to the Standards Association of Australia with evaluation and test methods for solar hot water heaters.
Assistance to sponsors with the better formulation of their design briefs and building management practices to achieve better use of money and energy.
Australian Housing Research Council:
Investigation of thermal performance of dwellings.
(5)-
On 1 July 1978, 59 engineers, 7 architects, 1 quantity surveyor, 3 trainees and cadets and 83 draftsmen and technical officers transferred to the Northern Territory Public Service.
On 31 August 1979, 4 engineers, 1 architect and 4 draftsmen and technical officers transferred to the Northern Territory Public Service.
On 1 January 1979, 9 engineers, 5 architects, 4 quantity surveyors, 1 1 draftsmen and technical officers and 4 trainees and cadets transferred to the Northern Territory Public Service.
In total during the 1978-79 financial year 72 engineers, 13 architects, 5 quantity surveyors, 98 draftsmen and technical officers and 7 trainees and cadets were transferred to the Northern Territory Public Service.
In addition, 4 engineers, 4 architects, 1 quantity surveyor, 14 draftsmen and technical officers and 3 trainees and cadets transferred on 1 July 1979.
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 23 October 1 979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The recovery rates achieved by the sectors of the aviation industry are available in respect of 1974-75 to 1977-78 inclusive only. Further, the information for the two years 1974-75 and 1975-76 is based on preliminary financial results for those years.
The recovery rates given in answer to pan (1) of the honourable member’s question, are based on air navigation charges revenue only. When considering the level of cost recovery in the air transport industry, it is the practice to bring to account other attributable revenues such as customs duty and excise paid on aviation fuels, rents, concessionaires’ licence fees etc. These revenues represent about 54 per cent and 48 per cent of the total attributable revenue in 1974-75 and 1977-78 respectively and have been taken into account in answering pan (2 ) of the question.
Overseas charter operations are not taken out separately and are included in the Other General Aviation Sector.
asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 23 October 1979:
1 ) Further to his answer to Question No. 4377 (Hansard, 9 October 1979, page 1801) in which he indicated that he was unable to say what was the annual per capita consumption of tobacco in Australia, is he able to say:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
No complete record is maintained of unused leaf which does not come forward for manufacture.
The suggested computation using the above figures will not accurately reflect the per capita consumption of tobacco products in Australia as, amongst other things, it does not take into account:
) the difference between the weight of unmanufactured tobacco leaf and the weight of the manufactured product.
No official Australian agency publishes regular figures on the age distribution of smokers.
The following information may prove useful to the honourable member
Fishing Agreement with Japan (Question No. 4977)
Dr Everingham Asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 23 October 1979:
Did the fishing agreement with Japan signed in October 1979 involve fishing grounds in which Torres Strait Islanders have an interest.
Does the border agreement with Papua New Guinea guarantee Torres Strait Islanders prior consultation before disposal of their traditional resources.
What consultations have occurred or will occur and what compensation or share in the Government revenue involved has been requested by, or offered to, Torres Strait Islanders.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 24 October 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (l)Yes. (2)I have been advised that the company concerned decided to defer a share issue pending clarification of certain doubts as to the scope of the proposed onshore rebate scheme.
The report does, however, misrepresent the operation of the offshore rebate scheme under section160ACA of the Income Tax Assessment Act, where it suggests that only companies that hold current licences or permits issued under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act may lodge declarations for the purpose of conferring rebate entitlements for capital subscribed by their shareholders. In fact the law also permits companies holding a registered interest in such licences or permits to make declarations for that purpose.
Thus companies that have entered into agreements to acquire an interest by way of a farm-in arrangement can lodge valid declarations provided the farm-in agreement has been approved and appropriately registered by the Designated Authority appointed under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act.
The announced extension of the offshore rebate scheme to companies carrying on petroleum exploration and development operations onshore is to apply in the same way. Companies holding current onshore petroleum exploration or mining licences, permits, leases, rights or interests therein are issued and registered under State mining laws will be able to take advantage of the concession. Where the State law does not provide for registration of transfers of interests such as farm-in agreements a pre-requisite to a company’s eligibility to participate in the onshore rebate scheme will be that the appropriate State Minister or his delegate has formally approved the transfer or farm-in agreement in writing.
Legislation to extend the offshore rebate scheme to onshore petroleum exploration and development will be introduced as soon as it is practicable to do so within the context of the Government’s heavy legislative program on taxation matters.
asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 October 1979:
Are premiums paid to life insurance companies, for hospital insurance policies, a tax deduction as claimed on page 1 of the ‘Voluntary Health Insurance Association of Australia Bulletin of October 1979.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
No. Such premiums are not allowable deductions. Nor do they qualify as expenditure in respect of which concessional rebates may be allowed.
asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 7 November 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Nabarlek: Alpha-radiation (Question No. 5043)
asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 7 November 1 979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The ARL maintained a continuous measurement program throughout the active mining phase at Nabarlek, during which radon daughter levels in the pit were regularly recorded. During the daylight hours they were observed to be quite negligible, and even at night time turned out to be lower than expected. Prior to August 1979 there were very few occurrences of temperature inversions, and no significant levels were observed until then. For the month of August, which happened to be the time when the highest grade of ore was removed from the pit, the maximum recorded level was 0.27 working level observed over a 10 minute interval just before sunrise. Such sharp and shortlived peaks in radon daughter concentration were not uncommon during this period. The mean level for night times during August and September was 0.02S + 0.004 WL, and essentially zero for the day shifts. In general, ARL estimates agree reasonably with the independent measurements made by the mining company.
Estimated mean exposure from 1 August 1979 to the close of mining on 1 1 October 1979 is 0.06 working level months (WLM) which compares well with the company’s estimate of 0.05 WLM. This should be compared with the maximum exposure permitted under the Code of Practice on Radiation Protection in the Mining and Milling of Radioactive Ores ( 1 975 ) of 4 WLM in a full year.
asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 7 November 1979:
Has his attention been drawn to allegations of a Queensland grazier, Mr Stan Kelly, that representatives of the Iwasaki Sangyo Co. endeavoured to acquire freehold land adjacent to the Iwasaki franchise.
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Institute of Cultural Affairs: Model Project at Murrin Bridge (Question No. 5055)
asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 8 November 1 979:
What Aboriginal monitoring and appraisal will be provided by the Institute of Cultural Affairs and/or by governments in the Institute ‘s model project at Murrin Bridge.
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
I have approved a Community Health Program grant to the Institute in respect of its Murrin Bridge project. This grant is in respect of salaries and associated costs for two community health development staff to provide the Murrin Bridge Aboriginal community with community health development services covering matters such as hygiene, sanitation and nutrition, and including personal and community health promotion.
My approval is subject to a special condition that the project organisers and staff shall closely co-operate with New South Wales health and welfare authorities and officers in relation to the operation of this project. The Institute has also been advised that, if the project is approved for continued funding next financial year, it should be expected that this will be subject to an additional special condition to the effect that the project shall be subject to joint Commonwealth/ State appraisal; it is implicit in this that the community will be consulted.
No appointments have yet been made to the two positions approved for Community Health Program funding.
asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 13 November 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
It will be appreciated that publishing information of the nature sought, relating as it does to Medibank Private procedures and practices, might be to the commercial disadvantage of the fund. Therefore I have asked the General Manager of the Health Insurance Commission to provide the information direct to the honourable member on a confidential basis.
asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 15 August 1978:
Will he give the Parliament a copy of the submission proposing the recent 1 1 per cent increase in postal charges.
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
There were several submissions to me from the Australian Postal Commission dealing with the July 1978 increases in postal charges which were of a deliberative, policy formulation nature. In order to preserve the confidentiality of advice between me as Minister and my Department and the authorities for which I am responsible, I do not believe that these submissions should be made public. -> I can say, however, that the public statement of 1 June 1978 by the Acting Chairman of the Australian Postal Commission outlined the main impact on the finances of Australia Post of the increase in postal rates which operated from 1 July 1978. More detailed reasons for the increases are given in the Commission’s ‘Service and Business Outlook for 1978-79’ and the Annual Report of the Australian Postal Commission for the year ended 30 June 1978 which have been tabled in Parliament.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 28 May 1979:
-The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 7 June 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 7 June 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
I refer the honourable member to the Minister for National Development’s reply to Question No. 4328 (Hansard, 6 November 1979, page 2657).
Broadcasting and Television Services in Central Queensland (Question No. 4352)
asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 2 1 August 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
1 ) Commitments made by the Government include:
A licence for a commercial broadcasting station to serve the Emerald area of Queensland, was granted to Emerald Broadcasting Company Pty Ltd on 22 December 1977. Licences for Broadcasting Translator stations to serve the Dysart and Moranbah areas of Queensland were also granted to Emerald Broadcasting Company Pty Ltd on 22 December 1977.
Following legal action initiated by Barrier Reef Broadcasting Pty Ltd, licensee of commercial broadcasting station 4MK Mackay, the translator licences were subsequently held by the High Court of Australia to be null and void.
Mr F. T. Moore, Managing Director of Emerald Broadcasting Company Pty Ltd has indicated that his Company will not proceed with the Emerald station until the position in respect of the translator licences is clarified.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 2 1 August 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
However the demands which businesses make on the banks for loan funds depend on a number of factors besides the size of their wage payments and there is no basis, either in theory or practice, for expecting a particular sector’s share of trading bank finance to equate with that sector’s share of total employment.
New arrangements for term lending by the trading banks emphasize the availability of such loans to the small business sector and the terms for such loans have been extended from three to ten years (previously three to eight years).
There has also been a significant increase in lending by the Commonwealth Development Bank since its charter was extended in June 1978 to allow it to lend to all kinds of business. In the year ended 30th June 1979 the value of non-rural loan approvals was $29.2m compared with $15. lm in the previous year; of this increase $8.7m or 62 per cent went to business undertakings in sectors which were previously outside the Bank’s charter.
In the Budget speech, the Treasurer reaffirmed that the Government’s monetary policy is directed at providing adequate funds for sustainable expansion in private sector activity and employment while continuing to bear down steadily on inflation and inflationary expectations. The allocation of the available credit among particular sectors is a matter for the commercial judgment of lenders. However the Banks have on several occasions reaffirmed to the Reserve Bank that they: apply the same lending criteria to all business customers whether large or small do not discriminate against applications for loans to small businesses which by number are the bulk of their business continuously review lending criteria.
The SRD mechanism is an instrument of monetary and banking policy: its essential role is that of influencing the liquidity base of the banking system: it is not a device for the channelling of funds into particular forms of lending.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 August 1 979:
Will he bring up to date his answer to question No. 341 concerning Status of Forces Agreements and Reciprocal Claims Agreements ( Hansard, 2 May 1978, page 1663).
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Since my answer to the honourable member’s question none of the agreements then under negotiation has yet been concluded. The status of the various negotiations is currently under review by the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Defence.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 22 August 1979:
– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
Welfare Services
Telephone Interpreter Service
Good Neighbour Councils
Grants to organisations involved in integration activities/migrant welfare activities
Repatriation of immigrants to their former countries
Research and surveys in immigrant settlement experience
National Group Directory .
Migrant Social Welfare Advisory Council
Co-ordination of Refugee Settlement
Guardianship of immigrant Children.
All Social Security programs, including payments under the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act and special benefits for people under maintenance guarantees and for refugees, cover migrants insofar as migrants are members of the Australian community. Special attention has been given to programs and policies affecting migrants in line with recommendations of the Galbally Report.
Since 1974 information material on social security programs and services has been printed in ethnic languages. Currently pamphlets in 18 ethnic languages are available and it is proposed to include additional ethnic languages this financial year.
Since December 1978 a separate migrant services section has been concerned with policies and programs of the Department to ensure they are attuned to the needs of migrants.
Subsequently, in August 1979, migrant services units have been established in each State Office of my Department.
asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 28 August 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Consequently, the information required is not available in an accessible form and my Department’s Darwin Office does not have the resources to retrieve and compile this information.
asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 28 August 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Consequently, the information required is not available in an accessible form and my Department ‘s Darwin Office does not have the resources to retrieve and compile this information.
asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 28 August 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 18 September 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 1 9 September 1 979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The question as to who should take responsibility for the predicament of the children suffering from the effects of Stilboestrol is a vexed one. As indicated in ( 1 ) above the Commonwealth Government had no controls over the safety and efficacy of this imported substance at the critical time and consequently could not be held responsible. This is a matter which could only be determined after all the facts associated with the prescribing of the drug were known.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 26 September 1 979:
-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
A meeting was held in Brewarrina on 5 November, chaired by the President of the Brewarrina Shire Council and attended by representatives of the Aboriginal community, the Aboriginal Lands Trust, the New South Wales Department of Youth and Community Services and senior officers of my Department. There was general agreement that it was desirable to concentrate expenditure on the construction of new houses of satisfactory standard in and around Brewarrina, rather than on any costly renovation of the existing dwellings at West Brewarrina. My Department is providing $145,000 this financial year and $50,000 in the first pan of 1980-81 to the Ngemba Housing Co-operative for the construction of four houses. Subject to tenant participation, the Co-operative will also have additional funds for the purchase and construction of houses available from the sale of houses to tenants. The Department has provided $561,147 to the Ngemba Housing Co-operative since 1975-76. In addition, substantial grants have been provided to the New South Wales Housing Commission for Aboriginal housing in Brewarrina and the Commission had, at 30 June 1979, completed 18 houses Tor Aboriginals in the town with these grants (and another 14 of the Commission’s houses in Brewarrina are occupied by Aboriginals). This year the Housing Commission is completing two more houses and starting construction on another eight with grants from my Department ($193,000).
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 26 September 1979:
-The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
In addition, an Australian age pension may be granted to a claimant who is living outside Australia if: he lived for 30 years in Australia; he has not resided in Australia at any time since 7 May 1973; in the case of a man, he was 60 years of age before he left Australia (the relevant age for a woman is 55 years); and he is in special need of financial assistance.
An Italian citizen resident in Italy who meets the above criteria would be eligible to receive an Australian age pension.
Australian pensions are financed out of general revenue and are not dependent on specific contributions by a person to a nominated fund.
asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 27 September 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
With certain of these commodities access to the Japanese market is subject to quantitative export restrictions. The Government has negotiated to secure more liberal access to the Japanese market for these commodities and in the context of the Multilateral Trade Negotiations, obtained improved access for beef and tariff bindings on a number of other rural based products.
In addition the Government undertakes a vigorous trade promotional campaign in Japan for primary products. Funds provided for these activities include allocations by the Overseas Trade Publicity Committee, direct contributions by the various producer Boards and Corporations, and funds provided for this purpose to the Trade Commissioners in Tokyo and Osaka. The total for 1978-79 was $1,122,723 which represented a 1 7.8 per cent increase over the previous year.
The level and nature of promotional activity for Australian primary products in Japan is kept under continuous review. At the same time every opportunity to expand sales of these products in the Japanese market is vigorously pursued.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 9 October 1979:
-The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
In addition to the invalid pension there are other forms of financial assistance available which are designed to meet the special needs of invalid pensioners being cared for in a private home. These include the discretionary special benefit which may be paid to a person who gives, and who is the only person available to give, constant care and attention to an invalid near relative, and the domiciliary nursing care benefit of $14 per week is available independently of other income or benefits to a person caring full-time at home for a chronically ill or disabled person over the age of 16 who is visited by a registered nurse at specified intervals.
The Commonwealth also makes other forms of assistance available, such as through its health programs and the taxation system.
asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 10 October 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The ACT TAB was informed at that time that resources were not available to begin work on a draft planning proposal for some considerable time. The TAB was informed, however, that it could submit a draft planning proposal of its own origination, and to this end information necessary for the preparation of a planning proposal has been forwarded to the TAB. I have instructed my Department to nominate an officer to advise the TAB in the drafting of a planning proposal should this approach be adopted.
asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 10 October 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Information relating to the progress of all negotiations including those with the Japanese was conveyed similarly through these committees and also in writing by the Minister to his Ministerial counterparts on the Australian Fisheries Council.
The following table shows estimated catch, effort and catch rates for the years requested:
page 3433
Keppel Bay Sportfishing Club.
Gold Coast Sportfishing Club.
Brisbane Sportfishing Club.
Mackay Visitors Bureau.
Caravan Parks Association of Queensland, Whitsunday
Wonderworld Division.
West Districts Sportsfishing Club.
Sandgate Young Liberals.
Charters Towers City Council.
Lizard Island Research Station.
Cairns Professional Game Fishing Club.
Moreton Bay Game Fishing Club.
Billfish Advisory Sub-Panel, Western Pacific Regional
Fishery Management Council.
Hawaiian International Billfish Association.
Pacific Gamefish Foundation.
Broken Bay Gamefishing Club.
The Gamefishing Assoc. of Victoria.
Mitchelton Veterinary Centre.
Toowoomba and District Medical Assoc.
