House of Representatives
22 May 1980

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1980

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 3045

APOLOGY

Mr BURNS:
Isaacs

- Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman may proceed.

Mr BURNS:

- Mr Speaker, I wish to make an apology. I would like humbly to apologise to you, Mr Speaker, to the House, and to all honourable members for my behaviour last night.

page 3045

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Taxation

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

Employees and self-employed contributions to approved Superannuation Fund.

Your petitioners humbly pray that:

  1. Contributions paid each year to Superannuation Funds should be removed from the Rebate System and made a separate deduction from Assessable Income.
  2. The amount allowed as a deduction to be at least that required to provide a retirement benefit of $ 1 55,400.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite, Mr Burr, Mr Kevin Cairns, Mr Carlton, Mr Connolly, Mr Giles, Mr Goodluck, Mr Groom, Mr Jull, Mr Lusher, Mr Martyr, Mr Ruddock, Mr Sainsbury, Mr Short and Mr Wilson.

Petitions received.

Pensions

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

That there is an urgent need to ensure that the living standard of pensioners will not decline, as indeed, the present level of cash benefits in real terms requires upward adjustment beyond indexation related to the movement of the Consumer Price Index. By this and other means your petitioners urge that action be taken to:

  1. Adjust all pensions and benefits quarterly to the Consumer Price Index, including the ‘ fixed ‘ 70 ‘s rate.
  2. Raise all pensions and benefits to at least 30 per cent of the Average Weekly Earnings.

  3. Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:

    1. The present static threshold of $75 per week for taxation purposes be increased to $ 100 per week.
    2. A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dawkins, Mr Dobie, Dr Edwards, Mr Goodluck, Mr Barry Jones, Mr Katter, Mr MacKenzie, Mr Morris, Mr Nixon, Mr Shipton and Mr Staley.

Petitions received.

Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industries

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, being employees of The Australian Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industries, respectfully showeth:

  1. That Australian Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industries are vital to the livelihood and well being of many thousands of Austraiian workers and their families;
  2. That if imports of textiles, clothing and footwear products are allowed to flood the Australian market it will deprive 120,000 workers in these industries of their work opportunities;
  3. That the rights of textile, clothing and footwear workers in other developed countries have been recognised by their respective Governments and are protected by comprehensive restraints on imports from low-wage countries.

Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament recognise the rights of Australian workers in these industries and that tariff experiments of the kind proposed by the IAC in . 1977 and 1979 be rejected.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lionel Bowen, Mr Holding, Mr Hurford, Dr Klugman, Mr Les McMahon, Mr Martin and Mr Morris.

Petitions received.

Taxation

To the Right 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 proportion of pensionable people within our community is increasing at a significant rate. The number of people over 65 years old will rise from approximately 8.5 per cent of the population as it was in 1 970 to over 1 0 per cent by 1 990 and about 1 6 per cent by the year 202Q.

That technological change is accelerating the trend towards earlier retirement from the workforce.

That the above factors make incentives for self-provision in retirement years a matter of great urgency if future generations of Australians are to be spared the crippling taxation which would be necessary to fund such provisions from social welfare.

That Australia is in urgent need of locally raised investment capital for national development and that life insurance and superannuation funds are important mobilisers of such capital.

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Government will forthwith take the steps necessary to:

  1. Remove contributions paid by the taxpayer to superannuation funds from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income.
  2. Allow as such deduction amounts necessary to provide the individual with a reasonable retirement benefit as defined from time to time by the Commissioner of Taxation.
  3. Remove life insurance premiums paid from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income also.
  4. Allow such a deduction to take the form of a flat rebate of 20 percent of life insurance premiums up to a limit of $2500.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bradfield, Mr Chapman and Mr Dobie.

Petitions received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore pray:

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite, Mr Martyr and Mr Moore.

Petitions received.

Taxation

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:

  1. Present income tax laws are unfair to single income families,
  2. All marriages should be recognised as partnerships by allowing partners to divide their joint income for tax purposes,
  3. The family, which is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, should be an economic unit in tax laws,
  4. Children are Australia’s future and their individual care by a parent at home should not be discouraged by extra tax.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament will

Reform income tax laws to allow the joint income of husband and wife to be equally divided between them for taxation purposes.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Baume and Mr Chapman.

Petitions received.

Olympic Games

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

We the undersigned citizens of Australia by this humble petition support the participation of Australian sportspeople in the 1980 Olympic Games.

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

Petition received.

Unemployment

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

Your petitioners therefore pray:

  1. 1 ) That the Government adopt positive policies to reduce unemployment.
  2. That the basic Unemployment Benefit be raised to at least the level of the poverty line as calculated by Professor Henderson.
  3. In line with other Social Service additional income awards, and in order to encourage work creation schemes and the fostering of initiative and self respect, that the $6.00 per week additional income limit be raised to at least $20.00 per week.
  4. That the financial penalties above the earning of $20.00 per week, assessed on a monthly basis, be calculated at the same rate as other Social Security benefits.
  5. That the Commonwealth grant subsidies to State governments so that the unemployed can be granted transport concessions in order that they are not penalised in job seeking.
  6. That pharmaceutical and medical concessions be granted to the unemployed equivalent to those received by other Social Service beneficiaries.

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

Petition received.

Service Pensions

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

Whereas the Government has recently extended the eligibility for Service Pensions to include members of Allied forces, eligibility for merchant seamen remains excessively restrictive.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that:

The Government extend eligibility for Service Pensions to all merchant seamen whose service took them into a theatre of war and that the practice of relying exclusively on forms T124X and T124T to establish eligibility be abandoned.

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

Petition received.

Aboriginal Voting Rights

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 Amendments to the Electoral Act passed in 1979 by the Western Australian Government make it more difficult for many people to enrol to vote- particularly Aborigines and itinerants, but also migrants and youth.

Your petitioners note that because Western Australia has a dual roll system, some people may find themselves enrolled at a Federal level but not at a State level.

Your petitioners further note that the Federal Government committed itself to equal voting rights for Aborigines at State and Federal level following an urgency motion in Federal Parliament in 1979.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the Federal Government will use the powers granted it by the 1967 referendum to ensure that Aboriginal voters are not disadvantaged in Western Australia.

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

Petition received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

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 and 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 Dobie.

Petition received.

Noah’s Ark Centre and School Without Walls

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

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth- that a decision was made by the ACT School’s Authority on 28 April 1980 to move the Noah’s Ark Centre and to relocate the School without Walls contrary to the wishes of the Ainslie School Community, Noah’s Ark Centre, local residents and others.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the ACT Schools Authority’s decision to relocate the Noah’s Ark Centre and the School without Walls be revoked.

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

Petition received.

Metric System

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth 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 Goodluck.

Petition received.

Pensions

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

That there is an urgent need to ensure that action be taken to protect the living standards of the aged and request that provision be made in the forthcoming budget for the- payment of the full age pension for all citizens over 65 years of age restoration of all indexation to all pensions for those citizens 70 years and over application of quarterly consumer price indexation to all age pensions granting fringe benefits to all pensioners.

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

Petition received.

Taxation

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

The Humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That contributions to Health Insurance Funds should be tax deductible as it is inequitable for some members of the community to be able to claim taxation relief for health care costs, whereas other taxpayers are denied the right to claim relief for the expenditure of income in the provision of insurance against similar costs. It is contended that it is imperative for incentive to be given by way of taxation deductibility to encourage membership of Health Insurance Funds on a long term basis or both they and the Public Health Sector will become subject to abuses which could seriously affect their ability to provide an economic and efficient service to the community.

We, as members of the Queensland Teachers’ Union Health Society, therefore seek early action by the Government to restore income tax deductions for contributions by taxpayers to health insurance funds.

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

Petition received.

Taxation

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

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that despite repeated calls for taxation relief, charities which give expressly foreign aid are still not tax deductible, while donations to the National Party in Queensland through advertising in its magazine “Outlook” are an allowable tax deduction.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this house will see fit to amend the income tax assessment act by extending the number of charities, donations to which are allowable tax deductions, to include World Vision, UNICEF, Save The Children, Austcare, Foster Parents Plan of Australia, and other foreign aid charities in order to achieve taxation justice for these charities and assist them in their fund raising campaigns.

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

Petition received.

Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport

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

The Humble Petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth-

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will very pray. by Mr Leo McLeay.

Petition received.

Refugees

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

The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

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

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

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

It should be possible for Australia to: -establish and maintain on the Australian mainland basic transit camps for the housing and processing of 200,000 refugees each year; -mobilise the Defence Force to search for, rescue and transport to Australia those refugees who have been able to leave the Indo-China States; -accept the offer of those church groups which propose to resettle some thousands of refugees in Australia.

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

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

Petition received.

Sheltered Workshop Invalid Pensioners

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

The humble Petition of the attached citizens of Australia respectfully showeth-

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

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

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

We now urge you to act in another area of discrimination to handicapped persons byIncreasing the $20.00 per week income allowed in a sheltered workshop to $40.00 per week, before that income begins to reduce pension benefits; and then tie the $40.00 per week level with C.P.I. /pension adjustments in the future.

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

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

Petition received.

Liquefied Petroleum Gas

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 we object to locally produced Low Pressure Gas being placed at world parity prices which is causing the cost of L.P.G. to be an item inflated out of all proportion and an unfair cost burden to all users in rural areas.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the policy of locally produced L.P.G. being placed at world parity prices be abolished.

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

Petition received.

Olympic Games

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

We the undersigned sportsmen and women and citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia by this humble petition respectfully pray that the Australian Government ensure the participation of a full Australian contingent in the XXII Olympic Games to be held in Moscow, USSR, from 19th July to 3rd August 1980.

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

Petition received.