Furthermore, the Fisheries Act 1952 has been amended to provide for penalties of up to $250,000 for illegal foreign fishing in the AFZ. In addition to the substantial increases in penalties, a magistrate may order forfeiture of a vessel, including its catch and equipment, upon a conviction being recorded. Under the terms of the agreement with Kailis Kaohsiung Fishing Company as agent for the Kaohsiung Fishing Boat Commercial Guild, only vessels nominated by the Guild will be licensed. The Guild has been given sole authority to represent all the trawl and gillnet fishing boats of Taiwan which apply for licences to fish within the AFZ. Under the terms and conditions of access, the Kailis Kaohsiung Fishing Company or the Guild as appropriate, will bear the full responsibility for all Taiwanese vessels, licensed or unlicensed. Assurances from the Company and the Guild have been received that the Taiwanese authorities will exercise strict control over all Taiwanese fishing activities in the AFZ. The company has been advised that continuation of access for Taiwanese fishing vessels to the AFZ is dependent on effective control being exercised and on the cessation of all illegal activities particularly those by clam vessels in the Great Barrier Reef. In addition to the substantial increases in penalties, a magistrate may order forfeiture of a vessel, including its catch and equipments, upon a conviction being recorded.
asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 10 October 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
1 ) In the context of the Australia /Japan Fisheries Agreement, Japan has agreed to continue the provision of technical assistance to the Australian fishing industry through the following technical assistance projects:
The market access issue was one element of the negotiations on the recently signed fishery agreement between Australia and Japan.
As a result of these negotiations certain understandings have been reached between the Australian and Japanese Governments.
Japan will advise Australia of the details of its import quota restrictions and give the Australian Government forewarning of any alterations in access conditions on fisheries products of interest to Australia, so that, if necessary consultations or negotiations can be held with Japan.
In the negotiations the Japanese Government advised that where Australia’s fish and fish products are commercially competitive with the fish and fish products of other nations, market access is and will be available for such Australian fish and fish products under the Japanese import system.
If the situation should arise where Japanese import restrictions were to inhibit reasonable access for Australian fish and fish products, the Australian Government’s expectation is that prompt consultations would be held when requested by Australia, that such consultations would be approached in a constructive and positive spirit and with the aim of reaching a mutually satisfactory solution. At all times such consultations would take into account the wider co-operative relations between Australia and Japan in the fisheries field.
Queensland, New South Wales and the Commonwealth and game fishermen’s organisations from Queensland and New South Wales. The Japanese Government has been notified that during the operation of the Subsidiary Agreement the Australian Government will be paying particular attention to the monitoring of the arrangements as they affect game fishing stocks and activities off northern Queensland.
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 October 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
There is no guarantee that the airlines would be able to sell cancelled APEX seats to ‘on-demand’ passengers within the advance purchase period. During thisperiod, the airlines are not permitted to sell cancelled APEX seats to APEX passengers since this would clearly contravene ticket conditions.
If the practice of allowing some APEX passengers to make their payment within the advance purchase period were to be permitted, those passengers who had purchased their travel in accordance with the advance purchase conditions could understandably claim that they were being discriminated against.
APEX passengers are, of course, allowed to cancel their travel outside the advance purchase period on payment of a cancellation fee. This fee is designed to compensate the airlines for the costs involved in processing the reservation and ticketing the passenger. Naturally, APEX seats cancelled outside the advance purchase period are made available for resale as APEX seats.
Qantas ‘s recent experience on the Australia/UK route suggests that, within the advance purchase period, there are approximately six cancelled APEX bookings on each service, of which about three are passengers who simply do not turn up for the flight. Clearly, considering the average seat utilisation achieved by Qantas since the introduction of lower fares, the number of unsold seats significantly exceeds the number of seats for which APEX passengers have forfeited their fares. (3)I understand that Qantas has examined the feasibility of operating a wait-list for persons wishing to purchase a cancelled APEX ticket at off-peak rates.
I am informed this examination has shown that such a facility presents difficulties. The introduction of a wait-list would add significantly to Qantas ‘s administrative workload, the costs of which would need to be recovered either through fare increases or the levying of some other charge.
Further problems involve the impact on passengers’ expectations. With the availability of a wait-list facility outside the advance purchase period, some intending APEX passengers may be tempted to defer completion of their travel arrangements in anticipation of ultimately obtaining an APEX seat through the wait-list, particularly if their preferred travel date is fully booked and instead of choosing alternative travel dates they could elect to wait-list for their preferred date of travel.
Should no seat become available outside the advance purchase period for the preferred date of travel, not only will the intending passenger not travel on that date, but in all likelihood the passenger would have missed the opportunity to arrange APEX travel at an acceptable alternative date.
In the circumstances it would appear that the limited benefits which would be derived from a wait-list facility may be far outweighed by the disadvantages and additional cost of providing such a facility.
asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 10 October 1979:
1978- 79.
-The answer to the honourable question is as follows:
The entertainment budget and actual expenditure for the Tribunal in-
asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1979:
Is it a fact that there is a 6 months delay on the delivery of personal effects to personnel at the RAAF Base at Butterworth; if so, what measures are in hand to rectify this.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
No; not applicable.
Australia-USSR Society Festival (Question No. 4893)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 October 1979:
-The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 16 September 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
There is some overlapping among these groups and a precise breakdown of the reasons for approvals could only be prepared on the basis of a study of each case file. I do not think this is warranted.
asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 1 7 October 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 17 October 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 7 October 1 979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)I wrote to the chairman of both Ansett and TAA on the 14 August 1978 requesting that consultations take place with a view to jointly bringing forward firm proposals involving the reduced incidence of parallel scheduling between the two airlines. This was followed up by correspondence on 26 March 1979 and 25 June 1979.
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 7 October 1 979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
New South Wales: Balranald, Bourke, Brewarrina, Camden, Casino, Gunnedah, Merimbula, Mudgee, Narromine, Walgett, West Wyalong, Young.
Tasmania: Devonport, King Island, Wynyard.
Victoria: Ararat, Bairnsdale, Benalla, Bendigo, Hopetoun, Hamilton, Horsham, Kerang, Latrobe Valley, Nhill, Sale, Shepparton, Warrnambool.
South Australia: Leigh Creek, Oodnadatta.
Northern Territory: Tennant Creek, Tindal.
asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 24 October 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Conference on Family Policy (Question No. 5015)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 6 November 1979:
-The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
It is intended that the conference be self-financing although arrangements are being made to cover the cost of 20 free places.
The Council of Social Welfare Ministers has decided to limit the numbers of delegates who are to be invited to attend the conference and the Commonwealth/ State/Territory quota is as follows:
Overall, it is envisaged that there will be equal representation between the government and non-government sectors. (4), (S), (6), (7) and (8) No decision has been made at this stage on matters raised in these items.
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 7 November 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 7 November 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Aboriginal Affairs: Negotiations with States (Question No. 5053)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 7 November 1979:
-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) The following meetings have taken place with the representatives of States to explore differences in interpretation of the existing agreements in relation to Aboriginal affairs.
Australian Aboriginal Affairs Council, Adelaide, 18 May 1979
The Council is a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers with responsibility for Aboriginal Affairs. At this meeting, the Council resolved: that discussions should be held between officers of particular States and the Commonwealth so that the desirability of reviewing arrangements can be considered. ‘
The following Ministers, supported by officers, attended:
Commonwealth: Minister for Aboriginal Affairs
New South Wales: Minister for Youth and Community Services
Victoria: Minister for Housing
Queensland: Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs
South Australia: Minister for Community Welfare
Western Australia: Minister for Health and Community Welfare
Tasmania: Minister for Environment and Water Resources
Northern Territory: Chief Minister and AttorneyGeneral.
Meeting with Victorian Officials, Melbourne, 1 7 September 1979
Officers representing the following authorities were present:
State: Ministry of Housing, Department of Education.
Commonwealth: Departments of Aboriginal Affairs and Prime Minister and Cabinet.
Meeting with Tasmanian Officials, Hobart, 28 September 1979
Officers representing the following authorities were present:
State: Office of the Minister for Ethnic Affairs, Education Department, Housing Department, Health Services Department, Social Welfare Department.
Commonwealth: Department of Aboriginal Affairs.
Meeting with South Australian Officials, Adelaide, 3 October 1979
Officers representing the following authorities were present:
State: Premier’s Department, Treasury Department, Aboriginal Co-ordinating Committee.
Commonwealth: Department of Aboriginal Affairs.
Meeting with Western Australian Officials, Penh, 4 October 1979
Officers representing the following authorities were present:
State: Depanment of Health and Medical Services, Education Depanment, Crown Law Department, State
Housing Commission, Treasury Department, Department of Community Welfare.
Commonwealth: Department of Aboriginal Affairs.
Meeting with New South Wales Officials, Sydney, 24 October 1979
Officers representing the following Departments were present:
State: Department of Youth and Community Services, Treasury Department, Premier’s Department.
Commonwealth: Departments of Aboriginal Affairs and Prime Minister and Cabinet.
Australian Wheat Board (Question No. S0S6)
asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 8 November 1979:
Is the Australian Wheat Board selling promissory notes to the value of $167 million through syndicates of money market dealers and merchant bankers; if so, what is the justification for this action.
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Earlier this year, the Australian Wheat Board borrowed commercially, through the issue of bank accepted bills, to raise funds additional to those available from the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank to make first advance payments to growers for the 1978/79 crop and to meet the marketing expenses of that wheat pool.
The full details and justification for these borrowings are set out in Senator Carrick ‘s answer to Senator Walsh ‘s Question on Notice No. 1 376 which appeared on page 2297 of the Senate Hansard of 29 May 1 979. Securities maturing in September from those commercial borrowings have been refinanced by the Board through the issue of promissory notes to the value of $167 million. The refinancing arrangements were decided after considering offers from trading banks, merchants bankers and authorised money market dealers.
asked the Minister for Transport upon notice, on 13 November 1979: ( 1 )What has been the expenditure on capital purchases of equipment associated with the operation of seat reservation systems by (a) Ansett Airlines (b) Trans Australia Airlines and (c) East West Airlines during (i) 1977-78 and (ii) 1978-79.
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (I), (2) and (3)- The information requested is of a detailed commercial nature and as the airlines concerned are operating in a commercial environment it would not be appropriate to disclose such information
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 13 November 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 13 November 1979:
What was the passenger load factor achieved by (a) Trans Australia Airlines, ( b) East West Airlines and (c) Ansett Airlines for (i) first class seats and (ii) economy seats in each year from 1974-75 to 1978-79 and the period 1 July 1979 to date.
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Passenger load factors for first and economy class are not collected separately by the Department of Transport, and East West Airlines operate only single class services. The following load factors therefore refer to total passengers carried under all revenue fare categories:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 13 November 1979:
-The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
Under the reciprocal agreement on social security between Australia and New Zealand, people from New Zealand are deemed to be permanently resident in Australia after they have been here for six months.
Thus, New Zealanders who are temporarily in Australia are not entitled to unemployment benefits if they have been here for less than six months.
If the New Zealanders satisfy the Director-General that they are likely to remain permanently in Australia or have been in Australia for six months, unemployment benefits may be paid subject to other conditions of eligibility.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 14 November 1979:
-The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 15 November 1979:
Is it possible as a first step to the indexing of family allowances to implement a scheme to index family allowances for families who are in receipt of one income on or below the average weekly earning or two incomes which together do not exceed that figure (i.e. widow’s pension, single parents benefit, male or female invalid pensioners, etc.); if so, what would the cost to revenue be; if not, why not.
-The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
It would be possible to implement a scheme whereby indexed family allowances would be payable to families where the families’ incomes were equivalent to or less than average weekly earnings, but administration would be complex and costly. Before such a scheme could be implemented a large number of decisions would be required on matters such as:
The definition of the family members to be included in the income unit for the purpose of income testing, e.g. would income of children be included?
Over what period would family income be assessed and average earnings determined? Would it be, for example, the previous financial year, the previous quarter or an estimate for the current year? Would provision be made to vary payments for families whose financial and other circumstances change?
Would the increases be paid on an all-or-nothing basis? If so, there would be inequities. If not, would the tapering take place before or after the income limit of average weekly earnings? What would be the rate of taper?
How frequently would the maximum rates of family allowances be adjusted and how soon after the relevant movement in the Consumer Price Index?
Would pensioner and beneficiary families be treated in the same way as other families or would special arrangements be made to avoid overlapping income tests?
Answers would need to be given to these kinds of questions before any work could be done to make a reasonable estimate of the cost and numbers involved. The cost would also, of course, be dependent on the rate of inflation and movements in average weekly earnings. Even if these matters were resolved, cost estimates would not be reliable since comprehensive and up to date information on the income distribution of Australian families, in a form suitable for costing purposes, is not available. It may be possible to more accurately cost such proposals once the detailed results of the Australian Bureau of Statistics 1978-79 Income Survey become available.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 15 November 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
However the company announced on 15 November that of 55 engine components for which sourcing decisions have been taken 47 components will be purchased from Australian manufacturers. Decisions on sourcing of the remaining 150 components for the engine will be made in the first quarter of 1980. The company stated that it expects 80 per cent of these to be purchased from local suppliers in the first year of engine production rising to 90 per cent by the third year.
Further details of the Scheme in addition to the minimum elements will not be announced until the Government has completed its consideration of the Industries Assistance Commission report on the matter. The basis for valuing imports and exports under the scheme is one of the matters to be determined.
asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 16 November 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The ACT hen quota is the subject of current and active negotiations with the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia. The Council has indicated its co-operation in seeking to reach agreement on a revised quota for the Territory within the next few days.
I am currently giving careful consideration to the allocation of an expected increase in the current hen quota but I have not yet decided what mechanism and criteria will be employed.
I will ensure that the information sought by the honourable member is provided to him as soon as I am in a position to do so.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 21 November 1979:
What sums were paid by the Commonwealth in grants in the Electoral Divisions of (I) the Northern Territory, (2) Canberra, (3) Kalgoorlie, (4) Perth, (5) Swan, (6) Sturt, (7) Kingston, (8) Ballarat, (9) Bendigo, (10) Deakin, (II) McMillan, (12) Isaacs, (13) Henty, (14) Holt, (15) La Trobe, ( 16) Hotham, ( 17) Bass, ( 18) Franklin, ( 19) Braddon, (20) Wilmot (21) Denison, (22) Wide Bay, (23) Herbert, (24) Fadden, (25) Dawson, (26) Lilley, (27) Bowman, (28) Brisbane, (29) Leichhardt, (30) Calare, (31) Eden Monaro, (32) Cook, (33) Lowe, (34) Barton, (35) Macquarie, (36) St George, (37) Phillip and (38) Macarthur under the (a) Child Care Act and children’s services program, (b) Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act, (c) Aged Persons Hostels Act, (d) Handicapped Persons Assistance Act, (e) Homeless Persons Assistance Act, (0 State Grants (Home Care) Act, (g) delivered meals program, (h) welfare rights program, (j) personal care subsidy scheme and (k) Australian Assistance Plan during (i) 1975-76, (ii) 1976-77, (iii) 1977-78, (iv) 1978-79 and (v) 1 July 1979 to date.
-The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
The information requested by the honourable member is not held in a form that would enable this question to be answered without very considerable effort. I am not prepared to direct that the staff resources which would be required be diverted from more essential duties.
Telephone Directories
-On 16 October 1979, Mr Gillard asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications the following queston without notice:
Will the Minister consider the practicability of the inclusion of all telephone numbers covered by Access 80 in metropolitan telephone directories?
The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
To ensure general community awareness of the proposed Community Access 80 changes, telephone directories published before the introduction of the scheme in May 1 980 will include a concise explanation of the new charging arrangements that will apply. A more detailed explanation of the scheme will be included in the information pages of telephone directories to be distributed after its introduction. However, because of the already large size of the metropolitan directories and the extra costs that would be involved
Telecom does not at this stage intend to list subscribers who will have community call access to their central city zone in the metropolitan telephone directories. In the Sydney fringe area there are some 76,000 customers involved and to include them in the metropolitan directory would increase the size of the book by a minimum of 150 pages and involve additional costs of more than $300,000.
Subscribers within the Access 80 zones around the metropolitan areas can obtain free copies of the metropolitan directories, on request.
I might add however, that I have discussed this matter with both the Chairman and Managing Director of the Australian Telecommunications Commission and they have agreed to give the matter further consideration.
asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Details in relation to my Department and those Statutory Authorities that come within the responsibilities of myPortfolio which own, operate, rent or are in the process of purchasing computers are as follows:
The Postal and Telecommunications Department, the Special Broadcasting Service and the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal do not own, operate, or rent computers and are not in the process of buying any computers.
Australian Broadcasting Commission
1 ) ( a ) 3 ( 2 of which are not in use and are being disposed of).
2 (including one rented).
None.
l.
Cost of computers in use $73,625. Cost of purchase of 2 computers being disposed of $20,405
Rental $20,405.
COMPUTER IN USE $ 1 35,000 per annum.
Computers Owned: TV Program inventory, Engineering equipment purchase control.
Computers Rented: Payroll and Personnel Management; Financial Accounting; Concert Management; Statistical compilation; Engineering Contract Management; Documentation preparation; Computer program development.
Computers Owned: TV Program Inventory data; Engineering equipment purchase data.
Computers Rented: Payroll and Personnel data; Financial data; Engineering contract data; Concert subscriptions data; Statistical data.
None.
Authorised personnel within the ABC for official purposes; access by computer maintenance staff of Digital Equipment Australia is controlled and limited by ABC staff.
Introduction of the computer systems has made it unnecessary to recruit additional staff in some areas including, principally, Finance Department.
Australian Telecommunications Commission
1 ) Telecom Australia owns and operates five large scale computer systems, and one large scale system is rented: it is proposed to purchase this system during 1979. Two of the computer systems owned by Telecom Australia also include a number of components rented from the equipment supplier. Purchase of these components is undertaken on a continuing basis.
Telecom Australia also utilises some 54 mini computers for the control or monitoring of the telecommunications network and for research projects.
A further separate and dedicated computer system has also been utilised recently to support a limited 9 months trial of automated Directory Assistance.
The purchase cost of each large scale computer was:
The mini computer systems have been purchased by Telecom Australia at an approximate aggregate capital cost of $ 1.66m.
The computer system for the Directory Assistance trial has been hired under appropriate contractual arrangements at an approximate cost of $83,500.
StaffPay
Telephone Accounting
Trunk Records
Traffic Recording Analysis
Local Engineering Operations Processing and Recording ofData
Cable Ordering Project
Processing of Commercial and Statistical Material from
Stored Program Controlled Exchanges
Engineering Costing NSW
Automated Pay Variation Advice Pesonnel Information and Establishments System
Main Stores Accounting
Stores Central Ledger
Contract Monitoring System
Automation of Directory Compilation- Surname Section
Directory Distribution Lists
Directory Assistance
Accident and Compensation Statistics
Automatic Line Fault Analysis
Trunk and Junction Forecasting, Metropolitan
Automatic Disturbance Recording
Non-Exchange Services Records System
Additionally, a number of smaller tasks of a once-off or recurring nature are also processed.
Preparations are being made to use one of the large Honeywell 66/80 computers and a Honeywell minicomputer to investigate aspects of distributed data processing.
Several systems are processed by computer bureaux external to Telecom. These include:
Crossbar Provisioning and Planning Aid
Exchange Reference File
Material Budget Summaries
Switched Network Dimensioning
Although some computer systems may reduce staff by directly eliminating manual effort, many computer programs and operational systems are developed either
Such programs and systems usually do not directly save staff and may in some cases increase staff requirements.
For some systems, staff savings are notional, i.e. staff is saved’ by reducing the rate of staff growth and the savings are the additional people who would have had to be recruited if Telecom had kept carrying out activities in the same manual way as compared with the number needed to do the same things with the assistance of a computer. Given the continuing growth of Telecom’s business, staff savings are generally notional only.
Due to the above factors, estimating staff saved as a consequence of the use of computers is extremely difficult. The difficulty is compounded by the fact that computers have been used in the Australian Post Office (including some systems used by Australia Post after 1 July 1975) and Telecom over a period of more than 18 years, and some early systems have undergone progressive evolution by way of on-going enhancement and/or redevelopment: for these systems, estimation of staff savings by comparison with an ‘all manual’ environment is either impossible or of extremely dubious accuracy.
Staff savings achieved as a consequence of computer systems and programs are, of course, offset by the staff numbers employed in providing the data processing service: in Telecom’s case, about 727 persons currently employed in Information Systems Department and Branches. Many of this staff are engaged in developing systems and facilities to serve the future. The lead times involved in developing computer systems mean that employment is created in advance of benefits (of whatever nature) being achieved.
Australian Postal Commission
(a)5
The purchase cost of the five mini-computers already owned by Australia Post is as follows:
The purchase cost of the six proposed mini-computers is expected to amount to approximately $980,000.
The annual rental charge for the rented computer is currently $93,600.
The two Prodata mini-computers are used for the processing of post office financial statements in Victoria and South Australia.
One of the three Data General mini-computers is being used for the development of new computer systems at Australia Post Headquarters. The remaining two are being used for the processing of accounting systems in Victoria and South Australia.
Rented
This computer, located in New South Wales, is being used for the processing of postal money orders throughout Australia.
Proposed Purchases
The six mini-computers planned for purchase will be used for stores accounting, business and manpower statistics, additional payroll reconciliations and other accounting systems.
Further staff savings of 50 are expected as a result of the operation of computers already installed, or in the process of being purchased.
Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) (l)(a)2
l
The rented charge for UNIVAC 1 100/1 1 is $25,600 per month.
NCR8200- This computer is dedicated to payroll processing for OTC employees.
WANG2200- This computer is used for econometric and financial modelling, manpower planning, technical planning exercises and engineering calculations.
Rented
page 3446
Processing of traffic data representing telephone, telex, telegraph and other services, in order to effect-
Financial accounting, including general and subsidiary ledgers.
Control of assets.
Planning and administrative work.
WANG2200- Data stored includes, planning models, personnel information, technical information, historic traffic data.
UNIVAC 1100/ 11 -Data stored includes:
Call data for traffic on the various services, and traffic statistics.
Customer, Telecom and international accounts data.
International tariff data.
Usage of facilities.
Financial ledgers.
Planning, administrative and management information.
UNIVAC 1 100/1 1-There is no direct connection with another computer.
WANG2200- The system provides technical computing facilities for planning staff. No direct staff savings are claimed, however, certain types of planning activity are only feasible using such a computer, and the quality and timeliness of planning information has been improved.
UNIVAC 1 100/1 1-The tasks described in 3(a) above represent approximately 85 per cent of the work performed on this computer, being the processing of more than half a million international call attempts per week. The data is received from the exchange equipment in the form of magnetic tapes. It is felt that no manual processing alternative would be feasible and, therefore, no ‘staff savings’ can be stated. The data, being on magnetic tape, requires a computer to process it and the volume of data is so vast that no manual system could meet the internationally agreed time requirements for financial settlement, nor could a manual system provide the operational reports needed to quickly indicate exchange and transmission system malfunctions and changing loads.
The remaining tasks have been required primarily to improve the quality and timeliness of information and no net savings in staff are claimed. However, these applications are assisting in containing the further growth of staff.
asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Details in relation to my Department and those Statutory Authorities that come within the responsibility of my portfolio which own or operate computers are as follows.
My Department, the Special Broadcasting Service and the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal do not own or operate any computers.
Australian Broadcasting Commission
Australian Telecommunications Commission
Australian Postal Commission
Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia)
asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 November 1978:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Indirect Taxation (Question No. 3186)
asked the Treasurer, upon, notice, on 2 1 February 1 979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 27 February 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1), (2) and (3) The information sought is not available, earlier than 1976-77, when the first national energy R&D survey was conducted by my Department.
1976-77
Total expenditure on energy R & D in 1976-77 was $26.8m:
The per capita expenditure on Energy R, D & D in 1976- 77 was $A 1.89.
1977- 78
For the 1 977-78 financial year no national survey has been conducted and none is proposed. Details are, however, available of the major sources of expenditure by Commonwealth Departments and Authorities.
The major sources of expenditure by Commonwealth Departments and Authorities on energy R & D in 1977-78 were:
Per capita expenditure for 1 977-78 has not been estimated as the figures are not complete.
1978-79
A survey of energy R&D expenditure in 1978-79 is currently being undertaken by the Australian Bureau of Statistics on behalf of project SCORE, the biennial review of R & D in Australia conducted by the Department of Science and the Environment. It will cover the Commonwealth, State Tertiary and Private sectors. In the interim estimated expenditure is already available for major areas of expenditure by Commonwealth Departments and Authorities. This includes details of grants made under the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Program and funded from my Department ‘s appropriations in 1 978-79.
During 1978-79 a major stimulus to energy R & D in Australia was provided by the introduction of the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Program (NER, D & DP). Grants approved in the 1978-79 Program total $ 1 5.6m and include expenditure in 1 978-79 of $4m appropriated to my Department.
The major sources of expenditure by Commonwealth Departments and Authorities on energy R & D in 1978-79 were:
Details of Expenditure from the 1978-79 Appropriations for the 1978-79 National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Program, CRTA, CSIRO and AAEC are set out below:
Per capita expenditure for 1978-79 has not been estimated as the figures will not be complete until after completion of the formal survey mentioned earlier.
Notes to Tables (A) and (B)
asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 8 March 1979:
Will he again read his answer to Question No. 1680 (Hansard, 9 November 1978, page 2709) and give an answer as to the date on which the General Manager of the Australian Broadcasting Commission first informed him of the Commission’s intention to discontinue its This Day Tonight program.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
I have again considered the honourable member’s previous question and my answer to that.
I cannot provide the honourable member with an indication of the exact date on which the General Manager may have informed me of the Commission’s plans to restructure its current affairs programming.
I reiterate to the honourable member, however, that there is no good reason why this matter should have been raised with me as the ABC is responsible for decisions taken about programming matters, and this is not an area in which I wish to interfere with the Commission ‘s independence.
Naturally, as part of my overall responsibility to the Parliament for the activities of the ABC, I ensure that I am kept informed generally about those activities. I would also add that the ABC is more than co-operative in ensuring that its Minister is aware of what its plans are.
asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 28 March 1 979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
ch- Company Director, formerly Director, Esso Australia Ltd.
Mr R. Austen Chairman and Managing Director, Austen and Butta Ltd.
Mr M. D. Bridgland Managing Director, ICI Australia Ltd.
Mr G. Bruns Economic and investment consultant. Formerly Chief Economist, ANZ Bank.
Professor Emeritus F. B. Bull- Engineering consultant.
Mr J. B. Carter Principal Adviser, National Energy Office, Department of National Development
Mr D. Eckersley Primary producer.
Professor L. A. Endersbee-Dean of the Faculty of Engineering, Monash University.
Mrs M. M. Fitzgerald Alderman, St Peter’s Council.
Professor D. W. George- Vice-Chancellor, University of Newcastle and Chairman, Australian Atomic Energy Commission.
Professor S. Harris- Professor of Resource Economics, Australian National University.
Mr H. Hume- Director and General Manager, North Shore Gas Co. Ltd.
Mr D. J. Ives- Acting Director, National Energy Office, Department of National Development.
Mr B. Kirkwood Chairman, State Energy Commission, W.A.
Mr W. M. Lonie General Manager, Coal, BHP Co. Ltd.
Mr E. D. Murray State Electricity Commissioner, Queensland.
Professor D. J. Nicklin- Professor of Chemical Engineering, University of Queensland.
Mr J. D. Norgard- Chairman, The Pipeline Authority. Chairman, Australian Broadcasting Commission. Chairman, Metric Conversion Board.
Professor Emeritus J. W. Roderick- Former Head, School of Civil Engineering, University of Sydney.
Mr H. J. Souter- Formerly Secretary, Australian Council of Trade Unions.
Professor C. N. Watson-Munro- Wills Professor of Plasma Physics, University of Sydney.
Dr H. W. Worner Director, Institute of Industrial Technology, CSIRO.
Each member of the National Energy Advisory Committee has made a declaration to me of employment or other beneficial interest in companies or authorities engaged in oil or gas exploration, development, production or distribution. Members are expected to avoid conflict between public duty and private interest and are expected to declare, ahead of any Committee discussions, any private interest that might reasonably be held to be in conflict with their public duty. These procedures are broadly in accord with those adopted for similar governmental bodies.
The honourable member would also be aware of the inquiry concerning public duty and private interest chaired by the Honourable Sir Nigel Bowen. The procedures adopted for members of the National Energy Advisory Committee will be reviewed as necessary when the Government finalises its views on the report of the inquiry.
asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 29 March 1979:
– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
1 ) As at 29 March 1979, Mr David Rofe, Q.C, was not acting for the Commonwealth in relation to any legal proceedings. Mr Rofe was, however, acting in the following cases for Commonwealth officers, functionaries and statutory instrumentalities:
Mr Rofe acted for the Commonwealth in relation to the following proceedings and was paid fees as stated:
Information in relation to matters in respect of which Mr Rofe acted for Commonwealth officers, functionaries and statutory instrumentalities for relevant periods mentioned in paragraph 2 of the honourable member’s question and the amounts paid to Mr Rofe in respect of each of those matters, is set out hereunder
Collector of Customs v. Wilh Wilhemsen Agency Pty Ltd (paid $387 in August 1975); Waller v. Australian Broadcasting Commission (paid $240 in February 1974 on first briefing in this matter and paid $2,300 on rebriefing in November 1975).
Application by Thomas Barton for Annulment of Bankruptcy (paid $260 in March 1977).
(paid $ 190 during the period) and the following additional proceedings- Trade Practices Commission v. Pacific Film Laboratories Pty Limited (paid $2,875 in September 1978); Trade Practices Commission v. George Weston Foods Pty Limited and Others (paid $160 in September 1978 and $250 in November 1978).
asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 29 March 1979:
Where were post offices (a) closed down and (b) opened in (i 1973-74, (ii) 1974-75, (iii) 1975-76, (iv) 1976-77, (v) 1977-78 and (vi) the period 1 July 1978 to date in each Federal electoral division.
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The number of post offices closed and opened in each electorate, in each of these periods, is given in the following tables. Information for 1978-79 covers the period to 31 March 1 979. (The names of post offices closed and opened in each electorate, in each year, have been provided separately to Mr Hodges).
asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 3 April 1979:
Is he able to provide the following information in respect df the nuclear reactor accident at Three Mile Island, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA: (a) was the accident caused by a failure in the main reactor cooling system; if so, was a cloud of radioactive steam released because the reactor vessel was Unable to contain the pressure in the vessel; (b) were further releases of pressure necessary for the same reasons; (c) was radioactively-contaminated water released to the surrounding area; (d) was the level of radioactivity within the reactor vessel extremely high; if so, what were the levels, in both roentgens per hour and millirems per hour; (e) were the fuel elements damaged by the failure of the cooling system and the subsequent accident; (0 was contaminated material stored in auxiliary buildings; (g) how many dairy farms are situated in the area within a radius of 25 kilometres of the reactor; (h) did Charles Callinan of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission admit publicly that there had been serious contamination on the reactor site; (i) was the police force of the State of Pennsylvania asked to provide a helicopter to monitor events at the reactor immediately following the accident; if so, were they informed that radioactive steam had been released into the atmosphere; (j) what precautions had to be taken to safeguard workers at the plant; (k) what was the extent of contamination of workers immediately following the accident; and (1) was the State of Pennsylvania entirely dependent on the utility company operating the reactor for information about the accident.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
I refer the honourable member to the Report of the (United States) President’s Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island, dated 30 October 1 979. A copy of the Report is available for reference in the Parliamentary Library.
asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 2 May 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 2 May 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Coverage of sporting events on television is a matter for the appropriate sporting organisation and television operators, whether they be commercial or the ABC.
The government does not have a direct role in these matters, but obviously hopes that negotiations between all parties will result in all Australians receiving a coverage of those events which have traditionally been enjoyed.
asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 3 May 1 979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 28 May 1979:
-The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
Television Services on Eyre Peninsula (Question No. 4146)
asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 4 June 1979:
In view of his earlier announcement regarding plans to extend national television services to various areas of Eyre Peninsula, SA, when will the services be established.
-The answer to the honourable member ‘s question is as follows:
I have advised the honourable member in the past that this project is of considerable magnitude and for that reason has required careful planning and lengthy technical studies so that optimum coverage can be achieved.
While the plan has not as yet been finalised nor submitted to me in final form for approval, officers of my Department have advised me that they expect to commence acquisition of sites on the Eyre Peninsula by the middle of next year. This would allow the necessary facilities to be progressively constructed and completed by the end of 1982.
A project of this size cannot be completed any more quickly. It may be possible, however, to commence the project earlier so that overall it can be brought to a conclusion sooner. I am aware of the strong desire of the residents to have television services and I have instructed my Department to achieve an earlier date of commencement if at all possible.
Brisbane 10C Telephone Exchange (Question No. 4179)
asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 5 June 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
As a preamble to the answers to this and the series of related questions (4180-4183) asked by the honourable member for Cunningham, Telecom has provided the following background information to assist members’ appreciation of the general subject of 10C exchanges and the implications of their introduction into the Australian telephone system.
Until the advent of modern processor-controlled trunk switching systems, such as the 10C system, equipment design dictated a policy of increasing centralisation of residual manual assistance traffic following conversion of local exchanges to automatic working to achieve efficient and economical handling of such traffic.