Citizen Military Forces: Long Service and Good Conduct Medals

The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of the undersigned members and exmembers of the Citizens Forces of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. On 14th February, 1975, the then Australian Government deprived the Officers and men of the Australian Citizen Naval Military and Air Forces of the distinctive and historic Decorations and Medals for long service and good conduct, namely the Reserve Decoration, the Efficiency Decoration, the Air Efficiency Award, the Efficiency Medal and Long Service and Good Conduct Medals, awarded for long and meritorious voluntary service in the Citizen forces:
  2. ) The proposed substitution of the National Medal for these Decorations and Medals varies the principle of selective recognition of efficient voluntary service in the Citizen forces in that it recognises the period of service only and embraces also full time service as well in the defence forces as in the police, fire brigade and ambulance services:
  3. This deprivation caused and is continuing to cause serious discontent amongst personnel of the Citizens Forces who willingly and cheerfully give of their spare time outside their normal full time civilian careers, to serve Her Majesty and Australia:
  4. The Reserve Forces of Australia have been recognized by the present Government as a valuable- and cost-effective- component of the Defence Forces. Anomalously, whilst the Government is actually supporting recruiting for these Forces it has imposed and continued this deprivation which as foresaid has depressed the morale of the Citizen Forces:
  5. Her Majesty has not cancelled the said Decorations and Medals.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray

Your Honourable House take appropriate action to resume the award of the several distinctive and historic Reserve Forces Decorations and Medals to members of the Royal Australian Naval Reserve, Citizens Military Force (Army Reserve) and Citizens Air Force.

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

Petition received.

page 3049

INVASION OF CYPRUS BY TURKEY

Notice of Motion

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

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

That this House, noting the plight of the 200,000 Cypriots displaced by Turkey in its invasion of Cyprus and of those Cypriots still forcibly detained by Turkey-

calls for the respect of the human rights of all Cypriots and the instituting of urgent measures for the voluntary return of refugees to their homes in safety; and

calls on the Australian Government to use its influences and to have the General Assembly Resolution No. 33/15 of 9 November 1978 fully implemented.

page 3049

SOVIET UNION

Notice of Motion

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
Lilley

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

That this House, noting the words of former Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, that Soviet influence has been brought closer to Australia into Indo-China through Vietnam, therefore asserts that decisions to reward the Soviet with the Olympic Games, to reward Vietnam’s aggression with aid and alter diplomatic recognition of Kampuchea would only powerfully assist Soviet strategy.

page 3049

DOMESTIC AIR FARES

Notice of Motion

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

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

That this House-

1 ) deplores the failure of the Minister for Transport to make a responsible and adequate statement to the Parliament on the limited inquiry to be conducted into air fares charged by Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia;

2 ) his failure to set a deadline for the inquiry or to freeze domestic air fares in the meantime; and

condemns the Government’s action in refusing to provide time for parliamentary debate on the disadvantages being forced upon air travellers by its domestic air fares policy.

MR IAN McCAHON SINCLAIR

Notice of Motion

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

-Ian McCahon Sinclair, the right honourable member for New England, was elected to this Parliament-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Has the honourable member a notice of motion?

Mr JAMES:

– Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The form in which the honourable gentleman is proceeding is in the nature of a statement. A notice of motion needs to be in a proposition form.

Mr JAMES:

– I could submit it in that form after I disclose my statement to the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am not sure that the honourable gentleman understands what I have said to him. I have heard him commence what purports to be a notice and it commences with a statement. A statement is not capable of being a notice of motion. A motion must be in a proposition form.

Mr JAMES:

-I give notice:

That this House show respect to Ian McCahon Sinclair, the right honourable member for New England, who was elected to this Parliament in 1963. He was first appointed as a Minister in 1965. He held several ministerial posts and served on many parliamentary delegations. He was appointed a member of Her Majesty’s Privy Council in January -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. The honourable gentleman is purporting to give a notice of motion but is, in fact, making a statement. If he Cares to show me the notice of motion that he proposes, I will read it to see whether it is in order. If it is in order, I will call him again. In the meantime, I will proceed with the business of the House.

page 3050

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 3050

QUESTION

FORTESCUE OIL FIELD

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask a question of the Prime Minister. I refer to certain rather puzzling aspects of the way in which the Fortescue oil field was classified as a new oil field and of unanswered questions on this matter raised by the honourable members for Hawker and Werriwa in this Parliament. Is the Prime Minister aware that, on the basis of documents publicly released by the Government, the only evidence upon which the declaration of Fortescue as a new oil field was made was on the data supplied by the Esso-BHP company, which is scarcely a disinterested party in the matter? Is it a fact that, according to the Government’s documents, the only independent data used provided by the Bureau of Mineral Resources is inconsistent with the evidence and claims submitted by Esso? Further, is he aware that a leading Australian geologist, Mr Colin Laing, has publicly declared that on the evidence available Fortescue is indisputably part of an old oil field? Does the declaration of Fortescue as a new oil field mean that under his Government’s policies Esso-BHP will net an extra $ 1,000m in 1985 alone, above what it would have received had Fortescue been declared an old oil field? Therefore, I ask: Will the Prime Minister immediately review this extraordinary and apparently scandalous situation whereby the Government-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will cease using words of that nature. He is entitled to ask for information but not to categorise the preface to his question in that form.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Will the Prime Minister immediately review this situation whereby the Government has provided for a $1 billion bonanza for Esso-BHP at the expense of the Australian people by ignoring independent evidence and accepting advice provided only by the companies?

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

-The question of making a determination of whether a field is a new one is a very significant question, particularly if the field has any relationship to what are classified as old fields. The question of Fortescue, therefore, was a very important one and one that needed to be examined thoroughly. The Government used the full resources of the Bureau of Mineral Resources to assist it in making a determination as to whether it was a separate field. The advice that has been given to the Government is that it was classified as a completely separate development.

I know the Australian Labor Party would, of course, like to make as much capital as possible out of these things to try to discredit the Government.

Mr Hayden:

– It is a $1 billion payoff. How much got into your party’s funds?

Mr ANTHONY:

-Let me say this about the Labor Party-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw.

Mr Hayden:

– Withdraw what, Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER:

-There was a reflection upon the Deputy Prime Minister.

Mr Hayden:

– It was a reflection on the party and I do not believe I should have to withdraw. You have held, Mr Speaker, on many occasions in this House, as have your predecessors, that while on the one hand a reflection directed to a person in this House has to be drawn, that does not apply to a collective group, an entity. You have certainly applied that principle to this side of the House. I referred to his party.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman in fact did not refer to the party.

Mr Hayden:

-I did.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will listen to me. The statement made by the Leader of the Opposition was an implication that as a result of actions taken by the right honourable gentleman somebody else, to wit the party, had benefited. It is an implication against the right honourable gentleman. I ask him to withdraw.

Mr Hayden:

– What I said was: How much got into your party’s funds from the company? It does not necessarily follow, although the suspicion obviously entered your mind immediately, Mr Speaker, and I can understand why-

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw.

Mr Hayden:

– I withdraw, but I must say that the Opposition has doubts about the administration -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw and I ask him to do so unqualifiedly.

Mr Hayden:

– I have withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the Deputy Prime Minister.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I disregard the remark as a cheap Jack political comment from the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the right honourable gentleman to proceed with the answer to the question.

Mr ANTHONY:

-The Labor Party seems to be particularly guilty-

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I take a point of order.

Mr ANTHONY:

-So far as its own policy -

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Minister will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Hindmarsh on a point of order.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– All around me, sir, I hear cries of: ‘How much in fact did your party get?’. I find it disturbing and I wish that they would stop asking questions like that.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I will treat the point of order of the honourable member for Hindmarsh in the way it deserves to be treated. I call the Deputy Prime Minister.

Mr ANTHONY:

– It is quite obvious that the Labor Party feels very guilty about its own energy policies and the lack of exploration and development that took place during its period in office. Development in Bass Strait came to a halt under the Labor Government.

Dr Everingham:

– I raise a point of order. I resent the implication directed at the Labor Party and the imputation which is thereby attributed to my leader. I ask that it be withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There was nothing unparliamentary in what the right honourable gentleman said.

Dr Everingham:

– On a point of order, Mr Speaker: He said that it demonstrates the guilt of the Labor Party. I submit that that is directed at my leader. I ask that it be withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER:

-My ruling is this: The words used by the right honourable gentleman were not unparliamentary. The words used were to the effect that the Labor Party must feel guilty about its lack of exploration. I do not find in that any imputation of dishonesty or anything of the kind.

Mr ANTHONY:

-Everybody in this country knows that one of the greatest legacies of the Labor Party was its complete and utter failure to give any stimulus to oil exploration and development in this country. Since we came to office we have seen progress taking place, particularly in Bass Strait, where the reserves have been upgraded as a result of further exploration. We are getting more oil from Bass Strait as a result of sensible, practical policies being implemented.

page 3051

QUESTION

TEXTILE INDUSTRY: PRICING ARRANGEMENTS

Mr HYDE:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs acquainted with the Stop Press report in the most recent edition of Ragtrader? Is one of the functions of the Trade Practices Commission to investigate allegations of preferred pricing arrangements? If so, will the matter be referred to the Trade Practices Commission, to ascertain whether a former managing director of a textile company offered a preferred price to members of the breakaway section of the garment manufacturers to induce them to return to the Australian Confederation of Apparel Manufacturers, and whether, in fact, there has been a breach of the Trade Practices Act?

Mr GARLAND:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The reference in the journal which the honourable member has mentioned has been drawn to my attention. If he will give me details of the allegation that he has made I will have it investigated to see whether it should be referred to the Trade Practices Commission.

page 3051

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

Mr Cohen having addressed a question to the Prime Minister-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The question is out of order. The right honourable gentleman is not responsible for the actions of the Murdoch Press. I call the honourable member for Petrie.

Mr Hayden:

– I raise a point of order. Mr Speaker, if it is compatible for the Prime Minister to receive questions- that is, fixed questions or pre-arranged questions- and to deliver homilies to the Australian Olympic Federation, for which body he is not responsible, surely on the same basis he can accept and respond to a question concerning his mentor and patron, Rupert Murdoch of the Daily Telegraph.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition must understand, and I am sure he does really understand, that the Standing Orders bind me. The question was out of order. I call the honourable member for Petrie.

Mr Cohen:

- Mr Speaker, may I rephrase the question?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have called the honourable member for Petrie.

page 3052

QUESTION

APPRENTICE TRAINING

Mr HODGES:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

-Can the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs advise the House of the pattern of apprenticeship intakes since the Government implemented the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training Scheme in 1977? Have State governments given sufficient support to the Scheme? Is the level of intake adequate to meet anticipated demand from major industrial developments currently proceeding and from those proposed in the next decade?