With the IOC system it is possible to physically separate the control (operator) and switching functions of manual assistance traffic. The operator still controls the connection of: call but the circuit is established at the switching centre (the IOC exchange), not via the operator’s switchboard. The use of IOC equipment makes it possible therefore to still realise the significant cost savings and high switching efficiency attainable from centralisation of the traffic switching function, yet locate the manual operators’ positions remote from the location of the switching centre- in fact up to 800 km away. Telecom is currently reviewing its manual assistance policy to take advantage of this new flexibility with a view to retaining employment opportunities in more country areas, and to at least maintaining the present country to metropolitan ratio of manual assistance operators.
The answer to Question No. 4 1 79 is as follows:
1 ) Yes, at Woolloongabba.
This exchange will ultimately handle all ISO and all manually assisted international traffic originating in Queensland, plus all manually assisted trunk calls originating in the Nambour and Toowoomba areas, and selected Brisbane exchanges.
It will also perform STD trunk switching and charging functions for selected exchanges within Brisbane. Nambour and Toowoomba exchanges both have their own trunk switching exchanges (ARM ‘s) and the majority of STD traffic from these centres will be unaffected by IOC.
(a) No. (b) The extension of Brisbane IOC exchange functions is currently under review in the light of a revised policy on decentralisation of manual assistance operations.
Most capital city networks have multiple trunk machines, eg 10C and ARM (electromechanical). Trunking between trunk exchanges is arranged so that the service impact when a trunk switching machine or a major transmission bearer fails is minimised. Each of the Sydney trunk exchanges, for example, have large direct routes to each of the corresponding trunk exchanges in Melbourne. Thus, the loss of any one of the Sydney trunk exchanges would not completely cut off traffic flow between the two cities.
Bendigo 10C Telephone Exchange (Question No. 4180)
asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 5 June 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Centres Telecom believes that working documents of this nature would not provide meaningful information. 10C Telephone Exchanges (Question No. 4181)
asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 5 June 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Brisbane 10C Telephone Exchange (Question No. 4182)
asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 5 June 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
(a) and (b) Via Brisbane to the new positions in Nambour and Toowoomba or Brisbane Manual Assistance Centre.
asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 5 June 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Pitt(NSW)-September 1974
Lonsdale ( Vic. )-December 1975
Waymouth (SA)-August 1976
Bendigo (Vic)-October 1977
Woolloongabba (Qld)-March 1979
Manual Assistance Centres (i.e. operator suites) have been retained or installed at each location where a10C exchange has been installed and will be retained or established at all future10C exchange locations. In some instances (e.g. Woolloongabba) the manual assistance operator positions associated with the 10c exchange will be installed at several different locations some distance from the10C switching equipment.
asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 7 June 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Departments-
Aboriginal Affairs
Administrative Services
Business and Consumer Affairs
Capital Territory
Construction (i)
Education
Employment and Industrial Relations (ii)
Environment, Housing and Community Development (iii)
Finance
Foreign Affairs
Industry and Commerce
National Resources (iv)
Northern Territory ( v)
Overseas Trade ( vi )
Prime Minister and Cabinet
Repatriation (vii)
Science (viii)
Transport
Treasury
Authorities, etc-
Australian Broadcasting Control Board (ix)
Australian Bureau of Statistics
Australian Film Commission
Australian Government Publishing Service
Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office
Australian Taxation Office
Bureau of Agricultural Economics
Bureau of Meteorology
Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics
Bureau of Transport Economics
Children’s Commission (x)
Commission on Advanced Education (xi)
Forestry and Timber Bureau
Hospitals and Health Services Commission (xii)
Industries Assistance Commission
Legal Aid Commission
National Library of Australia
Office of Parliamentary Counsel
Papua New Guinea Office
Patents, Trade Marks and Designs Office
Public Service Board (except Mandata)
Royal Australian Mint
Schools Commission
Social Welfare Commission (xiii)
Technical and Further Education Commission (xi)
Universities Commission (xi)
The Australian Broadcasting Control Board was replaced by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal on 1 January 1977.
The Social Welfare Commission was abolished in 1976.
All of the retrenchments were made at the request of the staff concerned under the provisions of the relevant Public Service Arbitrator’s Determination.
Comparable figures for the Northern Territory are not available. In 1975-76 and 1976-77 Commonwealth outlays in respect of the Northern Territory were subsumed in outlays on various Commonwealth programs and were included in appropriations of Commonwealth departments. In (977-78 the Commonwealth made a block payment of $53m direct to the Northern Territory to cover expenditure on functions for which executive responsibility was transferred to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly on 1 January 1977. The Territory became self-governing on 1 July 1978 and the Commonwealth made a direct, block payment of $288. lm (net) in 1978-79 in respect of functions transferred to the Northern Territory Government. In both 1977-78 and 1978-79, however, the Commonwealth continued to incur significant expenditures in the Northern Territory on certain functions: 1979-80 will be the first year in which Commonwealth payments are made to the Northern Territory on the same basis as payments are made to the States.
Until 1 July 1978, when the Northern Territory achieved self-government, the public finances of the Territory were subsumed in the Commonwealth’s financial accounts. Accordingly, meaningful figures in respect of revenue budget results for the Territory for the years 1975-76 to 1977-78 are not available.
The Northern Territory budgeted for a balanced result in its Consolidated Fund (a fund in which recurrent and capital transactions are consolidated) for 1978-79 and finished the year with a surplus of $ 1 .Om in the Fund.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 7 June 1979:
– 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 the House of Representatives Question No. 4328 (Hansard, 6 November 1979, page 2657).
asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 1 August 1979:
What Commonwealth statutory authorities were created in (a) 1976, (b) 1977, (c) 1978 and (d) 1979 to date.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Detailed lists of Commonwealth statutory authorities and the legislation under which they were established were provided in the First Report on ‘Statutory authorities of the Commonwealth’ presented by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations on 20 February 1979 (Senate Hansard, p. 18) and up-dated in the Committee’s Second Report presented on 15 November 1 979 (Senate Hansard, p. 2326). I would expect that the date of the establishment of the authority would coincide in the great majority of cases with the. stated date of the related legislation.
In the circumstances, I would not feel justified in authorising the considerable resources which would be necessary to extract the information and compile it in the form sought by the honourable member. If the honourable member could be more specific as to his interest, I would give the matter further consideration.
asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 21 August 1979:
Has his attention been drawn to reports of an allegation made by Ms Gay Thompson, South Australian Secretary of the Administrative and Clerical Officers’ Association, that flexi-time has become the greatest disguise for public servants with alcohol problems, if so, does it concern him that certain members of the Australian Public Service are abusing flexi-time in the manner described by Ms Thompson to a seminar of public servants held in Adelaide on 1 3 June 1 979.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
I am aware of the media reports of the remarks made by the Secretary of the South Australian Branch of the ACOA, but understand that the point she made was that flexible working hours arrangements in the Public Service made it more difficult to identify staff with alcohol problems through patterns of absenteeism than would a system which required rigid daily hours of attendance. A recent review of flexible working hours by the Public Service Board did not reveal any widespread abuse of the system.
Consulate-General in Los Angeles (Question No. 4384)
asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 2 1 August 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
(a) The properties listed in (2) (a) above were sold in June 1976 on closure of the post. The sale prices were $A276,422, $A2 11,382 and $A109, 756 respectively.
Two leases were taken up when the post was reopened in 1979:
Consul-General’s residence at $A74,300 per annum for 2 years increasing to$A82,000 for 1 2 months.
Office space of 1 79m2 at $A 1 7,395 per annum.
asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 August 1.979:
What action is being taken to implement the Horton Report.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
I refer the honourable member to the Ministerial Statement on Assistance to Public Libraries I made on 13 November 1979 (Hansard, 13 November 1979, pages 2887 to 2889).
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 August 1979:
What progress has been made with the (a) draft Convention on Territorial Asylum and (b) question of diplomatic asylum which Australia sponsored at the United Nations General Assembly in 1974 and 1975.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 August 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 22 August 1979:
What are the (a ) maximum and ( b) minimum estimates of the (i) past and (ii) projected proportion of the costs of administration of his Department devoted to the marketing, use, supervision, control and assessment of Australia’s uranium ore and/or the products, services and activities derived from its existence.
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
A number of positions has been allocated in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet for activities devoted to some aspect of the marketing, use, supervision, control and assessment of Australia’s uranium ore and/or the products, services and activities derived from its existence. It is estimated that in 1978-79 the salaries and other administrative expenses represented 1.8 per cent of the costs of administration of the Depanment.
It is estimated that in 1979-80 the costs described above will represent 1.3 per cent of the costs of administration of the Depanment of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
Activities related to uranium matters have been undertaken by a number of officers of the Depanment of the Prime Minister and Cabinet from time to time as pan of their normal duties. It is not practicable to provide a satisfactory estimate of the costs of these activities.
asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 22 August 1979:
What are the (a) maximum and (b) minimum estimates of the (i) past and (ii) projected proportion of the costs of administration of his Depanment devoted to the marketing, use, supervision, control and assessment of Australia’s uranium ore and /or the products, services and activities derived from its existence.
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
A number of positions have been allocated in my Depanment specifically for activities devoted to some aspect of the marketing, use, supervision, control and assessment of Australia’s uranium ore and/or the products, services and activities derived from its existence. In addition an Australian Uranium Export Office and a Uranium Advisory Council have been established. The direct costs of operating these two organisations appear separately in the appropriations of my Depanment.
It is estimated that in 1979-80 the total salaries and other administrative expenses of these activities would represent 3.3 per cent of the costs of administration of my Depanment. I would expect the costs to remain at much the same level in future years. Only those items of appropriation dealing with the general administration of the Depanment have been included in the base figure as costs of administration.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 August 1 979:
What are the (a) maximum and (b) minimum estimates of the (i) past and (ii) projected proportion of the costs of administration of his Depanment devoted to the marketing, use, supervision, control and assessment of Australia’s uranium ore and /or the products, services and activities derived from its existence.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
A number of positions has been allocated in my Depanment specifically for activities devoted to some aspect of the marketing, use, supervision, control and assessment of Australia’s uranium ore and /or the products, services and activities derived from its existence. It is estimated that in a full year the salaries and other administrative expenses would represent 0.02 per cent of the costs of administration of the Depanment.
Activities related to uranium matters have been undertaken by a number of officers of my Depanment from time to time as pan of their normal duties. It is not practicable to provide a satisfactory estimate of the costs of these activities.
It is estimated that in 1979-80 the costs described above will represent 0.02 per cent of the costs of administration of my Depanment.
These figures do not include the costs, met by my Department, in respect of the appointment of Mr Justice Fox as Ambassador-at-Large for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Safeguards. Details of those costs were provided in my answer to Senator Button’s question upon notice of 29 May 1979 (Question No. 1641) and appear in Hansard of 23 August 1979.
Science and the Environment: Uranium (Question No. 4450)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 22 August 1979:
What are the (a) maximum and (b) minimum estimates of the (i) past and (ii) projected proportion of the costs of administration of the Department of Science and the Environment devoted to the marketing, use, supervision, control and assessment of Australia’s uranium ore and/or the products, services and activities derived from its existence.
-The Minister for Science and the Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
A number of positions have been allocated in my Depanment specifically for activities devoted to some aspect of the marketing, use, supervision, control and assessment of Australia’s uranium ore and for the products, services and activities derived from its existence. It is estimated in a full year the salaries and other administrative expenses would represent 0.86 per cent of the costs of the administration of the Depanment.
Activities related to uranium matters have been undertaken by a number of officers of my Depanment from time to time as pan of their normal duties. It is not practicable to provide a satisfactory estimate of the costs of these activities.
It is estimated that in 1979-80 the costs described above will represent 0.80 per cent of the costs of administration of my Department.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 22 August 1978:
What is the cost per trainee of the scheme in terms of
– The Minister for Education has provided the following reply to the honourable member’s question:
South Australia- 13.
New South Wales- 14.
Queensland- 17.
Victoria- 21.
asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 29 August 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 29 August 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
I refer the honourable member to my answer to Question No. 4505 in today’s Hansard.
asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 29 August 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
I refer the honourable member to my answer to Question No. 4505 in today’s Hansard.
asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 29 August 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
I refer the honourable member to my answer to Question No. 4505 in today’s Hansard
asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 29 August 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
1 ) The following shows the number of vehicles operated by the nominated organisations within my portfolio:
OTC:5
In addition, Telecom operates 6,000 heavy trucks which have either V8 or 6 cylinder engines.
4 cylinder vehicles:
a ) V8 air-conditioned vehicles:
Australia Post: 21
4 cylinder air-conditioned vehicles:
asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 29 August 1 979:
Having regard to his announcement of 22 August 1 979 listing available funds for (a) community, (b) welfare, (c) arts and (d) sporting grants by his Department within the Australian Capital Territory what grants in each of these categories were made by his Department or any other Federal Government Department disbursing funds for the same purposes in each of the last 5 financial years.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
I am informed by my Department that:
Not all the Departments listed use the same definitions of ‘community’, ‘welfare’, ‘arts’ and ‘sports’. Hence comparisons between Departments must be made by a detailed examination of the particular grants in each case. Some Departments (e.g. Home Affairs) provide assistance to groups which are not strictly locally based ACT community groups.
Figures are provided for the following Departments:
Administrative Services
Attorney-General’s
Capital Territory
Education
Employment and Youth Affairs
Health
Home Affairs
Immigration and Ethnic Affairs
Social Security.
A table which summarises the grants provided by each Department is shown below:
asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 30 August 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 30 August 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
On 19 June this year the Department established an Internal Affairs Unit, in line with the recommendations contained in a report of the Law Reform Commission, to undertake the investigation of allegations and complaints against Departmental officers including officers of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.
In addition to the above the Government announced on 1 June 1979 that an investigation was to be made by a joint police group into allegations involving an unnamed officer of the Narcotics Bureau in Sydney. The report of this group is to be made to the Attorney-General.
asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 11 September 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 1 1 September 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 1 1 September 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( l)(a) Nil. (l)(b)and(4)-
asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 13 September 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Philippines-$US50m of which $25m is for the Second Window.
India-$US25m of which $5m is for the Second Window.
Indonesia- $US25m of which $lm is for the Second Window.
Malaysia- $US 1 m for the Second Window.
Thailand-$US1m for the Second Window.
Singapore- $US250,000 for the Second Window.
Yugoslavia- $US30m for the Common Fund as a whole.
Costa Rica- $US 1 m for the Common Fund as a whole.
Kenya- $US 1 m for the Common Fund as a whole.
Norway-$US25m of which $22m is for the Second Window.
Netherlands-$US25m of which $ 1 7m is for the Second Window.
Sweden-$US5.5m for the Second Window.
Belgium-$US6.Sm of which $3m is for the Second Window.
Denmark-$US2.3m for the Second Window.
Austria- $US2m for the Second Window.
Finland-$US2m for the Second Window.
OPEC-$US 100m to the Common Fund as a whole.
In addition, the following countries have undertaken to make contributions to the Common Fund without specifying the amount or which window they may wish to have their contribution directed to: Australia, Canada, China, Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, United Kingdom.
asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 13 September 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 13 September 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Since July 1978 the PJT has held two public inquiries into the prices of petroleum products and details relating to those inquiries are contained in Schedule A.
asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 18 September 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
However the numbers of persons who have arrived in Australia on temporary residence visas specifically for religious purposes are as follows:
asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 18 September 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 8 September 1 979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
1) (a) and (b) Interstate travel: My Department has no power to control concessional travel on interstate services provided by domestic airlines.
Numerous requests are received each year for special consideration in relation to persons intending to purchase tickets for international air travel. The criteria used in considering requests are ‘significant national interest’ and ‘compelling humanitarian’.
The relevant Air Navigation Regulation (ANR 106A) was amended in 1976. The following table therefore indicates the numbers of people involved in proposals and approvals for 1977, 1978 and the first ten months of 1979.
Notes on the above Table-
In addition to the above figures an arrangement exists between the civil aviation authorities of Australia and the United States for the carriage of up to 200 persons each way between the United States and Australia each year at concessional rates for the purposes of promoting tourism in each country. One hundred and twenty-one persons have travelled under this arrangement during the first ten months of 1979.
asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 18 September 1979:
What is his Department’s estimate of the number of persons who have left the work force (those who are neither working nor registered for unemployment benefits) as at 1 September 1979.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
(a) Between May 1976 and September 1979 the number of persons looking for full-time work as measured by the ABS labour force survey increased by 109,200.
asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 18 September 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The Commonwealth Government provides a framework, in terms of programs and services, to meet immediate postarrival needs. This is carried out through the provision of hostel accommodation, the payment of social security benefits, and English language tuition and other orientation. There is a scheme whereby the Commonwealth Government reimburses voluntary agencies for providing needed clothing and other personal requisites to newly-arrived refugees.
The Commonwealth Government provides an accommodation advisory service at migrant centres and centre-based officers of the Commonwealth Employment Service provide assistance with job placements.
asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 1 8 September 1979:
What are the cost and conservation benefits of 92 octane fuel, presently marketed by Caltex in New South Wales only.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
I understand that 92 octane motor spirit accounted for abour 1 7 per cent of Caltex sales in New South Wales in the month of October 1979. The costs and benefits of using a 92 octane motor spirit were discussed in the National Energy Advisory Committee’s Report ‘Motor Spirit- Octane Ratings and Lead Additives ‘of February 1978.
asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 19 September 1979:
Has the Uranium Advisory Council inspected all environmental reports and recommendations made by government and semi-government officials and authorities at every stage of uranium mining operations at Rum Jungle; if so, what recommendations has the Council made to ensure that there will be no repetition of the environmental damage which has occurred at any other site at which uranium mining proceeds; if not, will he refer the matter to the Council for a report.
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
I refer the honourable member to the reference to the former mining operations at Rum Jungle on page 6 of the first report of the Uranium Advisory Council which I tabled in Parliament on 1 3 September 1979 (Daily Hansard, pages 1085-87). I also refer the honourable member to the Ministerial statement on uranium development I made on 25 August 1977. In that statement I made it clear that there will be no more projects like Rum Jungle. The operations at Rum Jungle reflected environmental attitudes of 25 years ago which Australians would not tolerate today.
The Government’s policy in respect of uranium development takes fully into account the need for environmental protection. Development approval for particular projects will only be given following, amongst other things, completion of the necessary environmental requirements. As indicated in my statement of 13 September 1979 on the tabling of the first report of the Uranium Advisory Council, the Government does seek the views of the Council on the development of individual uranium projects. I have referred to the Council Pancontinental Mining Limited ‘s final environmental impact statement on the Jabiluka project together with the comments, suggestions and recommendations provided by the Minister for Science and the Environment under the Environment Protection Administrative Procedures of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974. lt is my intention to do the same in respect of Noranda Australia Limited ‘s Koongarra project and of other proposals for uranium development.
asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 19 September 1979:
Are some imported dyes being sold in Adelaide without the appropriate code number; if so, what action does he propose to take on this matter.
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
There is a registration system for dye colours used in certain countries known as the ‘Colour Index Number’ but again there is no requirement under Commonwealth legislation for dye manufacturers to register their products under this system.
I am also advised that dyestuffs used in certain industries may be subject to State and Territory legislation governing the labelling of goods in those States and Territories.
Post-graduate Awards (Question No. 4697)
asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 September 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
To avoid their being faced with a large tax bill at the end of a financial year, taxpayers who derive income from more than one source have their income from all but the major source taxed at the standard rate of taxation. As announced, the standard rate will revert to 32 cents in the dollar for PAYE purposes from 1 December 1979.
The standard rate is applied in these circumstances because ordinarily, anyone who has a second source of income would, in the aggregate, be receiving income sufficient to attract that rate. The application of the tax instalment deduction arrangements usually has the result that the total of the tax instalments deducted from the income of a person with two sources of income is approximately equal to the amount of tax that would have been deducted if those earnings had been from the one source.
There are exceptions to this and the Commissioner of Taxation may, if requested, arrange for lower instalments that those prescribed (or even no instalments at all) to be deducted if the circumstances so warrant.
While it is clearly not possible for tax instalment schedules for general use to match the tax payable in every case, the schedules meet the requirements of the great majority of taxpayers.
Where a taxpayer considers that instalments deducted in accordance with the schedules would be excessive, he or she may apply to have them varied. A person who wishes to do this should contact the nearest Taxation Office giving details of estimated income, allowable deductions, dependants and concessional expenditure for the year. Advice will then be given regarding the tax instalments appropriate in the particular circumstances and, if necessary, arrangements made to have instalments deducted at a lower rate or discontinued altogether.
asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 20 September 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The Department of National Development has published a paper, ‘Australian Energy Policy- A Review’ which was released on 15 October. As I indicated in my foreword, the paper is designed to canvass possible future energy perspectives, clarify policy issues, and provide an account of the very significant developments which have occurred in energy policy in Australia over the last year or two.
asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 20 September 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 September 1979:
– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
The honourable member will, no doubt, be interested in the following information concerning expenditures under the program: expenditure for 1 979-80 is estimated to be $ 10,372,000; an increase of $964,3 10 over expenditure in 1 978-79.
Total State and Commonwealth expenditure has risen from $14,788,758 in 1977-78 to an estimated total of $20,744,000 in 1979-80, partly due to an expansion in expenditure on existing services, but additionally from the approval of 25 new home care services and 79 additional welfare officer positions.
Means Test on Service Pension Increases (Question No. 4707)
asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 20 September 1 979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The estimated savings do not take into account any increases in pension rates which may take place in May 1980 or in the financial year 1 980-8 1.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:
– The Minister for Science and the Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
Procedures. I expect that any environmental assessment carried out of these proposals would be in co-operation with the New South Wales State environmental authorities.
asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 22 August 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows (figures refer to the period 1 January 1979 to 31 July 1979):
The visas would have been issued on the basis of the different policies applying before and after 1 January 1979, depending on the date of lodgment of the application.
Note: The statistics in ( 1 ), (2 ) and ( 3 ) are preliminary and exclude numbers under the respective categories for some posts which had not reported for parts of the period. They
also exclude data on Indo-Chinese refugees processed by the Task Forces in Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand. The number of arrivals of such persons in the period 1 January 1979 to 31 July 1979 was approximately 6,600.
The statistics also exclude data on New Zealand citizens and on residents of New Zealand who are British Commonwealth citizens or citizens of the Republic of Ireland entering Australia under the Trans-Tasman Agreement, without the need to obtain visas or entry permits. The number of arrivals of such persons in the period 1 January 1979 to 31 July 1979 was approximately 8,900. It should be noted that some approvals in the period were of persons who lodged applications before I January 1979. Similarly, a considerable proportion of applications lodged in the period have yet to be determined.
The figures given in 3 (a) and 3 (b) relate to the number of visas issued under the immediate and special family reunion categories in the period 1 January 1979 to 31 July 1979. However, a proportion of the persons who were issued visas under other eligibility categories, such as general eligibility (independent applicants), had family links in Australia. Statistics on the extent of this connection are not available, but this aspect needs to be borne in mind when considering the family reunion element of the migration intake.
asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 30 August 1979:
In respect of each public housing authority in each State and Territory, and for each month from June 1976 to June 1979, (a) how many tenants were accommodated, (b) how many tenants were in arrears in their rent payments, (c) what was the (i) total and (ii) average amount of rent outstanding, (d) what was the average number of weeks in arrears, (e) how many notices to quit were given to tenants and (0 how many tenants were evicted.
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The detailed information sought was not readily available in my Department. As providing an answer strictly as asked would have involved considerable effort on the part of public housing authorities of the States and Territories, it has been prepared on the basis of financial years instead of months as follows:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 12 September 1 979:
-The Minister for Science and the Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (1)1 have seen the report in the Northern Territory News to which the honourable member refers. It concerns allegations relating to two situations arising out of past activities of Queensland Mines Limited in the Nabarlek area which could have led to radiation exposure of Aboriginal people. The allegations were made by a field officer of the Northern Land Council to the Manager of the Jabiru Laboratory of the Office of the Supervising Scientist. The Supervising Scientist passed these allegations to the appropriate Northern Territory Supervising Authorities, the Departments of Mines and Energy and of Health, for investigation.
The first allegation was that Mr Solomon Nayilibitj, a local Aboriginal who is an employee of Queensland Mines, and his family and other Aboriginals had some years ago lived for approximately 6 months in a core shed containing uranium bearing core samples. Mr Nayilibitj was alleged to be worried about possible radiation effects and to have requested Queensland Mines Limited to carry out medical checks.
The second allegation was that radioactive ore samples were scattered about an old Queensland Mines Limited exploration camp site, some 9 kilometres from the present Nabarlek lease, an area in the vicinity of which Aboriginals hunt
I am advised by the Supervising Scientist, on the basis of information supplied by the Northern Territory authorities and Queensland Mines Limited, as follows.
Some three or four years ago when the Queensland Mines Limited site was on a care and maintenance basis, local Aboriginal people camped for a few months about an old drillers galvanised iron shed near the Nabarlek ore body. In the shed were a number of plastic bags containing smaller calico bags of percussion drill hole cuttings. Some of this bagged material contained uranium ore.
It is understood that the Aboriginals did not spend much time in the shed but lived and slept outside under the verandah 2 to 3 metres from the bags. I am informed that the camp was probably occupied for no longer than 6 months. The Aboriginals were asked to leave by a Mines Depanment inspector in June 1976 and the company subsequently removed the shed and buried the cuttings nearby.
Queensland Mines Limited have no details of the discarded drill cuttings nor of the uranium content of the samples. However, the buried samples were located and a radiometric survey was carried out by Queensland Mines Limited and the Northern Territory Depanment of Mines and Energy in the presence of representatives of the Office of the Supervising Scientist on 21 September 1979. The average radiation exposure rate at about 1 metre from the uncovered samples was three to four times that due to local background radiation (0. 1 millirem per hour compared with a background rate of 0.03 to .04 millirem per hour in the vicinity).
All the material has now been removed and will be disposed of in the pit with other waste.
It is not possible to calculate the radiation exposure that may have been received by the Aboriginals without knowing the radiation field around the cuttings in the shed and the time spent in their vicinity. The exposure rate where the Aboriginals would have spent most of their time would have been much less than the 0. 1 millirem per hour measured at 1 metre from the specimens and it is unlikely that exposures much above background would have been experienced. Clearly any accumulated exposure would have been less than the annual dose limit of 500 millirem per year laid down in the Australian Code of Practice on Radiation Protection in the Mining and Milling of Radioactive Ores for members of the public living in the vicinity of uranium mines.
A medical examination would not reveal effects of radiation at these exposures. I am informed that Queensland Mines Limited are not aware that Mr Nayilibitj has expressed concern about radiation exposure, nor that he has ever requested a medical examination. He has never been denied one by Queensland Mines Limited, and on 20 September 1 979, Mr Nayilibitj chose not to accept a Queensland Mines Limited offer of a medical examination. I am also informed that Queensland Mines Limited is prepared to arrange, upon request, for medicals for Mr Nayilibitj, his family or any other member of the Nabarlek Aboriginal community who is concerned about radiation and at no cost to the Aboriginals.
The second allegation was investigated by the Northern Territory Depanment of Mines, Queensland Mines Limited and staff of the Office of the Supervising Scientist together with representatives of the NLC and the local Aboriginals. The location of the radioactive samples was the original Queensland Mines Limited exploration camp site some 9 kilometres south-east of Nabarlek, and outside the present Queensland Mines Limited mining lease. This camp was abandoned late in 1970. Queensland Mines Limited has not been permitted access to this locality since 1973 when exploration in the area ceased.
The investigation revealed two sources of radiation at the site giving exposure rates above background. One source was about 80 bags of mildly radioactive powdered drill samples located in a small cave close to the old camp. The other was a number of uranium ore specimens found on the ground in two spots within the camp area. General radiation exposure rates within the cave, about 1 metre from the piles of bags, were 0.1 millirem per hour (three to four times local background). Dose rates on the surface of individual bags, some of which had broken open, ranged between 0.0S and 0.2 millirem per hour with a maximum of 1 millirem per hour.
The ore samples were apparently hand specimens of Nabarlek ore. There were 9 rocks in all weighing one or two kilograms each with surface dose rates ranging between 10 and 60 millirem per hour. Dose rates at 1 metre were 1 to 2 millirem per hour. Prolonged handling of such rocks or living close by them for long periods could lead to unacceptably high radiation exposures and the possible manifestation of medical effects.
The state of the bagged samples and the rock specimens indicated that they had been undisturbed for some years. The camp site could have been visited by the odd hunting party during the dry season but is inaccessible during the wet. The general area shows no signs of recent habitation. It thus appears unlikely that anyone has received excessive doses of radiation.
All bags and rock specimens and any residual contamination were removed by Queensland Mines Limited in the presence of officers of the Department of Mines and Energy and a representative of the Supervising Scientist. Radiometric surveys have indicated that with the exception of one small patch ( 1 metre x 4 metres) radiation levels in the area now approximate normal background.
An inspection and survey of the area on 20 September 1979 by Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy officers accompanied by representatives of the Supervising Scientist and Queensland Mines Limited, Mr Solomon Nayilibitj and Mr Frank Nalowed, another traditional owner, confirmed that the radioactive material had been removed.
The legislation, agreements and administrative arrangements that have been established by the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory Governments are described in some detail in the first Annual Report 1978-79 of the Supervising Scientist which was tabled in this House on 15 November 1979.
asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 September 1979:
What was the (a) number of and (b) total sum paid on (i) claims involving 75 per cent of medical expenses for disadvantaged persons and (ii) claims involving 85 per cent of medical expenses for eligible pensioners since 1 November 1978.
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Statistics available from the direct billing payment system operated by my Department and quarterly returns from registered organisations for dic period 1 November 1978 to 31 March 1979 show:
asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 25 September 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Statistics giving country of origin of these are not available.
asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 26 September 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Information collected in the 1976 Census on the number of people residing in caravans on the night of the Census is classified into two groups:
The age distribution of people resident in private mobile dwellings or caravans in each State or Territory at the time of the 1 976 Census is as follows:
asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 26 September 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 26 September 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
In addition, Telecom has an extensive market research program. This program includes customer impact studies, especially in the non-business sector.
Telecom Consultative Council, which meets twice a year and consists of senior Telecom management and officials of major unions; consultative arrangements with individual unions for a wide range of activities have been developed.
In a broad sense, Telecom recognises the need for ongoing consultation with staff associations on matters that are likely to affect staff. Of particular relevance is the introduction of new technology. In this regard, a special subcommittee of the aforementioned Telecom Consultative Council has prepared a document which specifies procedures for the introduction of new technology. This document has been accepted by Telecom Consultative Council and is now awaiting ratification by some staff associations.
House Prices in Sydney (Question No. 4739)
asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 26 September 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
In several of the outer suburbs surveyed, which are representative of the areas where many first-home buyers acquire houses, increases in prices were considerably lower.
Analysis of Home Savings Grant approvals data indicates that the average price of dwellings purchased by first home buyers in Sydney increased by 12.3 per cent between 1977-78 and 1978-79.
Although the Valuer-General’s data cover both new and previously occupied cottages, it is likely that in most of the suburbs surveyed few, if any, of the prices covered would relate to new houses. Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicate that in the twelve months to September 1979, new house prices in Sydney rose by 7.9 per cent, compared to the overall increase in the CPI for Sydney of 10.0 per cent
Other factors which may have affected house prices in Sydney would include: an element of ‘catching up’ following several years of relatively modest increases in prices a marked reduction in completions of flats and home units from 1974 onwards, especially in established suburbs, due in large part to local government restrictions.
In most other capital cities, the average prices of land and dwellings remained relatively stable in 1978-79. The comparatively rapid increases in values of houses and land indicated” for many suburbs of Sydney, appear to reflect characteristics peculiar to the Sydney market.
Pan of the overall increase in prices may have been due to a small degree of ‘underbuilding’ in the mid- 1970 ‘s, relative to the trend of underlying demand for housing. The recent strong improvement in new dwelling construction in Sydney indicates that this situation is being rectified by the market.
asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 26 September 1 979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Lists are not kept which would precisely answer the question asked by the honourable member but appointments to the positions indicated in his question are usually announced publicly at the time they are made. Appointments to judicial positions, diplomatic and trade posts and membership of statutory authorities are listed in the Commonwealth Directory.
To compile lists in the form requested by the honourable member would constitute an additional call on resources at a time when staff resources in Departments are limited.
asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 27 September 1979:
1 ) In what country centres of
Is it a fact that closure of these centres
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
1 ) (a) Berri, Gawler, Kadina, Kingscote, McLaren Vale, Mount Barker, Mount Gambier, Port Augusta, Port Lincoln, Port Pirie and Woomera.
Kingscote will be closed this financial year. Other centres for which closures are under consideration at the approximate times indicated are:
Berri ( 1 98 1 -82, McLaren Vale ( 1 980-8 1 , Mount Barker (1980-81), Port Augusta (1982-83), Port Lincoln ( 1 980-8 1 ) and Woomera ( 1 98 1 -82 ).
Telecom plans to establish a new manual assistance centre at M Murray Bridge in 1 980-8 1 .
The increasing use of radio links and underground cable in the trunk and local subscribers’ networks will continue to progressively reduce the possibility of physical disruption from causes such as bushfires. Continuous service will increase as the automatic conversion program proceeds. In any emergency, the availability of secure, continuous telephone communications is an obvious advantage.
Trunking of the network is also arranged in a manner which minimises the impact on service when failures occur. By the widespread use of automatic alternative routing techniques, and the establishment of manual assistance at the most strategic locations, maximum security within the network is achieved.
Staff ceilings in Australia Post and Telecom Australia (Question No. 4782)
asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 9 October 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 9 October 1979:
What is the average delay in
Are any of the delay categories in parts (5) and (6) considered unacceptable by
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
With such a large range of equipment and cables purchased and used by Telecom, it is inevitable that there will be shortages of some items, from time to time, but these are generally of a limited nature.