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

– I can give the honourable gentleman the information he requires concerning apprenticeship intakes, particularly since the introduction of the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training program- a special scheme of financial assistance to employers to take on apprentices. Since the introduction of the CRAFT program at the beginning of 1977 apprenticeship intakes have been consistently over 41,000 in each of the subsequent years, compared with approximately 36,000 in the years prior to the introduction of the CRAFT program. That is an increase of 14 per cent. Since 1977 about $74m has been provided by the Commonwealth in financial assistance to employers. So it can be seen very clearly that since the introduction of the CRAFT program, along with other economic factors that have been involved, the CRAFT program has supported an increase in the number of apprentices taken on each year.

That is, of course, very important at this time when we are facing a tremendous demand for qualified tradesmen for the massive project development that will get under way in the 1980s. Nevertheless, the Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia has estimated that a further 3,000 tradesmen above normal requirements will be needed to cope with the demand from that kind of development. The 3,000 will not be able to be provided during that period from the normal intakes of qualifying apprentices in Australia. That makes it abundantly clear that industry, unions and the Commonwealth need to embark upon special programs, to use special ways, to see that the apprenticeship needs of Australia are satisfied.

The honourable gentleman, I am sure, will be interested in the position in New South Wales.

Since the introduction of the CRAFT program in 1977, apprenticeship intakes in New South Wales have increased from an average of around 12,000 in the years prior to 1 977 to an average of over 16,000. That is an increase of over 33 per cent. I am sure the honourable member for Sydney, who was seeking to interject, will be very interested to know of that increase. My great regret is that recently the New South Wales Premier sought to attack the Commonwealth for failing to take initiatives. But I think the figures I have mentioned and the financial support that has been given through the CRAFT program show that the Premier was quite wrong in his attack.

I conclude on this note: It was much to my regret and much to the regret of my predecessor, the Minister for Industrial Relations, that from the time of his first approach to the New South Wales Government in 1978 it took two years for that Government to respond positively at the beginning of this year to the overtures made by the Commonwealth to provide financial assistance in meeting the needs of industry in New South Wales. It was not until early 1980, when I initiated further discussions through my officers, that the New South Wales Government responded. I hope that now the New South Wales Government will respond positively to these initiatives. I have every reason to believe that Mr Wran did not know what he was talking about when he made his speech. Had he made further inquiries through his departments, he would have found out the truth of the matter.

page 3052

QUESTION

CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL ON AIRCRAFT

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I remind the Minister for Transport of a question which I asked in this House on 29 April and which referred to drinking on aircraft. The very last part of my question was:

Will he at least stop airlines from encouraging the drinking of alcohol on aircraft by eliminating free and cheap drinks?

The Minister’s answer appeared in the Hansard of 14 May. The Minister, in talking about Australian internal airlines, stated, inter alia:

Also, neither airline permits passengers to consume alcohol in flight other than that purchased from the bar service.

I draw the Minister’s attention to a full page advertisement by Trans-Australia Airlines in yesterday’s Sydney Morning Herald- which obviously is filling up space because of the journalists’ strike-headed ‘Can you drink $40 worth of drinks in two hours?’ It states, inter alia:

What this means is that if you’re a businessman and choose to fly first class Sydney/Melbourne return with the other airline, for the sake of the free drinks they offer, then those free drinks are actually costing you $44.30.

The advertisement concludes:

Even then, we still recommend you fly TAA.

Because, in addition to our 25 per cent price reduction, we ‘re now offering free drinks in first class as well . . .

Can the Minister see any inconsistency between this advertisement by TAA and his answer that people have to purchase their drinks when flying on Australian internal airlines?

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

-I am sorry that I did not hear all of the detail in the honourable member’s question, which was fairly lengthy.

Mr SPEAKER:

-It drew attention to a considerable amount of advertising that appeared in the newspaper.

Mr HUNT:

– But I will give him a detailed reply later in the day. I have not seen the advertisement and therefore do not wish to comment on it.

Dr Klugman:

– Here it is.

Mr HUNT:

-No, I cannot drink $40 worth of grog in two hours and I do not think that the honourable member for Prospect can either. There are two schools of thought about drinking on aircraft. There are those who do not believe in the consumption of alcohol at any price and there are those who like to have a drink on an aircraft. I hope that I would not be sufficiently narrow-minded to introduce in this country a system that would stop the serving of alcohol on aircraft.

Dr Klugman:

-I rise on a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Prospect claims to have been misrepresented?

Dr Klugman:

– Yes, because the Minister is implying that I said that there should not be any drinks on aircraft. I was referring to bis statement in answer to my question -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman is now debating the matter. I ask him to resume his seat.

Dr Klugman:

– In which he said:

  1. . neither airline permits passengers to consume alcohol in flight other than that purchased from the bar service.

I emphasised the difference between purchased drinks and free drinks.

page 3053

QUESTION

WHEAT SALES TO SOVIET UNION

Mr FISHER:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

-I ask the Minister for Primary Industry whether he heard a story on this morning’s Australian Broadcasting Commission news in regard to sales of Australian wheat to the Soviet Union. If so, is the story correct?

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

– The story, as presented by the ABC, can be described only as a beat-up and a sheer and blatant deception- no more and no less. I go further in respect of the story itself: The reporter who apparently placed the story sought clarification from my office and was given it, but the ABC failed to use it. Furthermore, I gave an interview for AM that clarified the story again; but, for some unaccountable reason that is beyond my wisdom or knowledge, that story did not run either. The reality is that the ABC knows full well that this is a very important question. I would have thought that it would be more than ordinarily careful in establishing the facts.

So that there will be no misunderstanding, let me re-establish for the information of honourable members, who I know are desperately interested in this question, what the facts are. It was public knowledge that I met grain exporting representatives after they had had a meeting in Canberra on 9 May. As a result of that meeting I undertook to go to the Government and seek clarification on whether exporters who normally enter into forward contracts at this time of the year for the next crop could do so now as an interim measure in respect of a proportion of that crop. The Government decided that, as the meeting of grain exporting nations was to be held in Brussels between 19 and 21 May and as the Australian delegation subsequently would have to report back to the Government, which would then have to consider its position, as an interim measure those exporters who traditionally contract at this time of the year could contract for up to 25 per cent of their total open-destination shipments in 1979-80 prior to the Government’s finally determining its position in regard to the next year’s crop.

All of the amount up to 25 per cent contracted at this time is to be counted against total sales to the Soviet Union. Exporters individually must provide evidence to the Government that normally they enter into such forward contracts at this time of the year. In other words, up to 25 per cent of an exporting body’s total shipments to Russia in the 1 979-80 financial year can be contracted for now, if that exporting body can provide evidence that this is the traditional time for entering into such forward contracts. This is totally consistent with the Government’s policy on grain sales to the Soviet Union. Along with other Western nations, as part of our measured response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Australia has given an undertaking not to make up any of the shortfall of 17 million tonnes of grain that the United States has withheld from the Soviet market. That is the undertaking that we gave to the United States and it remains the undertaking. We have never said that we would not allow normal sales to continue. The ABC news this morning referred to the Federal Government’s approval for wheat sales, not grain sales, to the Soviet Union.

Mr Armitage:

-I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has been making this statement for some considerable time. He has now turned over to the next page of his notes. I can see from here that he has at least another full page to read. I ask that he be required to make a statement at the end of Question Time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order. I regard the issue that has been raised as a significant one. The question has been asked and must be answered. I ask the Minister to draw his answer to a conclusion as soon as possible.

Mr NIXON:

-Thank you, Mr Speaker. The ABC news this morning referred to the Federal Government’s approval for wheat sales, not grain sales, to the Soviet Union. The fact of the matter is that this interim measure does not apply at all to wheat; it applies only to coarse grains such as barley, sorghum and oats. The ABC reported that growers had been given the:

  1. . green light to sell the equivalent of 25 per cent of last year’s bumper harvest to the Soviet Union over the next 12 months.

That report is totally and completely incorrect. The fact is that that figure relates to 25 per cent of last year’s coarse grain sales contracted to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I repeat that the reality is that the story is a total misrepresentation of the facts.

page 3054

QUESTION

ECONOMIC GROWTH

Mr WILLIS:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Treasurer. It concerns a statement by counsel for the Government in the current national wage case in which he stated:

Net exports could make a negative contribution to product growth in 1980-81.

He also stated:

In these circumstances the growth in the Australian economy in 1 980-8 1 will be more dependent on domestic sources of expansion than it has been in the current year.

Is the Treasurer aware that the annualised rate of growth of the domestic sector of the economythat is, gross domestic product minus exportsfor the first half of 1979-80 was only 0.7 per cent? In view of this extremely low growth of the domestic sector and the Government’s anticipation of negative growth in the export sector next year, is the Treasurer alarmed by the apparent prospect of there being little or no growth in the Australian economy in 1980-81?

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

-I am grateful to the honourable member for Gellibrand for drawing my attention to that section of the Commonwealth’s submission. I will look at the context in which those remarks were made. I say to the honourable member for Gellibrand that all of the evidence available to me and to the Government at present indicates that exports are experiencing a very significant lift during the current year. In fact, exports were something like 38 per cent greater in the first eight months of this year than in the corresponding period last year. The fact that our export sector has grown in such a remarkable fashion has enabled us to reduce very significantly the volume of overseas borrowings.

That reminds me that earlier this year the honourable member spoke in debates on matters of public importance, as did his leader, saying that this country was getting itself further and further into international debt by having to borrow large amounts of money overseas to supplement our current account deficit. The truth is that, because of the expansion of our export performance and because of the improved perceptions of overseas investors about the strength of the Australian economy, this Government will borrow less than $500m on external account this year, as against a total of $ 1,600m borrowed last year. The honourable member should not come into the House and try to imply that the external sector of our economy is weak.

page 3054

QUESTION

SOVIET UNION

Mr GRAHAM:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which I address to the Prime Minister, is related to the question answered this morning by the Minister for Primary Industry. Is there any inconsistency between the Government’s policy on grain sales to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Government’s views on Australian participation in the Moscow Olympic Games?

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

-The Minister for Primary Industry has made it perfectly plain that the Government’s position in relation to wheat and grain sales has not altered from the original statement on this matter. Indeed, in the intervening months there have been a number of occasions on which sales to the Soviet Union have been disallowed because we regarded them as unusual and as sales that would have in fact been picking up some of the shortfall arising from the United States decision, and, of course, we undertook not to do that. As my colleague has pointed out, the suggestions in the media this morning, and from the Australian Broadcasting Commission in particular, that there is an open slather for wheat sales to the Soviet Union, is a total and complete misrepresentation of the facts of the situation. What had been done in the first place does not relate to wheat whatsoever. In relation to wheat, our approach will be entirely consistent with our commitments earlier this year.

So far as coarse grains are concerned, my colleague has made it quite plain that the negotiation that may be undertaken would relate only to 25 per cent of the sales that were made last year, and the exporters might well have expected that they would have been given permission to negotiate a much higher proportion than that. So the Government has in fact taken a very hard position in allowing them to negotiate for only 25 per cent of the sales that were made during last year. That is a very hard and tough position indeed, which is consistent with our overall position. It does not represent any change in the Government’s view and is totally consistent with earlier statements.

What we have said right from the outset in relation to the Olympic Games has been judged on the basis of what would bring the abhorrence of the free world home to the Soviet Government and people more clearly and more firmly than anything else. Our views on that are well known. They have now been shown to have support not only in the United States of America and Canada but also in West Germany. In particular, throughout this period, Herr Genscher, the West German Foreign Minister, has been very outspoken among European leaders. The House might be interested to know that Herr Genscher lived for a number of his early post-war years- up to 1953 or 1954- in East Germany and therefore has some personal experience of the Soviet system and of Soviet activities.

The Soviets are digging in in Afghanistan. They are acting as though their position in that country is not negotiable in any sense. They are upgrading military capacities in Afghanistan, with clear strategic implications. This is a time when the free world needs to demonstrate that it has a determined view on this matter, that it is important to get a message through to the Soviet Union that further aggressions will meet the firmest possible resistance from the United States and those who support the United States and western Europe. Therefore, the Australian support for a boycott of the Olympic Games is, in the view of the Government, an important matter going far beyond sport and going far beyond its effect on athletes, which we understand only too well. It is something which will have implications for the future of this nation and for all people in this nation.

Over recent times my colleague the Minister for Home Affairs has been keeping closely in touch with the Olympic executive. We are advising the Olympic executive that the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Foreign Affairs will hold themselves available to talk with the executive before the final decision is made, if that should be the wish of the executive. If there is a need for any further clarification of Government views or attitudes or the position that has been adopted by other countries or other sporting bodies, the Ministers are available for consultation with the executive. The Government plainly hopes that the view that it has taken will be supported. We regard it as a matter of high national interest.

page 3055

QUESTION

PETROL RETAILING INDUSTRY

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs knows that for years small businessmen operating petrol outlets have been calling for legislation to protect their interests from the predatory practices of major oil companies. When will the Government at last introduce legislation to protect franchises for the petrol reselling industry and legislation relating to the other parts of the so-called Fife package? Can the Minister indicate whether the promises made by the Prime Minister at the last election, and the commitment made by the Minister’s predecessor to make the legislation retrospective, will be kept?

Mr GARLAND:
LP

-I have had drawn to my attention remarks which the honourable member has made on radio programs and on other occasions and which, with respect, have not quite accurately illustrated the so-called commitments to which he has just referred. What I have said in this House on more than one occasion, and I repeat it today, is that the Government regards the position of the petrol dealers- the honourable member knows the definition of that term- very seriously. Some months ago we asked the Trade Practices Commission to carry out an inquiry so that the Government could have in front of it a number of facts. There has been a great deal of conflicting information in this area. I am advised that that report will be ready in about a week. The Government will examine that report, to see what information is contained in it, before it makes a decision. We have already exposed a draft Bill regarding the franchise area. It was one of the three points mentioned by my predecessor.

That exposed Bill, of course, has prompted a great number of representations, some of a technical kind and a number dealing with principles. The honourable member referred to the other elements. Other options are available to the Government, such as looking at the provisions of the Trade Practices Act. All those matters are before the Government.

Mr Humphreys:

– You have been looking at it for a long time.

Mr GARLAND:

– That is true. The reason is that it is a very complicated situation and that different policies are pursued by oil companies and by dealers in different regions of Australia. We want to get the legislation right, so that it will have the effect which I think most members of this House want to see. The Government will be looking at the results of the Commission’s report, I hope within a fortnight of receiving it, which will be in about three weeks time. I hope that it will make a decision based upon those elements and upon the statements which the Prime Minister and my predecessor really made, not those which many people are saying they made. Therefore, I expect that the Government will come to a conclusion about the matter quite soon.

page 3056

QUESTION

ROADS GRANTS

Mr LUSHER:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Is the Minister for Transport aware of recent reports that the National Roads and Motorists Association has accused the Federal Government of highway robbery in its 1980-81 roads grants? Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government, in its allocation of $628m in 1980-81, has favoured its own projects, namely, national highways, at the expense of other road projects?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

– I am surprised that the National Roads and Motorists Association should claim that the Government has engaged in highway robbery when in fact it has increased expenditure for national highways, national roads and developmental roads by no less than 18.4 per cent. If that is highway robbery, all I can say is that I am

Santa Claus. An increase of 18.4 per cent is very substantial.

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There have been continual interjections from a wide range of honourable members on my left this morning. The dignity of the House suffers tremendously under those circumstances. I ask honourable members to remain silent and to cease interjecting.

Mr HUNT:

-Apparently the NRMA undertook some research to try to ascertain what the final result would be regarding the categories of local roads, rural arterial roads, and urban arterial roads. Quite clearly, the Commonwealth Government has increased the allocation to national roads and highways by 18.4 per cent; to rural arterial roads, by 11.1 per cent; and to urban arterial roads, by 11.1 per cent. It has increased the allocation to local roads- local government roads throughout Australia- by 11.1 percent.

Under the road safety program which the Commonwealth Government has funded for six years, a total of $74 million has been spent on road safety measures to overcome some of the backlog in that area. That progam has been suspended and the funds that were spent in the past in this category have been transferred for spending on national roads in recognition of our concern to increase expenditure on important national road links serving industries in Western Australia, Queensland and elsewhere. It is quite futile for any organisation to say that in 1980-81 an increase of 2 per cent will be made in relation to urban arterial roads. The NRMA has also made the suggestion that there will be a 4 per cent allocation to rural arterial roads. That is not correct. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table giving a comparison between proposed and previous road allocations by State and category.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr HUNT:

– The honourable member for Hume can be assured that the Hume Highway, which is a very important road and a road recognised by the NRMA, will certainly receive its share of the increase of 18.4 per cent for national roads and highways.

page 3057

QUESTION

TELEVISION STATIONS: OWNERSHIP

Mr HAYDEN:

– I refer the Minister for Post and Telecommunications to his answer to my question of 15 May relating to the acquisition by the News group of companies of shares in Ansett Transport Industries Ltd and the Minister’s reply delivered yesterday in which he indicated that there is no record of his receiving a letter from Sir Reginald Ansett on or about 15 December 1979. How does the Minister reconcile his statement with the expressed views of the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, stated on page 37 of the transcript of the Tribunal’s inquiry dated 1 April 1980, that the letter was written to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications and that he, the Chairman of the Tribunal, was aware of it? Will the Minister make inquiries which will place him in the position either to affirm or to deny that in fact the letter from Sir Reginald Ansett was delivered to his office and by hand?

Mr Armitage:

– He has been sprung. He will have to resign.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Chifley will cease interjecting.

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

– I think I answered yesterday most of the questions which had been asked of me over the last few days. In those answers I made it quite clear that there was no record of any letter to me. There was a letter to the Attorney-General which, of course, was brought to my attention, both orally by officials of his Department or officers -

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Orally or verbally?

Mr STALEY:

– Orally, and also in due course officially by him in a letter to me. It may be that the Chairman of the Tribunal was referring to that letter. My Department communicated -

Mr Hayden:

– Delivered by hand, according to Ansett.

Mr STALEY:

-Yes. My Department communicated to the Tribunal the matters which had been raised by the Ansett organisation in a proper way.

Mr Hayden:

– Ansett had delivered it to your office by hand.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition asked a question in silence. I do not propose to call the Minister to answer until the House is willing to hear him in silence. I have asked the honourable member for Chifley to cease interjecting. I also ask the Leader of the Opposition to cease interjecting.

Mr STALEY:

– It really would make no difference whether there had been a letter to me as well as one to the Attorney-General, because obviously they would have been about the same sort of thing. The same sort of matter was addressed to the Tribunal by another member of the Ansett organisation. There was no question but that the Tribunal was aware of the fact that the Ansett organisation at that stage- when it was under takeover threat by the Murdoch organisation- put forward a view, and that view was considered by the Tribunal. Of course, I made known that result in my answer yesterday to the honourable member.

page 3057

QUESTION

BLACK LISTING OF LIVESTOCK CARRIERS

Mr SHORT:
BALLARAT, VICTORIA

-My question, which is to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, refers to the recent live sheep dispute at Portland. Is it a fact that following that dispute there is now a black list of carriers banned from entering meatworks in Victoria and that that black list has been issued by the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union? Is it a fact that meatworks buyers have been warned not to use black listed carriers? Does the above action fall within section 45d of the Trade Practices Act? If so, what action is the Government taking on this matter?

Mr GARLAND:
LP

– I am advised that the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union has taken action to black list some 2 1 transport operators who deliver livestock in relation to entering meatworks in Victoria. That follows -

Opposition members- Hear, hear!

Mr GARLAND:

– I am interested to hear honourable members opposite say: ‘Hear, hear’. That action follows successful attempts by the transport operators to carry sheep through picket lines surrounding the loading of live sheep at Portland. I am not aware whether meatworks buyers have been threatened not to use the services of the carriers who have been black listed. Of course, whether the action of the AMIEU constitutes a breach of section 45d of the Trade Practices Act is a matter on which the parties concerned would need to take their own legal advice. Certainly the Government would be concerned if the boycott developed into something much more general than the instances reported to date. The Government will be monitoring the situation and will consider what action it may need to take in the light of developments.

page 3058

DISALLOWED NOTICE OF MOTION

Mr SPEAKER:

– When I called for notices of motion this morning the honourable member for Hunter rose and purported to commence giving a notice of motion. The House will recall that I indicated to him that the motion must be in proposition form. I asked him to show me the notice of motion and, in fact, he sent it to me. I have decided that it is not in the form of a motion. Later I was given another piece of paper which, upon examination, I found to be a copy of the first paper with alterations to it so as to put it into a proposition form. For instance, it starts: ‘I move that, on the next day of sitting . . . ‘ Then there are certain alterations which put it into a proposition form. I have decided that I will not accept that notice of motion because it would be a misuse of the forms of the House to accept it and, in my judgment, it would breach the sub judice rules adopted by this House.

page 3058

QUESTION

RULINGS OF MR SPEAKER

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

-Mr Speaker, I ask you to give mature consideration to two rulings which you made this morning which, to my mind, are in conflict. When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) referred to donations to the National Country Party, you ruled that it was out of order. When a Minister referred to the guilt of the Australian Labor Party, you said that it was not out of order because the expressions used were not unparliamentary. I submit that the two matters are completely analogous and that, if one of them constitutes a personal reflection, the other does also.