The purchasing program is closely monitored and stocks are managed at levels to minimise difficulties, consistent with economic business managements.
Reconnections of in-place services are normally effected on the same day or next working day after issue of the order with delays exceeding two days occurring only infrequently.
Public telephone damage is often caused by vandalism but performance objectives for clearance of most faults on subscribers services by the end of the working day following the report are generally being achieved.
Where complete replacement of a damaged public telephone is necessary the damaged cabinet can be removed and the site made safe within 2 to 4 hours of the report. Where a complete replacement unit is necessary usually this can be installed within one month.
For minor repairs to damaged cabinets the objective is to effect repairs within 72 hours of receipt of the report.
Having regard to the high level of demand, it is considered the current achievements are satisfactory but efforts are constantly being made to effect improvements.
Currently, staff shortages are not seriously affecting operations in any area.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 9 October 1979:
-The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable members question:
The implementation of these recommendations means that new arrangements are being established with the States for co-operation over the planning and administration of tertiary education. There will be regular consultative meetings between the Tertiary Education Commission and State coordinating authorities to discuss general matters in regard to policies and procedures, and to provide a forum for dealing with Australia-wide issues relating to the balanced and coordinated development of tertiary education. There will also be detailed consultation between Commonwealth and State authorities over the preparation of triennial plans.
The Australian Education Council at its June 1979 meeting set up a small Standing Committee on Transition Education to implement these recommendations and to stimulate action in the States and Territories in co-operation with widely based state committees.
asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 9 October 1979:
As the Journal of Industry and Commerce (June 1979) published by the Department of Industry and Commerce indicates that adjustments between the demand and supply of labour will be uncertain, piecemeal and prolonged and that unemployment and vacancies may co-exist because of shortages of certain skills or limited geographical mobility, upon what advice has the Government acted in reducing funds for job training programs by 1 7 per cent for 1 979-80.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Apart from CYSS, where there was a marginal reduction, no decisions were taken in the Budget context which would limit the overall numbers of people in training.
The major drop in expenditure is a result of the lesser demand forSYETP funds as a result of decisions taken in 1978 to make the program more effective by limiting abuses and by providing training opportunities for the young people most in need. There will be no restrictions on eligible young persons being placed in SYETP vacancies this financial year. Moreover there were significant increases in funds provided for CRAFT and for Training and Industry and Commerce.
asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 9 October 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
1 ) (a) The Public Service Board has informed me that a copy of the record of proceedings of the meetings held on 18 October 1978, 30 November 1978, and 30 January 1979 between officers of the Public Service Board, the Australian Development Assistance Bureau, the Department of Foreign Affairs and certain unions was included in submissions tabled by Board Officers during the proceedings before the Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission relating to the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act 1979. Unions have access to these documents which are now a matter of public record.
The Public Service Board has informed me that the record of the meeting of 18 October 1978 indicates that unions were advised that the possibility of releasing to the staff-side the report of the joint review com mittee, or extracts from it, would be examined. As was stated in the answer to Question No. 3572 the Board considered that the report, because it was an internal working document for management, could not be released in full. The unions were advised of this by letter on 3 November 1978 and again at a meeting on 30 November 1978.
asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 9 October 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 9 October 1979:
-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (1)1 was referring, in my reply to Senator Georges, to assertions made in press statements issued by Aboriginals in Europe recently that Aboriginal people have been and remain ‘the target of a consistent policy of genocide for 200 years’, that they are now in the last phase ‘leading to the complete destruction of the Australian Aboriginals’ and that the Australian Government is driven by avarice and has ruthlessly pushed aside the desires and fears of the Aboriginal people in order to start mining uranium’.
asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 10 October 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The continuing cost of collection is expected to approximate 5 per cent of revenue in 1 979-80.
(a) Forty-five at 30 September 1979.
Staff are engaged on other departmental duties when not required for departure tax collection purposes.
asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 10 October 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
There is not a list in existence which would answer precisely the question the honourable member asks about the birth dates of appointees to statutory authorities and corporations. To compile such a list would require considerable checking with authorities. If the honourable member has a specific authority in mind and would care to indicate it, I shall see what can be done to provide the relevant information.
asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 10 October 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 10 October 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 10 October 1979:
In respect of penalties for foreign offenders of Australian fishing laws, will the Attorney-General consider holding talks with the signatories of foreign fishing agreements with the Commonwealth to discuss the possibility of enabling foreigners in breach of Australian fishing laws to serve their sentences in the penal institutions of their home country.
-The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
The Fisheries Amendment Act 1978 removed imprisonment as a direct penalty in respect of offences under the Act committed by foreign fishermen, except in cases of offences relating to the obstruction of officers. This amendment accords with provisions that have been negotiated with respect to the 200 miles offshore fishing zones of coastal countries at the current United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. Instead, the Act allows for the imposition of heavy fines. In default of payment of fines imposed, foreign fishermen continue, however, to be liable to imprisonment. Imprisonment remains a penalty under the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1968 that applies to the taking of sedentary species. Australia has no international obligations to allow foreigners access to those species on its continental shelf and they will not be dealt with in fisheries agreements that Australia negotiates with other countries. At present, there are no arrangements under which a person serving a sentence of imprisonment, including imprisonment in default of payment of a fine, may be transferred to another country for the purpose of serving the sentence in that other country. The conclusion of such arrangements will need to await the outcome of negotiations that are currently proceeding for a scheme for the transfer of prisoners between the States and Territories of Australia. With respect to countries which may not share the basic criminal justice system applicable in Australia, very careful consideration would have to be given to the basis for any transfer arrangements to ensure that persons transferred from Australia not only received treatment in accordance with our notions of penal justice but that they would also be required to undergo imprisonment for a sufficient period, in accordance with their Australian sentence, to deter them from breaches of Australia’s fisheries legislation in the future. The matter raised by the honourable member will, however, be kept under consideration by the Government in the light of experience in the administration of the Australian fishing zone.
asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 10 October 1 979:
What changes have occurred in the administration staffing arrangements, resources and services at Rosemount Repatriation Hospital, Windsor, Queensland since 1 July 1978.
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Since 1 July 1978, the number of beds at Rosemount Repatriation Hospital has been reduced from 80 to 60 and the staff employed full-time reduced from 122 to 111. Activities related to the Low Vision Clinic and a position of Woodwork Instructor have, in the same period, been transferred to R.G.H. Greenslopes.
Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders on Queensland Reserves (Question No. 4849)
asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 10 October 1979:
Islanders in Queensland be free to manage and control their affairs and comment on the inadequacy of existing Queensland State legislation.
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 10 October 1979:
-The information sought by the honourable member is contained in the following schedule. It has not been possible to provide details of the estimated potential size of the catch or its value as they have yet to be determined.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 10 October 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Aboriginal Self -management: Barwon Community (Question No. 4855)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 10 October 1979:
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
Excise on Low Alcohol Beer (Question No. 4860)
asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1979:
Has he received representations on lowering the excise on low alcohol beer; if so, what action does he propose to take.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
I have received a number of representations on this issue in recent weeks. While the Government has taken no decision to reduce the excise payable on lower alcohol beer the matter remains under consideration. The Government also has under study a report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare which has made recommendations on this matter.
Committee of Inquiry into Public Libraries (Question No. 4861)
asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1979:
As he has now been able to announce the decisions which the Government has made on his submissions concerning the report of the Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections which was tabled on5 November 1975, will he say whether he has yet made submissions on the report which the Committee of Inquiry into Public Libraries made on 27 February1976.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
I refer the honourable member to the Ministerial Statement on Assistance to Public Libraries I made on 13 November 1979(Hansard, 13 November 1979, pages 2887-8).
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 11 October 1979:
– The Minister for Education has provided the following reply to the honourable member’s question:
TEAS on the same basis as income from other sources such as employment.
During 1978 approximately I SOO TEAS beneficiaries were entitled to supporting parents benefit.
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Transport Annual Reports which were tabled in the Parliament.
Airlines which operated non-scheduled freight flights to or from Australia in 1978 were listed in my answer to Question No. 3425 given on I May 1979. During 1979 the following airlines have to date operated non-scheduled freight flights to or from Australia.
International Aviation Services (UK) Ltd, Transmeridian Air Cargo Ltd, British Cargo Airlines, Cargolux Airlines International SA, Trans International Airlines Inc., Trans America Airlines Inc., The Flying Tiger Line, Japan Airlines, Ansett Airlines of Australia Ltd, Bush Pilots Airways Ltd, Air Express Ltd, Interstate Parcel Express Company Pty Ltd, Trans Australia Airlines, Korean Airlines, Safe Air Ltd, Global International Airlines, North West Territorial Airways, Alaska International Air Inc., Air Niugini, Talair Pty Ltd, Stillwell Aviation Australasia Pty Ltd, Qantas Airways Ltd.
Security Arrangements at Official Establishments (Question No. 4871)
asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1 979:
What has been the cost of improving existing, or the implementation of new, security arrangements at (a) Government House, Canberra, (b) The Lodge, (c) Kirribilli House and (d) Admiralty House since December 1 975.
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Costs incurred to mid-October 1979 amount to approximately $180,000. Further planned work is expected to cost an additional $100,000. In accordance with the long established practice (see my predecessor’s answer to Question No. 3165, House of Representatives Hansard, 4 November 1975, page 2776) I do not propose to provide separate figures for individual residences.
Security measures which have been taken and which will continue to be taken are those assessed as appropriate in the circumstances by officials responsible for security matters.
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1979:
How many advance purchase seats for flights to (a) London, (b) Athens, (c) Hong Kong and (d) San Francisco for the 1980 off peak period were unfilled as at (a) I August 1979, (b) 10 August 1979 and (c) 27 August 1979.
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The international airlines which offer the recently introduced APEX fares from Australia to these destinations have provided the following information:
The dates shown do not exactly correspond with those requested because the Qantas and British Airways accounting periods do not match the dates specified in the question. As APEX fares to Hong Kong were not announced until mid August 1979, the Qantas data for that destination is only available from 29 August 1979.
I am advised that Cathay Pacific is unable to provide the information requested in respect of its services to Hong Kong.
asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Applications for permanent residency from other sportsmen and women who have been here since 1975 would be considered on their individual merits, allowing for such factors as marriage to an Australian resident, family disposition and ability to maintain themselves without recourse to dependence on social welfare.
There is no reason why sportsmen and women who intend to stay in Australia indefinitely or for extended periods should not apply for migrant entry rather than temporary entry at the outset and so obviate a need to seek change of status after arrival. This in fact is the correct procedure for such persons to follow.
Consideration is currently being given to a variation of the rules relating to the issue of temporary entry visas to sportsmen and women, which in some instances will limit the numbers being admitted to Australia temporarily, so that Australian residents of equal talent will be given opportunities to enter the higher levels of sports. Such an approach, however, would still allow for the temporary entry of sportsmen and women whose skills were regarded by the appropriate sporting national body as of benefit to a particular sport. No other review of policy in this regard is contemplated at present.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 16 October 1979:
-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
Stenhouse Reed Shaw Ltd
Sedgwick Forbes Leslie Pty Ltd
No broker was dismissed.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 16 October 1979:
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 16 October 1979:
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 1 6 October 1 979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 16 October 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Third World interest, in Antarctica. As I said in a Foreign Policy statement in the House on IS March 1977, Australia sees the need to define its national interest in Antarctica in terms which recognise its potential importance to the whole of mankind.
asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 1 6 October 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Statistics of applications for Australian citizenship refused are included in the answer to Question No. 4909.
asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 16 September 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 16 October 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The average time between the approval of an application and conferral of citizenship varies considerably. Where applicants choose to have citizenship conferred at ceremonies conducted by officers of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the average time is only several weeks. However where citizenship is conferred at ceremonies arranged by local government authorities, the time factor is governed by the frequency of ceremonies arranged by individual local government authorities.
(4)-
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 16 October 1979:
-The Minister for Education has provided the following reply.
Under Recommendation 45 an additional amount of $5m is being provided by the Commonwealth over a three year period, commencing in 1979, to assist in the area of multicultural education in schools. This program will support activities in both government and non-government school systems, and the bulk of the funds will be allocated to particular projects on the advice of representative committees convened in each State. One intended outcome of this program is to assist in combatting any racist influences which may seek to have an effect within Australian schools. It is anticipated that a substantial amount of the funds provided will go towards the development of appropriate resource materials.
As a follow up to Recommendation 14, the Government is providing a further $.324m over three years to assist Australian professionals working with large numbers of migrant clients to obtain or upgrade language skills, and understand cultural differences. Pilot courses under this program commenced during the 1978-79 financial year, and further courses are currently being mounted. Participants in a number of these courses have included school teachers, and this program is therefore assisting to promote the goals of inter-cultural understanding and racial harmony within Australian schools.
In response to Recommendation 48, the Tertiary Education Commission has approached tertiary institutions throughout Australia with a view to having components on the cultural background of ethnic groups included in appropriate professional courses. In the area of teacher training, such an initiative should help to ensure that teachers entering the school system will have a better understanding of cultural differences and be more sensitive to the multicultural reality of the Australian community.
The final 4 of 42 titles of the basic materials are being completed and will be trailled during the first semester in 1980 along with all completed materials. This will complete phase 1 of the project.
Approval was recently given for the development of phase 2 of the project during 1980 and early 1981, at a cost of $1 10,200. This phase is concerned with the revision of the draft materials for publication, the production and publication of related materials (movie films, Aboriginal literature), the production and publication of a teacher inservice education package and the dissemination of all materials.
The interest in the materials being expressed by State Education Departments, as well as by individual teachers, indicates that CDC should aim to make the basic kit, and as many associated materials as possible, available for use at the start of the 1 98 1 school year. It is an expensive undertaking, and the Centre is considering ways and means of dealing with the financial ramifications of publishing this major work. Alternatives are being canvassed and the Centre will advise me of possible and preferred solutions.
As further evidence of the Government’s general concern to effect improvements in the field of Aboriginal education, it should be mentioned that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs discussed with State and Northern Territory Ministers at a recent meeting of the Australian Education Council the promotion of Aboriginal studies in schools. The Minister stressed the importance of community education programs to enable all Australians to gain a better understanding of the present situation of Aboriginal people. The Council agreed in principle to a number of propositions, including the production of high quality resource materials covering all aspects of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs, both historic and contemporary.
Both the CDC and the Institute of Aboriginal Studies can be expected to act as valuable resources bodies as developments in this area proceed.
I also draw the honourable member’s attention to the Minister’s report ‘Child Migrant Education 1 978-79 ‘ which I tabled in the Senate on15 November 1979. The report outlines a number of programs which contribute to improved community relations. Expenditure on those programs in 1978-79 was $28.8m and in 1979-80 is estimated to be $33.5m.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 16 October 1979:
Annual Report, concerning racist publications from the USA being sent through the mail.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Australia, as a State Party to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, submits national reports to the Committee established under that Convention whose task it is to consider measures taken to give effect to the Convention. The Second Australian Report, which was prepared in close consultation with my Department, was considered by the Committee at its Twentieth Session in August this year and the Committee found it satisfactory. Australia takes its obligations under the Convention seriously and Departments are fully aware of the Government’s determination to ensure that these obligations are met.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 16 October 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Australia and other like-minded countries in the region cannot condone Vietnam’s use of force to overthrow the legitimate government in Kampuchea. De-recognition of the Pol Pot regime could be interpreted as tantamount to endorsing the right of Vietnam to intervene militarily in the affairs of other states in the region.
The Government’s policy towards Kampuchea is based on the belief that only a negotiated settlement, in which all interests are involved, can bring peace and stability to Kampuchea. A pre-requisite for the establishment of an independent, neutral and popular government in Kampuchea, free of Great Power rivalries, is the withdrawal of Vietnamese armed forces. The Government would be willing to support any international efforts to achieve these objectives.
asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 1 7 October 1 979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
(a)Yes.
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 7 October 1 979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
One of the major current tasks being undertaken by ATAC’s Advisory Committee on Road User Performance and Traffic Codes is a comprehensive review of the National Road Traffic Code which for road safety and traffic flow improvement serves as a model for adoption by the States and Territories. The review is based on an assessment of States’ conformity with it so as to enable consideration of changes to the Code or to State legislation to reflect desirable national requirements. The Committee’s review is nearing completion and recommendations flowing from its work will be reported in the near future for further consideration by other relevant committees of ATAC.
It is not possible to list all aspects of non-uniformity as such information, in the level of detail sought, is not presently available.
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 17 October 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
1 ) Information on State regulations governing the registration and operation of road freight vehicles is best sought from those authorities which have the appropriate regulatory role. At the national level, however, the principal standards relating to the safety aspects of freight vehicle registration and operation are found in
The Design Rules are applied uniformly throughout Australia at the point of first registration of vehicles. Information is not readily available to determine the extent to which the Draft Regulations and the National Road Traffic Code have been incorporated into legislation in each State.