Mr SPEAKER:

-At the time I gave a ruling, but apparently the purport of my ruling has not become clear to the honourable member for Capricornia. Therefore, I shall repeat it. The Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) was answering a question in relation to a matter for which he is responsible and on which the right honourable gentleman took a decision. There was an interjection which, in my view, clearly made an implication against the right honourable gentleman that he had taken the decision for the purpose of benefit to some group with which he was associated. That was a reflection on him and it reflected on the reasons for his decision. Immediately afterwards the right honourable gentleman used terms to the effect that the Opposition feels guilty about the lack of exploration which occurred during its period in office. I do not see that that statement could in any way have any implication on the propriety, integrity, honesty or anything of that nature of any member of the Opposition.

Mr Keating:

– It was wrong, of course.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Blaxland interjects that it was wrong. I must assure the House that it is not for the Chair to decide whether a statement is right or wrong. That is a matter for debate. What I must do is ascertain that no unparliamentary language is used. That is my function and I have done it.

page 3058

ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE OF AUSTRALIA

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · Moreton · LP

– Pursuant to section 147 of the Defence Act 1 903, 1 present the annual report of the Royal Military College of Australia 1978-79.

page 3058

TRANS-AUSTRALIA AIRLINES

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

-Pursuant to section 40 of the Australian National Airlines Act 1945, 1 present the annual report of Trans- Australia Airlines 1978-79.

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 3059

ANSETT TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES LTD

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

-For the information of honourable members, I present the annual financial report of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd 1979.

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 3059

REPATRIATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs · Fisher · NCP/NP

– Pursuant to section 107VZZA of the Repatriation Act 1920, 1 present the annual report of the Repatriation Review Tribunal 1978-79.

page 3059

COMMONWEALTH FIRE BOARD

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

– For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Commonwealth Fire Board 1978-79, together with the text of a statement relating to the report.

page 3059

WORLD ADMINISTRATIVE RADIO CONFERENCE

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

– For the information of honourable members I present copies of the final acts of the 1979 World Administrative Radio Conference, together with the text of a statement relating to the document. Due to the volume and highly technical nature of the document only limited copies are available.

page 3059

AUSTRALIAN IONISING RADIATION ADVISORY COUNCIL

Mr THOMSON:
Minister for Science and the Environment · Leichhardt · NCP/NP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report of the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council entitled Radiological Safety and Future Land Use at the Emu Atomic Weapons Test Sites.

page 3059

ALLOCATION OF GOVERNMENT HOUSING TO MEMBERS AND SENATORS

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Minister for the Capital Territory, I believe, seeks my indulgence to correct a matter.

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

-At page 537 of the Senate Hansard of 4 March 1980 an answer was given on my behalf to Question No. 2066 which was asked in the other place by Senator Mason about the allocation of government housing to members and senators. The answer given stated that a government house had been sold to the Honourable Sir Robert Cotton. It has since been found that the answer was incorrect. That answer has in fact been corrected in the other place. I wish to state that the information was provided by the Department of the Capital Territory. The error arose from confusion over Sir Robert’s name and a person with a similar name.

I simply wish to correct that error and at the same time publicly apologise to Sir Robert for the embarrassment that may have occurred as a result of that answer and from subsequent publicity based on it in the Australian newspaper on 5 March 1980 which suggested that he had made big profits on house deals. It was alleged that he had acquired a house from the Government and sold it at a profit of over $20,000.

page 3059

QUESTION

APPOINTMENT OF SPEAKER: ADOPTION OF WESTMINSTER SYSTEM

Mr SPEAKER:

-I formally announce to the House the result of the ballot conducted by the Clerk last week on the question: Do you support the proposal that an all-party committee of the House should be established to report whether the Westminster convention concerning the Speaker could be adopted, the method of doing so, and when the system should commence? Eighty ballot papers were returned by the closing time of 6 p.m. on Thursday last. Of those 80 ballot papers 47 members voted in favour of the proposition, 32 voted against and there was one informal vote. A number of papers were received after the close of the ballot but were not included. Pursuant to that vote I will set up a Speaker’s committee consisting of members of both sides of the House to report on the matter. Today I will write to the three party Whips asking for the nomination of members. I propose that the committee comprise three members from the Liberal Party, one member from the National Country Party and two members from the Australian Labor Party.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You’re not going to get the job.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Before I call the honourable member for Holt I should like to indicate that the interjection ‘You are not going to get the job’ is not directed at me. I have already indicated that it will not be me.

Mr YATES:
Holt

-This is a matter of great parliamentary significance and with your leave, Mr Speaker, I should like to ask one question of you.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman may proceed.

Mr YATES:

– The critics of the proposal which this committee will examine have suggested that once Mr Speaker takes the chair he should remain in the chair parliament after parliament. This generalisation which has been made must be wrong. It is well understood that you, Mr Speaker have ‘but the eyes to see and the ears to hear what the House doth command’. Therefore if the House does not choose the person who thinks he is going to be Speaker but selects another member to take the chair, that is the prerogative of the House. That prerogative cannot be overruled and must never be overruled. There is no prescriptive right for a Speaker to remain in the chair. It is the prescriptive right of all honourable members to choose their Speaker. I think the national Press made a mistake in relation to this matter and I should like your views as soon as possible because it is so important. It is the overriding factor in the whole issue.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I do not propose to permit debate on this matter at this stage. I did not interrapt the honourable gentleman because he has served in the House of Commons under the Westminster system. What he says is correct. I expect the committee to report to me and, through me, to the House. I think the committee will put in clear terms that the service of the Speaker is for the period during which the House supports him but that his appointment should be for about five to seven years.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– I seek your indulgence to ask a question relating to this matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member may proceed.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I presume, Mr Speaker, that the terms of reference of the committee will be considered by the Parliament. As you know, I have already written to you to point out that while I recognise what it is you are aiming atthat is, to initiate impartial chairmanship of the affairs of this House, a novelty which many honourable members would welcome -

Government supporters-Oh!

Mr HAYDEN:

-I have not finished. I welcome this, if it is achievable, because of the difficulties of the present system which I acknowledge. I acknowledge your efforts in this respect, Mr

Speaker, and your efforts in many other respects associated with the procedures of this institution and your endeavours to achieve some sort of reform. If these are to be terms of reference I presume there will be an opportunity for me to move an amendment. I started to say to you that I had communicated to you, pointing out that we see a far greater need to have a comprehensive review of this Parliament- how it functions, the facilities which back it up and so on. There is a crying need for reform of procedures in this House. I have to say, having participated on both sides of the House, that Question Time comes more within the description of a game and has rules more akin to warfare than to the development of legislation or a proper search into matters dealt with by the Parliament. We need a committee system to replace this debating technique. I am giving you an insight, Mr Speaker, into a few of the vast range of concerns which I believe should be attended to by this Parliament if it really wants to drag the Parliament as an effective institution into the last part of the twentieth century in preparation for the next century.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I gave the Leader of the Opposition my indulgence to speak. I will not reply to the general arguments but to a particular point. The point is that this is a Speaker’s committee. The terms of reference have already been established- that is, in terms of the ballot. The Speaker’s committee will report to me and, through me, to the House in terms of the successful ballot. Any attitude that the honourable gentleman may have concerning reform of the procedures of this House is a matter which he needs to discuss with the Leader of the House or about which, alternatively, he can move a motion in this House. It is necessary periodically to look at any institution to see whether it is responding fully to contemporary needs. I would welcome such an examination of the procedures of the House although I emphasise that I would see that exercise as different from that exercise now in hand. The matter now in hand is an expression by the members of the Parliament, as members of the Parliament not as members of political parties. I think an examination on a procedural basis would require co-operation on a political basis. If that occurs, I would welcome it. Indeed, I would advocate such an examination, but it is not for me to take any action in relation to it. As the honourable member for Holt said, I am the eyes and the ears. I think I also see for the Parliament.

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-May I seek your indulgence, Mr Speaker, to ask a question?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Yes.

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Is it the case that approximately two-thirds of the members of the House failed to take advantage of the opportunity which you, Mr Speaker, extended to them to show enthusiasm for the proposition which was the subject of the ballot? In what way do you derive a sense of imprimatur to proceed along the lines that you propose?

Mr SPEAKER:

– All members were entitled to record their votes. My information, as conveyed to me by the Leader of the Opposition, was that members of the Austraiian Labor Party opted not to vote, although I believe some small number in fact did vote before the decision not to vote was taken in the Labor Party Caucus. Accordingly, those who did not vote decided to do so for a reason which I am not privy to, although it comes out in a letter to me by the Leader of the Opposition referred to in the remarks he made today. Apparently members of the Australian Labor Party collectively believed that there was a need for greater reform than that which I proposed. I dealt with that this morning as it was raised by the Leader of the Opposition. Eighty people voted. As the honourable gentleman knows a clear majority of 47 voted in favour of the proposition of a committee and 32 voted against the proposal. I am, therefore, pursuing the course that I have announced to the House under the direction of that ballot. I will write to the Party Whips asking them to nominate members to serve on that Speakers comittee. I have already indicated- I will do what I do not like Ministers doing and repeat myself- that issues of broader reform are matters for discussion between those with party political affiliations with the Leader of the House and the Manager of the Opposition Business.

page 3061

GUIDELINES FOR EDUCATION COMMISSIONS 1981

Ministerial Statement

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Education · Farrer · LP

-by leave- The purpose of this statement is to announce levels of funding for the programs of the Schools Commission and the Tertiary Education Commission for the calendar year 1981. These programs will be a major part of the Government’s support for education in the States and the Northern Territory and together will amount to expenditure of $2, 141.8m in 1981, compared with $2, 136.6m in 1980 in constant estimated December 1979 prices.

I remind honourable members of the funding role of the Commonwealth through the commissions’ programs. The Commonwealth has full financial responsibility for universities and colleges of advanced education, but exercises a topping up’ role in the funding of schools and technical and further education in the States and the Northern Territory. The Commonwealth is currently providing about 25 per cent of total expenditure on technical and further education and about 12 per cent of expenditure on government schools. The States have increased thenexpenditure on education in accordance with their own priorities. The Commonwealth exercises a major financial responsibility for nongovernment schools and is currently providing about 60 per cent of total recurrent support from governments. Whilst all State governments provide recurrent support for non-government schools, the Commonwealth is the sole source of public assistance with capital grants. The total funding of education must be seen as a joint effort of the Commonwealth and the States, in addition to resources contributed from the private sector. Public expenditure on education is expected to grow to $6.5 billion in 1979-80, an increase of more than 6 per cent in real terms since 1976-77.

The rapid growth in enrolments across the whole education sector, which made such a heavy demand on resources in the 1960s and early 1970s, has now eased. Student numbers overall are tending to stabilise, but there are still increases in some sectors. School enrolments declined for the first time in 1979 and are projected to continue to decline until the late 1 980s. Within the overall trend for schools, there was a decline in government school numbers last year, whilst in non-government schools there was a small rise. Enrolments in universities and colleges of advanced education have largely stabilised. In the technical and further education sector there has been some growth in enrolments. All recurrent programs will be maintained at no less than their present levels and some have been increased. In the schools sector additional funds are to be directed to areas of need. Expenditure in technical and further education will be maintained at the priority level established in 1 980. In summary, the following funds will be provided in 1981 in comparison with 1980. These figures are expressed in estimated December 1979 price levels.

These funds will continue to be adjusted for movements in costs in accordance with the existing cost supplementation arrangements. Honourable members should also note that, as a result of the Transition from School to Work Program, announced on 22 November 1979, some $ 1 1 m is available for projects in the technical and further education sector in 1980. Depending on State contributions, significant funding will continue to be provided by the Commonwealth for technical and further education in 198 1 under this program.

Tertiary Education

Recurrent funds for universities and colleges of advanced education for 1981 have previously been determined by the Government as part of the fixed triennial arrangements which we reintroduced in 1979-81. Recurrent funds have been maintained at a constant level for the triennium thereby enabling institutions to sustain existing levels of intake. Capital and equipment funds for all sectors of tertiary education are provided on an annual basis. The guidelines include recurrent support for technical and further education for 1981. Since 1981 is the final year of the present triennium, the Government has decided to consider the provision of funds for technical and further education on a triennial basis in the context of the 1982-84 report of the Tertiary Education Commission. Because of a reduced commitment to ongoing works, the total funds available in 1981 for capital and equipment in universities and colleges of advanced education will be lower than in 1980. However the allocation will make it possible for funds to be provided for a number of new projects.

In the guidelines last year the Government expressed its concern that the Tertiary Education Commission should continue to monitor carefully the use and allocation of resources. In cooperation with the States, the Commission has already taken initiatives in teacher education. The Government will continue to look to the Commission to provide ongoing advice on the relationship of manpower supply to demand in areas which are critical for education planning. I turn now to the details of the guidelines for the Ternary Education Commission for 1 98 1 .

Tertiary Education Commission Guidelines

The total funds allocated for tertiary education include provision for the Australian National University, the Canberra College of Advanced Education, the Australian Maritime College, approved non-government teachers colleges and technical and further education in the States and the Northern Territory. All figures for tertiary education in this statement are expressed in estimated December 1979 price levels; the cost supplementation arrangements to apply for 1 98 1 will be the same as for 1980.

Universities and Colleges of Advanced Education

For 1981, the Government has allocated $82.7m as the total level of funds for capital grants and equipment grants. From this amount, the Government intends that the Commission should meet commitments to on-going capital projects and also make provision for a number of new projects of the highest priority.

Technical and Further Education

Funds amounting to $6 1.8m will be provided for general and specific purpose recurrent programs in 1981. A total capital program of $9 1.5m will be funded by the Commonwealth in 1981, including $ 17.9m for the third year of the supplementary $50m grant. In co-operation with the States, the Commission is asked to recommend the distribution of resources among the States and the Northern Territory, having regard to their degrees of need and on the understanding that the States and the Northern Territory will at least maintain fully their own efforts in this area.

Tertiary Education

A provision of $0.4m has also been made for evaluative studies in all tertiary areas in 1981. The Government will provide the following base level of funds for tertiary education for 1981 as compared with 1980:

For the year 1981 the Commission is asked to make detailed recommendations on the allocations of capital grants and equipment grants between universities and colleges of advanced education and for technical and further education in the States and the Northern Territory. The Commission is asked to submit its report by 3 1 July 1980 to permit time for consideration of its recommendations and passage of the necessary legislation during the Budget sittings of the Parliament.

page 3063

SCHOOLS

For schools in the States and the Northern Territory, the Commonwealth will provide an additional $2 1.2m, or 3.1 per cent, in real terms in 198 1. The Government has decided to provide the same real levels of general recurrent grants and capital grants for government schools in the States and the Northern Territory as in 1980. The Commonwealth will thus be continuing to maintain its level of support for the staffing and other recurrent resources already achieved by government school systems. It will be recalled that government schools in all States were expected to have reached by the end of 1979 the recurrent resource use targets affirmed by the Schools Commission, and that government school enrolments are now declining overall.

For non-government schools in 1981 the Government according to the policy of previous years, will supplement 1980 grants in order to maintain the percentage link between recurrent grants for non-government schools and government school costs. For non-government schools in level 6, the most needy category, the Commonwealth will also raise its subsidies by a further one percentage point in 1981 to 35 per cent of average government schools standard costs at primary level and to 33 per cent at secondary level, representing an estimated additional $11 per primary pupil and $18 per secondary pupil. The new levels of subsidies are estimated at $384 per primary pupil and $577 per secondary pupil, in estimated December 1979 prices. Estimated average government schools standard costs in 1 98 1 , in constant prices, are $ 1,098 per primary pupil and $ 1,748 per secondary pupil. Honourable members will recall that non-government schools in level 6 continue to operate with resources some 30 per cent below the average resources of government schools. The estimated total additional cost of these measures is $ 16.2m.

As with government schools, the general capital program for non-government schools in 198 1 will be maintained at the existing level in real terms. However, to enhance the forward planning capacity of non-government school authorities which are continuing to be faced with demands for new schools and expanded facilities, the Government will introduce new arrangements in 198 1 to raise the permitted levels of forward commitment into the second and third years to 90 per cent per annum of the level in the base year.

The year 1981 will be the third year of the Galbally committee program for increased funding of migrant and multi-cultural education. Funds for the Galbally program in 1981 will be doubled, representing an increase of $5m on the 1980 level of the program administered by the Schools Commission. Within this program, an additional $3. 4m will be allocated for the teaching of English language in government and nongovernment schools with a further $ 1.6m for the support of activities specifically related to education for a multi-cultural society. These increases will permit some further restructuring to overcome disparities in the existing distribution among systems of the English language section of the program and will provide support for the range of activities referred to in the report of the Galbally committee.

Schools Commission Guidelines

The Government will provide grants totalling $708.6m as the base level of the programs of the Schools Commission in the States and the Northern Territory in 1981. This program comprising $ 132.9m capital and $575. 7m recurrent, represents an increase of 3.1 per cent in real terms on the total base level program for 1980. As in the past, the precise level of grants may be varied in accordance with the actual level of enrolments in non-government schools. All figures for schools in this statement are expressed in estimated December 1979 price levels; the cost supplementation arrangements to apply for 1 9.8 1 will be the same as for 1 980.

Government Schools Programs

The Government will provide $369.7m in total for government school programs in 1981. The combined amount provided for the general recurrent and capital programs of $31 1.3m is the same, in real terms, as the 1980 level. During consultations with the Schools Commission, the States will be able to request transfers of marginal amounts between these programs. The Commission is asked to make recommendations about the distribution of general recurrent and capital grants among the States and for the Northern Territory. The allocations for disadvantaged schools and special education will be at the same real levels as in 1980. There will be a net increase of $2.3m as additional Galbally funding in the migrant education program.

Non-Government Programs

The Commonwealth will provide $3 12.1m as the base level of programs for non-government schools in 1981, including Sl.lm additional Galbally funding for migrant education, and will continue the provisions for disadvantaged schools, emergency assistance and special education in non-government schools at the same real levels as in 1980. The funds provide for

  1. maintenance of the linkage between recurrent grants to all non-government schools and standard government school running costs;
  2. additional assistance for those schools in greatest need: Those in level 6. They will be enabled to reach a Commonwealth subsidy of 35 per cent of government schools costs at primary level and 33 per cent at secondary level; and
  3. maintenance in 1981 of the current 1980 percentage levels of grants in levels 1 to 5 schools.

The Government will amend the existing advance approvals scheme to enable nongovernment school authorities to receive advance approvals of building projects to a value, in real terms, of 90 per cent of the capital program for a year in respect of the following two years.

Joint Programs

Within this area, the Government will provide an increased allocation of $ 1 .6m in 1 98 1 for multicultural education. Funding for other joint programs will be maintained at existing levels.

The Commission is asked to submit its report by 3 1 July 1980 to permit time for consideration of its recommendations and passage of the necessary legislation during the Budget sittings of the Parliament.

All Programs

The Government will provide the following base level of funds for schools in the States and the Northern Territory for 1981 as compared with 1980.

I seek leave to incorporate a table in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr FIFE:
LP

– I present the following paper

Guidelines for Education Commissions 1981 -Ministerial Statement, 22 May 1980.

Motion (by Mr Eric Robinson) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Dr CASS:
Maribymong

-Overall, the statement that has been made by the Minister for Education (Mr Fife) on behalf of the Government demonstrates once again the Government’s lack of real concern for education; its policy of downgrading education instead of using it as an instrument for the betterment of the Australian population and society generally. I believe the statement is designed to give effect to the Government’s policy of elitism without stirring up more opposition than is necessary. It is a sort of lick and a promise of paint on the surface. Even before these proposals have been implemented it will begin to peel and to expose the genuinely run down nature of the education system in many areas.