Vehicle Design and the Advisory Committee on Vehicle Performance, are responsible for recommending Design Rules and Draft Regulations for ATAC’s consideration. A further Committee, the Advisory Committee on Road User Performance and Traffic Codes is responsible for developing the National Road Traffic Code.
Since 1975, the following Design Rules relating to road freight vehicles have been endorsed:
ADR 28A Motor Vehicle Noise
ADR 30 Diesel Engine Exhaust Smoke Emissions
ADR 32 Seat Belts for Heavy Vehicles
ADR 35 Commercial Vehicle Braking Systems
ADR 36 Exhaust Emission Control for Heavy Duty Vehicles
Since 1975, Draft Regulations have been revised or introduced on the following aspects of freight vehicle safety and operation: revision of requirements for load and dimensional limits revision of in-service noise requirements specification of maximum turning circle for combinations of vehicle and trailer.
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 7 October 1 979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 17 October 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Contract 23-5 180/79/2:
Contract 23- 1 680/79/5:
One hundred and ninety-two maintenance supply items, including cabin press controllers, amplifiers, HF antenna tuning units, transmission assemblies, brake assemblies, main wheel and nose wheel tyres, gyros and turbo compressors. These items are required for maintenance of Boeing 707 aircraft and would also be available as replacement parts when required.
The maintenance supply items are being used as spare system assemblies to replace those items which become unserviceable in the aircraft. The removed items are repaired and then in turn used as replacement items when needed.
Because of their repairable nature, the majority of the maintenance supply items are expected to remain in the RAAF inventory for the service life of the Boeing 707 aircraft.
asked the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 17 October 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 18 October 1979:
Will he update his answer to my question on notice No. 2279 (Hansard, 24 November 1 978, page 3467 ).
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
I refer the honourable member to my answer to House of Representatives Question No. 4634 for details relating to price increases for petroleum products resulting from public inquiries conducted by the PJT since October 1 978.
The attached schedule updated Schedule B of my answer to House of Representatives Question No. 2279 of 24 November 1 978 and contains details of price increases found justified by the PJT for premium grade motor spirit supplied by all of the major oil companies to resellers in the Melbourne metropolitan area, from October 1978 to October 1979. It also shows the resulting maximum justified wholesale prices for premium motor spirit supplied by the companies during this period.
asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 23 October 1979:
How many years’ disposable income was required by a single income family, with a dependent spouse and 2 children, receiving average annual earnings to purchase (a) a medium priced block of land, ( b ) a newly erected 2 or 3 bedroom house or flat and (c) a medium priced established 2 or 3 bedroom house or flat in each capital city during each of the years from 1 970-7 1 to 1 978-79 and for the period1 July 1979 to 1 8 October 1979.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 23 October 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Springs railway, and the sealing of the Stuart Highway, expected to be completed around 1986, will be monitored closely.
The existing Non-official Post Office at Coober Pedy is coping adequately with the current level of customer demand. A change in the method of operation of the office would not affect the range of services now provided.
asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 23 October 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
A commonly used alternative measure is provided by official statistics on the number of housing loan approvals to individuals. A comparison of this series with data on housing transactions in States where information is available indicates that housing finance approvals account for, on average, about 90 per cent of housing transactions.
There are no official statistics available. Surveys undertaken in 1973 and 1974 by PA Management Consultants Pty Ld for the Commonwealth Department of Housing and Construction estimated that about 50 per cent of new dwellings were purchased by first home buyers. These surveys did not include established dwellings.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 23 October 1979:
Is it a fact that Commonwealth post-graduate scholarships are subject to taxation while postgraduate scholarships awarded by universities and private enterprise are not; if so, what action will be taken to correct this anomaly.
-The Minister for Education has provided the following reply to the honourable member’s question:
Section 23 (z) of the Income Tax Assessment Act exempts income derived by way of a scholarship, bursary or other educational allowance by a student receiving full-time education at a school, college or university. Specifically excluded from the exemption are amounts received by a recipient student under bond to the person or authority from whom the allowance is received or under the National Employment and Training System (the NEAT Scheme) and the Former Regular Servicemen’s Vocational Training Scheme. Also excluded from the exemption is income derived after 31 October 1 978 under a Commonwealth Postgraduate Award, i.e., under a postgraduate award granted under the Student Assistance Act 1973.
Exclusion from the section 23 (z) exemption means that the living allowance, incidentals allowance and thesis allowance payable under a Commonwealth Postgraduate Award are now assessable income in the hands of an award holder but the travelling allowance and establishment allowance are not Expenses of self-education incurred in carrying out the terms of the Award qualify for deduction against an Award holder’s assessable income except for the first $250 of such expenditure which qualifies as concessional expenditure for concessional rebate purposes. Expenditure for which the travelling allowance and establishment allowance are paid is not an allowable income tax deduction.
This means, broadly, that Commonwealth Postgraduate Awards are subject to taxation whereas the section 23 (z) exemption would apply to non-bonded postgraduate scholarships awarded by universities and private enterprise. The section 23 (z) exemption does not apply, of course, to the remuneration that some employers continue to pay to employees while pursuing a full-time postgraduate course of study.
The question of which scholarships awards, etc. should be included in the section 23 (z) exemption and which should be excluded from the exemption was reviewed during the 1979-80 Budget deliberations. The Government decided, however, that there should be no change to the present position.
asked the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 23 October 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Sweden, Norway, Denmark, West Germany, Yugoslavia, France, Holland, Spain, Poland, Bangladesh, India, Korea, Nepal, Pakistan.
Legislation does exist in most EEC countries which requires unions to be notified of the likely employment effect of proposed redundancies. For example, in West Germany, when redundancies are seen to be inevitable the parties concerned are required to draw up appropriate social plans.
France has recently introduced legislation (to be implemented in a number of stages) requiring employers with at least 300 employees to produce annual ‘Social Balance Sheets’ which are to include information on employment
In Sweden the provisions of the 1977 ‘Joint Regulation in Working Life Act’ which provides employees with substantial influence over the organisation of work and the management of company affairs, including rights to information disclosure, could result in specific collective agreements which, inter alia, might include requirements for such social impact studies.
The Government strongly supports the principle and practice of effective consultation and communication between employers and employees. The Government’s policy on employee participation commits it to encourage the implementation and demonstrate the value of this approach. My Department for example, has used the tripartite approach extensively in its productivity improvement programs.
The Government also recognised the critical importance of due consideration being given to the social consequences of technological change, before its actual introduction. It believes that employees and their representatives should be party to such proposals at the earliest possible stage in order to ensure that any disruptive effects are kept to a minimum.
asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 23 October 1979:
-The Attorney-General has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 23 October 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
1 ) Bankruptcy statistics are recorded on a financial year basis in each Bankruptcy District The Bankruptcy Districts of Australia coincide with the States and internal Territories, with the following exceptions:
Southern Queensland
Central Queensland
Northern Queensland.
Statistics on the incidence of bankruptcies on a District by District basis for the years 1 969-70 to 1 978-79 inclusive were recently provided in answer to a question from Mr Humphreys (Question No. 4660). The answer was circulated on 25 October 1979.
The number of bankruptcies in Australia for the period 1 January 1979 to 31 October 1979 was 3,853, as follows:
Within each District, separate statistics are not maintained on the incidence of bankruptcies in (a) each city, (b) each major provincial town, or (c) each country area. However for the financial years 1977-78 and 1978-79 statistics were extracted on the geographical distribution of bankruptcies on a State capitals and suburbs-State country and regional basis. The statistics for 1977-78 were set out in Schedule 2- Part B of the 1 1th Annual Report on the Operation of the Bankruptcy Act 1966, which was tabled in Parliament on 22 November 1978. The statistics for 1978-79 are set out in Schedule 2-Part B of the 12th Annual Report, which was tabled on 21 November 1979.
asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 24 October 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The Government also decided to ask the Trade Practices Commission to monitor and report on the extent of price discrimination in the industry. The decision to request a report on price discrimination recognises changes which have occurred in the market situation since my announcement of the proposals. A decision on the proposals relating to price discrimination and the prohibition of oil companies from engaging in retailing petroleum has been deferred until after the Government nas had an opportunity to consider the report of the Trade Practices Commission on price discrimination and public comments on the draft franchising bill.
asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 24 October 1979:
What is the estimated cost of managing the Australian fishing zone in 1979-80 and how much of this will be recovered in the form of fishing fees from other countries.
-The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:
It is not possible to identify readily the salary and other costs of staff involved in the management of the Australian fishing zone. However, a total of $900,000 has been appropriated to the Department of Primary Industry for the management of the zone in 1 979-80 for specific items such as reimbursement to the States for observer functions on foreign fishing vessels, apprehension and prosecution of foreign fishing vessels, computer services, as well as incidental expenditure covering log books, surveillance manuals, licence forms and manne charts.
In respect of the above appropriations it should be noted that the determination of future estimates of management related expenditure in the Australian fishing zone will be based on practical experience gained in the first year of operation of the zone.
It should also be understood that surveillance of the Australian fishing zone is provided by primary and secondary units which are also engaged in covering the requirements of a number of other departments. These surveillance efforts are co-ordinated through the Australian Coastal Surveillance Centre, within the Depanment of Transport. It is not possible to apportion surveillance costs to any one department or to any specific incident, in this case the detection of illegal operations by foreign fishing vessels.
It is estimated that$3.3m wilt be paid by foreign fishing nations in the form of fishing fees (including statutory licence fees) in 1979-80.
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 24 October 1 979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
(a) A total of four places is reserved for hire cars without any reservations for any particular companies.
In addition, a total of 49 places is allocated to Commonwealth passenger vehicles, diplomatic corps, authorised car rental companies and incapacitated drivers.
asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 24 October 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Mr L. F. Backen, First Assistant Secretary, Oil and Gas Division, Department of National Development.
Mr K. F. Brigden, Second Commissioner of Taxation, Australian Taxation Office.
Mr I. Castles, O.B.E., Secretary, Department of Finance.
Mr D. J. Fraser, First Assistant Secretary, Industry Division 3, Department of Industry and Commerce.
Mr K. W. Popple, Assistant Secretary, Revenue, Loans and Investment Division, Department of the Treasury.
Mr E. M. W. Visbord, Deputy Secretary, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
Mr J. M. Wilcox, Principal Adviser, Commodities No. 2 Division, Department of Trade and Resources.
Mr L. W. Williams, Acting Director, Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics.
asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 24 October 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
I am informed by my Department that:
(a) The original rough designs were prepared by members of the Christmas Island Philatelic Advisory Committee (Christmas Island Administration). The artwork was prepared by Harrison’s, an English stamp printing firm commissioned by Crown Agent’s, London, who acted for the Christmas Island Administration in this issue.
b ) A member of the Christmas Island Philatelic Advisory Committee wrote the captions.
Crown Agents were asked specifically to ensure that all titles and academic qualifications used were correct and to arrange alterations with the printers, where necessary.
and (3) The initials were intended to stand for Commander of the Royal Victorian Order. The correct initials are C.V.O.
The initials R.N. were intended to identify the personage as a member of the Royal Navy. Their inclusion was not, however, formally correct
5 ) Yes, to both parts of the question.
See(4)above.
The decorations were included to show the distinguished careers of these men.
The Admiral of the Fleet on the 8c stamp, Sir William Henry May, was a Captain when he visited Christmas Island and was so depicted by the artist. Admiral Pelham Aldrich, whose portrait appears on the 5c stamp, was also a Captain when he visited Christmas Island. It is understood, however, that the last available portrait of him shows him in his Admiral’s uniform and this portrait was used for the stamp.
asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 25 October 1979:
-The Attorney-General has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
An account from the firm in respect of the intervention has not yet been received but in response to inquiries made in the light of this question the firm has advised that an account will soon be rendered for the period 1 June to 31 October 1979. That account will be for professional fees of $US 10,476 and disbursements of SUS755.2 1. The firm is unable, having regard to the way in which its accounts have been kept, to apportion these amounts precisely between the intervention and the other related antitrust matters, but has commented that all except about $US2,000 would have been included directly in connection with the Court of Appeals proceedings.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 25 October 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is:
I take your question to refer to devices containing radioactive sources.
In the States the use of such radioactive devices is regulated through the relevant Radiation or Radioactive Substances Legislation. Procedures for the use of such devices have not been discussed in the consultative bodies established by the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory in relation to the Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act 1978 for which I am responsible and which provides for the development in consultation with the States of codes of practice relating to the health, safety and protection of the environment in the course of nuclear activities.
See(l) above.
See (1) above.
(a) I understand that a comprehensive radiation ordinance is being prepared for the Australian Capital Territory as a matter of priority.
Northern Territory Radiation (Safety Control) Ordinance 1978.
5 ) With respect to 4 ( b ) as set out in the Ordinance.
Energy Use in Buildings (Question No. 5001)
asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 25 October 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
In addition, the Australian Housing Research Council is investigating thermal efficiency and user characteristics of dwellings designed for low energy usage.
Department of Housing and Construction:
Australian Housing Research Council: funded equally by the Commonwealth and States to a total of $200,000 for each of the 1978-79 and 1979-80 financial years, from which totals
b ) $69,8 1 4 is committed for expenditure in 1 979-80.
Dwelling Design Guidelines have been prepared by my Department for the National Capital Development Commission (NCDC) for application to public housing in the ACT. These Guidelines have been used by the NCDC as the basis of a community publication providing information on low energy housing for housing consumers in the ACT.
Building regulations are the responsibilities of the States. However, the Department is involved, in conjunction with the States, in the review of the Interstate Standing Committee on Uniform Building Regulations. One of the issues under consideration is the need to take into account regulatory processes and controls which affect the conservation of energy in housing and buildings.
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 25 October 1 979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2), (3) and (4) Air Navigation Orders require only that cabin attendants shall be instructed in the location and use of first aid equipment and have a knowledge of the physiological effects of altitude, together with the use and location of oxygen equipment carried. The content of training syllabuses is delegated to the airlines concerned and is subject to only general supervision by my Department.
asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 25 October 1 979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
This is in accordance with strict operating procedures to ensure no harmful effects to downstream users. At present, the operation of such schemes both in Victoria and South Australia is carried out under informal co-operative arrangements with the River Murray Commission. Under the proposed amended River Murray Waters Agreement, I would expect that future operations would be formally integrated with a comprehensive water quality management plan for the river system.
asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 25 October 1979:
What were the total contributions collected by (a) medical and (b) hospital funds during each of the three months periods ending (i) 30 June 1978, (ii) 30 September 1978, (iii) 31 December 1978, (iv) 31 March 1979 and (v) 30 June 1979 or for any of these periods for which figures are available.
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 25 October 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 6 November 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 6 November 1979:
Is the Minister able to state what percentage of annual budget appropriations are committed to Social Security and welfare outlays by national governments in (a) the United States of America, (b) the United Kingdom, (c) Canada, (d) Australia, (e) New Zealand, (0 Sweden, (g) Denmark, (h) the Netherlands, (j) France, (k) West Germany and (1) Japan.
-The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
While the information requested by the honourable member could be provided after a large amount of research it would not give a clear picture of relativities because of the significantly different government structures in the countries listed. To obtain the body of information which would be necessary to make valid comparisons between these countries would require a major research effort and I am not prepared to authorise the application of the necessary resources.
asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 6 November 1 979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
At 16 November 1979, however, tax owing by individual taxpayers and due for payment before 1 April 1979 amounted to $186m. Tax owing by individual taxpayers at the same date and due for payment between 1 April 1979 and 30 June 1979 amounted to $263m. Comparable figures as at 30 June 1979 were $223m and about $389m. Changes in the amount of tax owing at any date can be due to amendment of assessments and other miscellaneous factors as well as to payments.
asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 6 November 1 979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
At 16 November 1979, however, tax owing by companies and due for payment before 1 April 1979 amounted to $165m. Tax owing by companies at the same date and due for payment between 1 April 1979 and 30 June 1979 amounted to $ 1 75m. Comparable figures as at 30 June 1 979 were $ 1 74m and about $85m. Changes in the amount of tax owing at any date can be due to amendment of assessments and other miscellaneous factors as well as to payments.
asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 6 November 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 6 November 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 6 November 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) There are no published data relating to broader measures of the volume of money than M3; data on M3 are published in the Statistical Bulletin of the Reserve Bank. However, broader measures may be constructed by adding to M3 selected liabilities of financial institutions other than banks. For example, one wider measure of the volume of money may be constructed by adding to M3 the withdrawable funds of permanent building societies. Data for the withdrawable funds of permanent building societies are available from the ABS publication, Housing Finance for Owner Occupation- Permanent Building Societies, Australia (Catalogue No. 5610.0). Another, even wider measure, could be constructed by adding (some of) the liabilities of finance companies. The choice and use of particular measures depends very much on the purpose of the analysis.
asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 7 November 1979:
-The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 7 November 1979:
Are there weight limits for employment with the Commonwealth Bank; if so, are these limits so rigidly applied as to exclude from employment a person otherwise suitable for a position.
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The Managing Director of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation has advised that one of the requirements governing appointment to service in the Corporation under the Commonwealth Banks Act 1959 is that the Corporation be satisfied regarding the applicant’s health and physical fitness.
Subject to some flexibility the Corporation’s medical requirements are closely allied to the general medical standard as set out in the Handbook for Commonwealth Medical
Officers issued by the Commonwealth Department of Health.
Weight scales are detailed and the general medical standard is met where the variation from the scale does not exceed:
in males- 15 per cent below or 25 per cent above; and
in females- 20 per cent below or 25 per cent above.
Where the applicant is outside these limits, special consideration is afforded individual cases. Generally speaking, however, the Corporation, on medical advice, prefers that the weight be adjusted to within the limits before an offer of employment is made.
asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 7 November 1979:
Is it a fact, as estimated by the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare in its report on Drug Problems in Australia, that in the 6 years prior to 1 979 the tobacco industry in Australia spent close to $ 100m on advertising whereas expenditure on anti-smoking campaigns over the same period was of the order of $ 1.5m.
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The Senate Standing Committee’s Report entitled ‘Drug Problems in Australia- an Intoxicated Society?’ referred to said that the tobacco industry has probably spent close to $ 100m on advertising in the last six years whereas total Commonwealth expenditure on anti-smoking campaigns over the same period has been $ 1 .5m ‘.
As the report was printed in October 1977, the period to which I assume the honourable member is referring is the six year period prior to 1977. In three years of this period, 1972-73-1974-75, an amount of $ 1.5m was spent by the Commonwealth in the National Warning Against Smoking Campaign.
It is not possible to provide details of total expenditure by the Government to discourage smoking as the Commonwealth supports, or has supported through other funding mechanisms, a wide variety of health education activities carried out in hospitals, health centres and other health agencies. These programs aim to promote healthy lifestyles and include anti-smoking as a major part of the overall programs.
Apart from Commonwealth financial outlays, the honourable member will be aware that, as a significant antismoking measure, the Government prohibited, as from I September 1976, the advertising of cigarettes and cigarette tobacco on radio and television.
asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 7 November 1979:
How many applicants for tourist visas from (a) Greece, (b) Italy, (c) Turkey, (d) Cyprus, (e) the United Kingdom and (0 the United States of America were refused entry to Australia without being personally interviewed by Australian authorities during (i) 1975, (ii) 1976, (iii) 1977, (iv) 1 978 and (v) 1 979 to date.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Precise statistics of this kind are not maintained by my Department. However the following statistics on the total number of visitor applications refused in (a) Greece, (b) Italy, (c) Turkey, (d) United Kingdom, (e) United States of America for the period 1 January 1975 to 30 September 1979 and for (f) Cyprus for the period 1 January 1978 to 30 September 1979 may be of assistance. Detailed statistics are not available for Cyprus for the years 1975, 1976 and 1977. (It should be noted that the figures are for applications which in a small proportion of cases include more than one person.)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 7 November 1979:
-The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
Report-States Grants (Schools) Act 1972- Financial Assistance granted to each State in 1975-76-2 November 1977.
Report- States Grants (Schools) Act 1972- Financial Assistance granted to each State in 1976-77-23 February 1978.
Report- States Grants (Schools) Act 1973- Financial Assistance granted to each State in 1 976- 25 August 1 977.
Report-States Grants (Schools) Act 1976- Financial Assistance granted to each State- 23 February 1978.
Report- States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1976-24 November 1978.
It is not possible to provide information in respect of payments to individual government schools except in relation to grants made under the Special Projects (Innovations) Program of the Commission. Hurstville Boys High School received a grant of $827 under this program in 1979 for a remedial reading program.
The Commonwealth Government, through Commission programs, provides bulk funding to the New South Wales Government for government school programs to disburse as it sees fit. The following funds have been allocated to government schools in New South Wales through Commission programs in 1978 and 1979:
The following non-government schools in the electorate of St George received grants under the Migrant Education Program in 1978. Information in respect of 1979 is not yet available.
asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 7 November 1979:
Has his attention been drawn to comments of the Australian Mining Industry Council that due to a sharp decline in world demand for uranium and the discovery of major uranium reserves abroad, the estimates of the volume and price of uranium sales contained in the Fox Report are a serious over-estimation of the current probabilities; if so, and in view of the major uncertainties in the uranium market and the unresolved questions concerning the impact of uranium mining on the Australian economy, will he formulate a paper on the economic aspects of uranium mining for debate by the House.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
I am aware of various views, both from within Australia and from overseas, on the market outlook for uranium in the short and long term. The Australian uranium industry has a dynamic growth potential and undoubtedly has a very important role in supplying essential base loads for electricity generation in many countries. Earlier this month the first contracts since December 1972 were signed providing for the export of 2,500 short tons of uranium concentrates over the period 1983 to 1992. These contracts are worth, at present day prices, a total of some $A 1 60m to $A 1 80m.
asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 7 November 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Japanese Fishing Vessels in Australian Fishing Zone (Question No. 5057)
asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 8 November 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Every sixth day each boat reports:
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 19 November 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The only revenues which are specifically identified with individual airports are those relating to business concessions at airports, site and building rentals, car parking and a number of other miscellaneous charges. Moreover, only some of these revenues are received directly from the airlines mentioned in the question.
In these circumstances it is not possible to answer parts ( 1 ) and (2 ) of the honourable member’s question.
The Department’s accounting system, however, does not allocate these costs at locations to particular airlines.
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 13 November 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
No application to import further F28 aircraft is currently held by my Department
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 3 November 1 979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
For the year 1 979-80 the periods in question are-
The Ansett figures cover all airline operations of the Ansett group.
Figures for period from 1 July 1 979 not available.
In respect to Table (a) Qantas changed its method of recording various cost items so that a separate operating cost figure could no longer be obtained for the 77-78 and 78-79 years.
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 13 November 1 979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The figures relate to the financial years of the airlines which is the normal fiscal year except for Qantas. The Qantas year is from 1 April to 3 1 March.
The figures for Ansett cover all airline operations of the Ansett group and also includes materials used, services rendered and purchased and accommodation expenses. A separate figure for fuel is not available from published information.
Information for period I July 1979 to date is not yet available.
asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 13 November 1979:
– The answer to the horn member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 13 November 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Essentially, the statistics provided were statistics relating to the number of investigations into alleged drug offences for the period 1975-77 in all three Services, and the number of discharges resulting from these investigations or of discharges where drug abuse was a contributing factor.
asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 14 November i979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
General tariff rate- 20 per cent; Preferential tariff rate- 20 per cent; Developing country tariff rate- 20 per cent less $ 10 per tonne.
General tariff rate- 10 per cent; Preferential tariff rate- 10 per cent; Developing Country Tariff rate- 10 per cent less $ 10 per tonne.
The normal value was assessed under sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1 975. This sub-section enables the use of a third country ‘normal value ‘ where the Government of the country of export:
Malaysia was the third country specified in this case. The normal value assessed for dextrose monohydrate in Malaysia (converted at the appropriate rates of exchange at the date of assessment) was applied to exports of this product from the People ‘s Republic of China.
Normal value of the goods under sub-section 5 (3) is the price of like goods produced or manufactured and sold in the ordinary course of trade in another country specified by the Minister, being a country in which, in the opinion of the Minister, the costs of production or manufacture are similar to those in the country of export
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 14 November 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 14 November 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 14 November 1979:
– The answere to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The Commission’s reasons for this recommendation are set out in the IAC Report No. 1 8 1 . Briefly the IAC concluded that it was not clear whether the mine would be able to operate with low levels of assistance in the future or that problems it was facing could be assessed as short term in nature.
asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 14 November 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Other assets have included 100 per cent ownership of Asbestos Mines Pty Limited, which until 24 April 1979 operated a small asbestos mine at Baryulgil, New South Wales. Exploration licences are held coveting 24,300 hectares in the Baryulgil area. Woodsreef Mines Ltd is also part owner of exploration licences in the Wellington area of New South Wales.
Directors ‘s addresses are not published in the company’s annual report.
Information on shareholders’ addresses would be recorded in the company’s share register at Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., ANZ Bank Building, 19 London Circuit, Canberra City 2601.
asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 14 November 1979:
On what dates, at what specific locations and for what purposes has he met with (a) principals or employees of Woodsreef Mines and ( b) any other persons associated with or representing Woodsreef Mines, since 1 January 1978.
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
On a number of occasions during 1978 and 1979, and at various locations, I have met persons associated with the asbestos mine at Barraba, New South Wales, operated by
Chrysotile Corporation Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of Woodsreef Mines Ltd, to discuss operations at the mine.
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 14 November 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 14 November 1979:
Have members of the Philippines Consulate or their families been investigated on alleged breaches of the Customs Act; if so, when did the alleged breaches take place and was diplomatic immunity waived by the Consulate.
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
No. But I have been advised that officers of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs, as a matter of routine, check clearances of goods on which diplomatic or consular concessions are claimed. These checks apply to all diplomatic and consular establishments in Australia and are not confined to any particular establishment.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 14 November 1979:
-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 14 November 1979:
Does Commonwealth legislation require the resignation of an official of Aboriginal Hostels Ltd before that person can contest an election for (a) the Federal or (b) any State Parliament.
-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
page 3529
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 15 November 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 5 November 1 979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Effects of Heat on Light Aircraft (Question No. 5099)
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 15 November 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s questionis as follows:
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 15 November 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Australia and ASEAN members under the ASEANAustralia Economic Cooperation Program, Australia’s bilateral economic agreements and, more generally, through arrangements in the private sector. Also, in this regard Australia already has agreements on double taxation avoidance with Singapore and the Philippines. Negotiations have recently concluded successfully with Malaysia and have begun with Thailand on similar agreements. Officials of ASEAN member countries and Australia have agreed to discuss on some future occasion the desirability of concluding investment guarantees.
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 5 November 1 979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
I refer the honourable member to my reply, to his question No. 3685, in the Hansard of 73 May 1979 (page 2318). The only information I can add is that negotiations are proceeding with the South Australian Housing Trust to ascertain whether agreement can be reached for the Trust to take over all of the Commission’s housing and land reserved for housing at Port Augusta.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 November 1979:
– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows*.
Throughout 1979- a year marked by serious disruptions in the international oil markets- Saudi Arabia has maintained moderate and responsible policies in regard to the pricing and supply of its crude oil. Naturally the Government hopes that Saudi Arabia will be willing to maintain its moderate pricing policies and the production levels on which they are based. We consider that the best way Australia can encourage Saudi Arabia in this matter is for us to take action both domestically and internationally to encourage exploration for oil, to conserve oil and to encourage the development of alternative energy sources. As is also clear from the Government’s statements refered to above, Australia has appropriate policies in place to pursue these aims.
asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 20 November 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
1969-70-5, 1970-71-3, 1971-72-2.
asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 20 November 1 979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The Australian southern bluefin fishery takes place within the Australian fishing zone in the Great Australian Bight, off the coast of South Australia, and off the south east coast between Newcastle and north east Tasmania.
Most of the Japanese southern bluefin fishery within the Australian fishing zone takes place further offshore, further south and at different times of the year than the Australian fishery. Most of the southern bluefin catch of the Japanese fleet is taken outside the Australian fishing zone.
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 November 1979:
Will he table (a) details of the specified percentages tendered by each operator in relation to the recent airport car rental contracts and (b) a detailed schedule of the Government airport gross revenues declared by each concessionaire for the period 1 July to 30 September 1979.
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 November 1979:
Why is the World Wildlife Fund included in the list of charities to which donations are tax deductible, while donations to UNICEF, Save the Children, and Austcare, which give aid to human beings, receive no similar tax relief.
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
It has been longstanding policy that the gift provisions of the income tax law apply, so far as is practicable, only to organisations whose operations are conducted within Australia. In the case of overseas aid programs, that policy has regard to the fact that large direct financial contributions are made by Australia through a number of official aid channels. The recent departures from this policy in respect of the Kampuchea and East Timor appeals reflect the very special circumstances surrounding those appeals.
I note that the bulk of funds raised by World Wildlife Fund Australia is allocated to Australian projects.
asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 20 November 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2) and (3)1 refer the honourable member to the joint OECD Nuclear Energy Agency/International Atomic Energy Agency report ‘Uranium Resources, Production and Demand ‘of December 1977.
A further edition of this report is expected to be published in December 1979 and should be available shortly thereafter.
asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 20 November 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) See answer to Question No. 4624.
asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 20 November 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 November 1 979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 November 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 November 1979: (Question No. 5136)
asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 November 1 979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
I ) No. At the time of selection of the Leopard tank no contending tanks had sights superior to those incorporated in the Leopard. Subsequent developments have lead to passive night sighting equipment now becoming available; however the acquisition of such equipment is not considered to be justified under present circumstances and the existing equipment allows for adequate training in night operations.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 November 1979:
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 2 1 November 1 979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Commonwealth Expenditure on Roads (Question No. 5156)
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 1 November 1 979:
What sums were paid by the Commonwealth in the Electoral Divisions of ( 1 ) the Northern Territory, (2) Canberra, (3) Kalgoorlie, (4) Penh, (5) Swan, (6) Sturt, (7) Kingston, (8) Ballarat, (9) Bendigo, ( 10) Deakin, (11) McMillan, (12) Isaacs, (13) Henty, ( 14) Holt, ( 15) La Trobe, ( 16) Hotham, (17) Bass, (18) Franklin, (19) Braddon, (20) Wilmot, (21) Denison, (22) Wide Bay, (23) Herbert, (24) Fadden, (25) Dawson, (26) Lilley, (27) Bowman, (28) Brisbane, (29) Leichhardt, (30) Calare, (31) Eden Monaro, (32) Cook, (33) Lowe, (34) Barton, (35) Macquarie, (36) StGeorge, (37) Phillip and (38) Macarthur for (a) national highway construction, (b) national highway maintenance, (c) national commerce roads, (d) rural arterial roads, (e) rural local roads, (f) urban arterial roads, (g) urban local roads and (h) minor traffic engineering and road safety improvements during (i) 1975-76, (ii) 1976-77, (iii) 1977-78, (iv) 1978-79 and (v) 1 July 1979 to date.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The information sought by the honourable member has already been provided to the members responsible to the electorates in question at the time when work in the respective electorates was approved as a pan of a program submitted by the States. This information is too voluminous to incorporate in Hansard and I have directed my Department to assemble the data and I will forward it direct to the honourable member when this task is completed.
asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 November 1979:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 21 November 1979:
Will the proposed examination of Aboriginal land rights legislation referred to by the Minister on 1 3 November 1 979 be without detriment to the basic principles of the Act; if so, will the power of veto possessed by the Aboriginal community over developments at Jabiluka not be abrogated as a result of this examination.
-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
In my statement of 13 November I emphasised that the examination would be without detriment to the basic principles of the Act; and I further stated in the Senate on IS November during the passage of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill that the right of veto is a matter of principle and, therefore, outside the scope of the review.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:
-The Minister for Science and the Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
Aboriginal Affairs: Negotiations with States (Question No. 5176)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:
Further to the Minister’s answer to question No. 4915 (Hansard, 6 November 1979, page 2671 ) (a) how many bilateral discussions have taken place to date, (b) where did those discussions take place and what was the duration of each meeting, (c) what are the names, designations and salaries of all Commonwealth officers who have been engaged in these discussions, (d) have the officers of the States been of equivalent status to the Commonwealth officers and (e) have any of the Commonwealth officers involved in these discussions come from Commonwealth Departments other than the Department of Aboriginal Affairs; if so, which Departments.
-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
I refer the honourable member to my answer to question No. 5053.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:
-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (1), (2) and (3) Records held by my Department do not indicate that any direct Commonwealth financial assistance was provided to the Framlingham community before 1975-76. Assistance provided by my Department from 1975-76 to 1978-79 and estimated funding for 1979-80 is as follows: 1975- 76, $6,735-Employment. 1976- 77, $2,000-Purchase of fire fighting equipment. 1977- 78, Nil. 1978- 79, Nil. 1979- 80, $30,525- Training and wages costs, repairs and maintenance to existing housing and services including fire prevention equipment.
Note: above figures reflect financial assistance by my Department Direct assistance by other agencies is not known although it is understood that $9,250 is to be made available in 1 979-80 under the NEAT Scheme and $800 is to be provided through the Aboriginal Arts Board.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:
-The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
The information requested by the honourable member is not held in a form that would enable this question to be answered without very considerable effort I am not prepared to direct that the staff resources which would be required be diverted from more essential duties.
asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member ‘s question is as follows:
Financial Assistance to the Handicapped (Question Na 5260)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:
-The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
The information requested by the honourable member is not held in a form that would enable this question to be answered without very considerable effort I am not prepared to direct that the staff resources which would be required be diverted from more essential duties.
asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
page 3536
Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 22 November 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1979/19791122_reps_31_hor116/>.