In regard to the tertiary area, I have not been able to find any obvious initiatives which one might have expected to arise from the Williams report. As honourable members will recall, that Committee was set up in 1976 and its report was received in 1978 with enormous fanfare. One would have thought that if any of the proposals or ideas that arose from that report had been accepted or implemented, the Government would have trumpeted that fact, but there has been a deathly silence in that regard. The report seems destined for a quiet burial and to rank with the Vernon report of 1965 as one of the great dustgatherers of our time. Apropos of making comments on reports, I ask the Minister whether the Government intends to act on the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into Nurse Education and Training? Is the Minister aware that if a decision on those recommendations is not made within the next month the Tertiary Education Commission will find it difficult, probably impossible, to make any grants for the next triennium based thereon. One hopes that the Minister will make a statement on the matter before that period expires. If not, the TEC probably will not be able to do anything about the report.

Again, no mention has been made of the place of the proposed Defence Force Academy in all of this. Presumably it will cease to be a defence item in the same way as the Australian Maritime College is no longer considered a transport item. In fact, in his statement the Minister mentions the Australian Maritime College but not the Defence Force Academy, which presumably will be a college of the University of New South Wales. What is to be the source of its funding over the triennium?

The Tertiary Education Commission has complained over a period of the squeeze on research funds. It looks as if that is to continue. So much for the Government’s concern for science and technology, for medical research measures that might help to contain the rapidly increasing cost of health care in this country. The Minister’s statement mentions neither area. One feels some doubt and anxiety about the proposal to spend $400,000 on ‘evaluative studies’. After all, did not the Williams inquiry make an evaluation of what was going on? Does not the TEC regularly evaluate what is going on? Are we to have still one more policeman approach to the whole education area? Will these funds be used to supervise the TEC studies or to conduct evaluative studies separate from those that are conducted by the Commission? One can suggest only that this proposal will raise the level of paranoia amongst academics, which is already pretty high as a result of this Government’s policies.

The guidelines ought to explain in more detail the Government’s attitude in all of these areas. The Australian Labor Party, when in government, will certainly increase specific funding for research in universities. I do not think that any longer it can be just buried in general funding. We must make a particular effort in that area if this country is to maintain its position in a society that is rapidly becoming increasingly complex and in which the way out will be more and more technological innovation which, in turn, must spring from research and development in universities.

The Government makes much of technical and further education, but in real terms grants nowhere enough funding for that purpose. We all know that for many years that particular sector has been rundown. Despite the effort that was initiated by the Labor Government, the backlog has still not been overcome. There is need for enormous funding for the replacement of quite hopeless buildings and facilities, yet in real terms capital grants have been frozen.

Turning to the schools themselves, I say that once again the Government is hiding the real needs in the oversimplified statement that there is a decline in enrolments, that growth is levelling off. But the Schools Commission has pointed out that there is an enormous deficit in meeting capital needs. That deficit is becoming not less but greater. The requirement is not to freeze funding but to increase it. This arises for a variety of reasons. Let me provide an example. The population is moving around. In some areas it is ageing and in others it is becoming younger. I refer to growth areas such as Gosford- Wyong in New South Wales and the Gold Coast of Queensland. These areas cannot provide for the needs of children without an enormous increase in capital expenditure. More schools are needed. One cannot simply shift kids to where the schools are. New schools must be built, yet in this constrained atmosphere there is to be totally inadequate funding for such purposes. I shall refer later, in speaking of the general education area, to other reasons why funding should be increased.

Let me just touch on the problem of the disadvantaged schools program, which has been stationary. In his statement, the Minister said:

The allocations for disadvantaged schools and special education will be at the same real levels as in 1980.

There has been no movement in that area for four years now, but the Schools Commission repeatedly has pointed to the need for increased effort. In the country areas program we have the same sort of problem. Those schools are, in essence, disadvantaged in exactly the same way. We need to increase the effort, not just maintain it. Let me elaborate that point by quoting from a document entitled ‘Education and the Country Dweller’, one of the Needs in Education series produced by Senator Button, the Labor Party’s spokesman on education. It reads:

It is essential to the quality of Australian life- for economic, social, and national reasons- that we have strong, vigorous country communities. Governments must encourage families to remain with and, indeed, move to provincial, rural and outback communities. A minimum condition, if this aim is to be achieved, must be to ensure that country communities have access to services in areas of health, communication, transport, community and welfare services and education equal to that available to the city dweller.

. The Schools Commission Report for the 1976-78 Triennium published in June 1 975 specifically examined the special needs of country children.

The document stated further:

  1. . where possible, educational opportunities should be brought to students, rather than that children and parents should be subsidised to live away from home.

If we move them from the country to the city, the chances are that they will not ever want to go back. Of course, many of them cannot afford to take advantage of the opportunity to move to the city. In 1976 the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts published its report on its inquiry into the education of isolated children. It stated that better co-ordination between Federal and State governments in the education of isolated children is necessary particularly in the areas of transport facilities and so on. It made a very strong argument for increased support in this area by the Government. It has all been ignored in this statement. In fact, the shortfall between Government spending and the Commission’s recommendations will be of the order of $8m by the end of 1981.

Let us revert to the link between subsidies to non-government schools and the costs of maintaining government schools. We are to have what seems to me to be the annual argument on this very vexed question. The Minister made the following comment in his speech:

Honourable members will recall that nongovernment schools in level 6 continue to operate with resources some 30 percent below the average resources of government schools.

That is precisely the case. Of course that need was ignored by the Liberal Government for many years. In the period leading up to the time when the Labor Party came to power, funds were made available for non-government schools but the bulk of those funds- to hazard a guess, more than 90 per cent- went to the rich schools and not to the poor schools. It was only the advent of the Labor Government and the establishment of the inquiry into education needs and the subsequent Karmel report, which proposed the distribution of funds on a needs basis, which led to a significant increase in funding for these sorts of schools. The need is still there- the Government admits it- yet there is to be no substantial increase in the funding for these schools. There is to be some increase- I must acknowledge that the Government has granted a minor increase- for level 6 schools -

Mr Fife:

– Significant.

Dr CASS:

– Well, it is not significant in terms of need. Of course, the Government continues to increase funding for the richer schools. The whole position remains lopsided. The fact is, sadly, that this Government will maintain the elitist nature of the better schools not only in the government sector but also in the non-government sector particularly. That will be done largely at the expense of the disadvantaged schools in the State sector and the non-government sector. That situation can be but deplored. The Government has gone quiet on its professed aim of ensuring that all non-government schools receive at least 20 per cent of the sort of support that has been given to government schools. One can understand that because we are in difficult times, but one would have thought that the Government would have made a little more effort in the area of disadvantaged schools, particularly in the nongovernment sector in view of the Government’s admission of the deficiencies in that area.

One can approach the problems of disadvantaged schools and disadvantaged pupils in a more general sense from the point of view that all the children in the disadvantaged areas such as the western regions of the major cities of Sydney and Melbourne- no doubt there are other such areas but I do not want to list them all- have in addition to the problems I have mentioned the added problem of the ethnic mix. There is a high proportion of children from nonEnglish speaking backgrounds in schools in those areas. It adds to the problems of the already disadvantaged schools. There is little or no real effort to cope with this problem. I agree that some funding is given for multicultural education but it will be nowhere near enough. What is needed is, in large measure, more teachers. To overcome the problems of those children there needs to be more face to face contact between teachers and pupils. We now have the problem, seemingly, of an excess of teachers. Teachers are unable to get jobs. In real terms, particularly in disadvantaged schools, there is a severe shortage of teachers but because of the funding limitations the State systems are unable to employ more teachers. Nothing which is contained in the proposals put up by the Government at this stage will alleviate that problem. In fact, it will only get worse.

One would think that nothing was happening in society generally throughout the world. I was going to say in Western society, but it applies to all parts of the world, including the Eastern countries. No notice is being taken of the significant change in direction which education must take if we are to cater for the increasing technological nature of this society. The Government has virtually ignored the fact that in many cases completely new facilities will need to be provided. For instance, with the funding that is to be provided, I wonder how many poor schools will be able to buy computers in order to start the job of educating children for the computeroriented society. We know that some of the better off schools, the rich schools, have them because they have been able to afford them. No mention is made of that matter in the Minister’s statement. The children in the State school system and the children in the poorer section of the private school system will be kept back. They will not be exposed to these new directions in education of which we must inevitably take note if our children are to be able successfully to bridge the gap between school and work.

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

Mr CARLTON:
Mackellar

– I must say that, in listening to the response of the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) to the statement of the Minister for Education (Mr Fife), one had a certain feeling of deja vu, as if we were back in the great period of Mr

Whitlam, the former Prime Minister, when it was assumed that all decisions were made in Canberra, that all funding came from Canberra, and that all initiatives came from Canberra. Certainly, the honourable member gave no indication in his speech of the real role of the Commonwealth in education funding, particularly in relation to schools. I remind the House that the Commonwealth, although it has a full financial responsibility for universities and colleges of advanced education, exercises only a topping-up role in the funding of schools and technical and further education institutions in the States and the Northern Territory.

The Commonwealth currently provides about 25 per cent of the total expenditure on technical and further education and about 12 per cent- I repeat 12 per cent- of the expenditure on government schools. The Commonwealth accepts a larger responsibility for nongovernment schools. It provides some 60 per cent of the total recurrent support. The Commonwealth is the sole source of public assistance for non-government schools by way of capital grants, leaving aside some interest subsidy from some of the States. The basic priorities for nongovernment schools are set in the States by the State education departments and also by those who administer those schools. It is within that context that I think we have to scale down the comments made by the honourable member for Maribyrnong in his response to the Minister’s statement.

I wish to concentrate on a few fundamental facts about the philosophy of the Government’s approach to education, particularly in relation to schools. The Government is firmly committed to the principle of choice in education. In other words, it believes that there should be a capacity for parents- admittedly at some additional costs to the parents- to choose to send their children to schools other than government schools. In fact, I would like to see this principle extended, if it were possible, in the States- it happens in some places but it certainly does not happen in Victoria or New South Wales- in relation to government schools so that parents were able to make a choice as to which school they send their children. I believe that there would be an additional discipline on the government systems in providing adequate education school by school if parents were able to move their children away from one school to another if they felt that the education at a particular school was not up to scratch. Some of the over-centralised and overbureaucratised State administrations take far too long to correct wrong situations in schools. For example, if it becomes clear that a bad headmaster had been appointed to a school, that the person appointed in all good faith turned out to be ineffective, it is extremely difficult to make a change in a government school within any reasonable time and the parents and children in that area suffer substantially. If the parents are able within that situation to move their children to a non-government school, that is splendid. It would be better if they had the additional choice to move their children to another government school.

The honourable member for Maribyrnong attacked the Government on the grounds that it had an elitist view of education and that it was pouring money into the so-called rich schools at the expense of the disadvantaged schools.

Mr Uren:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not like to interrupt any honourable member who is speaking. There is a standing arrangement -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Order! Is the honourable member raising a point of order?

Mr Uren:

– Yes, I am raising a point of order as to the procedure of the House because of the discourtesy of the Leader of the House who has precluded debate on General Business items. Unless General Business items are raised before 12.30 p.m. Opposition and Government members will not be able to exercise their right to debate these items.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I have allowed the honourable member some latitude. There is no point of order. The Standing Orders are being observed. I call the honourable member for Mackellar.

Mr Uren:

– Well, in what way are they being observed? I want to know from the Government -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Reid said that he was raising a point of order. He has not related his point of order to any Standing Order.

Motion ( by Mr Uren) proposed:

That the honourable member be not further heard.

Mr Fife:

– It was only last week that the Opposition was complaining because this important issue of education was not being debated in this House. In response to that I said there would be another opportunity to debate this subject when the guidelines were introduced. The guidelines have been introduced and the Opposition has a opportunity to debate this matter. Apparently the honourable member for Reid is indicating that this matter is no longer important.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I have allowed the Minister some latitude. A motion is before the Chair that the honourable member for Mackellar be not further heard.

Question put.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Dr H. A. Jenkins)

AYES: 29

NOES: 70

Majority……. 41

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr CHAPMAN:
Kingston

-Mr Deputy Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Uren) put:

That the honourable member be not further heard.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Dr H. A. Jenkins)

AYES: 31

NOES: 70

Majority……. 39

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Leave not granted.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 3070

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

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

Coastal Waters (State Powers) Bill 1980.

Coastal Waters (Northern Territory Powers) Bill 1980.

Coastal Waters (State Title) Bill 1 980.

Coastal Waters (Northern Territory Title) Bill 1980.

Seas and Submerged Lands Amendment Bill 1 980.

Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill 1 980.

Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Royalty) Amendment Bill 1980.

Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Registration Fees) Amendment Bill 1980.

Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Exploration Permit Fees) Amendment Bill 1 980.

Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Pipeline Licence Fees) Amendment Bill 1980.

Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Production Licence Fees) Amendment Bill 1980.

Fisheries Amendment Bill 1980.

Navigation Amendment Bill 1980.

Historic Shipwrecks Amendment Bill 1980.

Migration Amendment Bill 1980.

page 3070

CURRENCY AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Assent reported.

page 3070

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Order! As it is now 15 minutes to one o’clock p.m., the time allotted for precedence of General Business has expired. Government Business will now be called on.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Mr Viner)- by leave- agreed to:

That so much of Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent General Business, Notice No. 1, being debated until 2.30 p.m.

page 3070

QUESTION

REGIONALISM AND REGIONAL EXPENDITURE PLANS

Mr UREN:
Reid

– I move:

There is a more urgent need now than possibly ever before in Australia’s history for a comprehensive national policy for co-operative regionalism. There is not only a greater need for co-ordination of policies between the Federal, State and local levels of government but also there is a growing demand by people for increased involvement in the decision making that affects their daily lives. The Australian economy is now undergoing a major structural upheaval. We are now faced with the social consequences of massive capital investment decisions that are frequently made in overseas corporate boardrooms without concern for the effects on the Australian economy and without concern for the effects on the Australian people. We need a co-ordinated national policy to guarantee security to the Australian peoplesecurity of income, employment, housing, health and self-reliance.

The diverse labor-intensive manufacturing base on which Australia’s pattern of population distribution was shaped in the last part of the previous century and in the first half of this century is now being eroded. The industry strategy of import replacement promoted by the Australian Labor Party under Chifley and continued by the Country Party under McEwen, by which many Australian manufacturing industries grew up, is now being replaced. We are now entering a new phase- not determined by the Australian people and not in our interests- of capital and energy intensive production for export. We are now seeing major rationalisation- not only in manufacturing industry in the face of increasing imports, but also in service industries through the impact of new technologies. The changes in all of these sectors is leading to a reduced supply of jobs, especially in smaller country towns and regional centres. We have already seen over 300 Australian firms move all or part of their operations overseas. We have seen hundreds of manufacturing firms go bankrupt, including over 150 textile establishment closures since 1973. We have seen the termination of many country rail services and the closure of some country telephone exchanges. As a result, there has been a major dislocation of the rural population as jobs have been lost in country towns.

The course of industrial development that is being rapidly pursued in Australia as we jeopardise our manufacturing base in order to promote mining and mineral processing industries is bringing about immense economic and social problems in many regions of Australia. We are seeing a rapid expansion of a few centres that are poorly serviced and an agonising decline in many country towns and centres. The March 1979 report of the study group on structural adjustment known as the Crawford report devoted a chapter to regional policies. The study group argued for policies to deal with regional adjustment problems. It stated:

The major thrust of such policy should be one of trying to foresee problems in order to mitigate or avoid them.

The study group also said:

This is difficult in Australia because of data deficiencies and the current lack of an overall regional policy framework.

It concluded by saying:

Location specific adjustment measures (for example, incentives to the growth of new opportunities in a particular region, support for declining activity in a particular town) should be implemented within the framework of a long-term regional policy rather than as ad hoc responses to the problems of particular firms.

The study group suggested the need to examine a range of measures for helping regions cope with change and the development of on-going policies providing activity. It saw a need for co-ordinated monitoring and analysis of the impact of national economic change in States, cities and regions. The study group advocated improved policy co-ordination between the three levels of government. It stated:

There is no standing machinery for coordinating Commonwealth and State policies (for example, industry, manpower, regional and housing policies) relevant to adjustment problems at the level of States, cities or regions.

It concluded:

Effective co-ordination of Commonwealth and State policies and programs relevant to adjustment problems is essential if location-specific adjustment measures are to promote viable economic development at the regional level.

In general, the direction for industrial restructuring advocated by the study group is divisive and dangerous for Australia. The study group was aware of the immense social impact of this restructuring: A few regions would expand but most would decline; a few people would get high paid jobs but most would end up with low paid jobs- or no jobs at all; some people would have access to cultural amenities but others would be deprived of basic necessities. While the study group’s proposed industrial strategy is disturbing, its proposed regional strategy is encouraging and enlightened. It represents a major rebuke to the strategy of neglect of this Government which reduced funding and decentralisation assistance for growth centres from $71m in 1975-76 to $37m in 1979-80. That represents a reduction of 63 per cent in real terms. In 1979-80 total spending on urban and regional development is less than one-fifth of the amount that was made available in the last year of the Labor Administration in 1975-76.

On 18 October 1979 I sought information from the then Minister for National Development about the use of the $ 10.4m expenditure for decentralisation assistance by this Government. The Minister informed me that the State Government authorities received 16 per cent of these funds; local government bodies received 18 per cent; private firms received 66 per cent; private sector capital projects received 66 per cent; and 30 per cent of the funds was allocated to the publicly funded provision of physical infrastructure for private companies. Only 4 per cent of the funds was provided for community facilities. Of this total of $ 10.4m, less than half a million dollars was spent on providing for the needs of the people in the regions. I seek leave of the House to incorporate in Hansard the Minister’s answer to my question and details of the figures.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

House of Representatives

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE B

(Thursday, 18 October 1979)

Department of National Development

Answers to Questions on Notice

Commonwealth Regional Development Program (Hansard-Page 397)

Mr Uren:

– Referring to the $10.4 million expenditure for decentralisation and related comments contained in the Department’s Annual Report (Page 36) asked;

  1. For a regional break-up of where this money went?
  2. What proportion went to State authorities, local government bodies and private industries?
  3. What proportion was for private sector capital projects, provision of physical infrastructure and facilities of private projects and community facilities? (and)
  4. What are the criteria for determining long-term growth potential?
  5. What studies have been conducted to determine which regions are losing population and where these people are going?
Mr Newman:

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

  1. Normally projects must be located in a selected country centre to be eligible to receive assistance. Selected centres must have sound long term growth prospects and are chosen after consultation with the States.

In selecting centres the initial criteria are the centres size and past population growth rate.

A selected centre must have a population size of at least 50,000 or a population of above 15,000 and a growth of at least 1 , 000 over the last five years. Centres with a population of at least 50,000 generally possess the social, economic and physical infrastructure necessary for further sustained growth. Centres with a population of above 15,000 and a population growth of at least 1 , 000 over the last 5 years have generally demonstrated an ability to sustain growth and attract employment.

Both types of centres are attractive to firms in that they can provide some of the agglomeration economies necessary for future development.

  1. My Department monitors and analyses regional population trends as the data become available.

For example, the Department has been analysing the results from the October 1978 Internal Migration Survey carried out by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Further analysis of inter-regional migration trends is awaiting processing of results from the 1976 census by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Earlier studies on Australian internal migration trends for the period 1966-71 include: a publication prepared by the Australian Bureau of Statistics called ‘Internal Migration in Australia’, published this year; and a study commissioned on behalf of the Cities Commission in 1975 by John Paterson Urban Systems Pty Ltd on ‘Models of Internal Migration: Australia’.

A significant study currently nearing completion and coordinated by the Department of Science and the Environment, is concerned with Australian urban trends and indicators. Officers of the Department of National Development have contributed significantly to those sections of the study dealing with employment structure and the interrelationship between population changes and unemployment.

Mr UREN:

-I thank the House. Not only is the amount of funding insufficient but also the priorities are wrong. For example, $780,000 was allocated to assist industrial development in Gladstone which has a population of over 20,000 people. Anybody who goes there will see that the social conditions of the people in that city are appalling. Current industrial developments in Gladstone include Comalco’s aluminium smelter and a cement clinker plant. The State Government has provided funds for the improvement of port and rail facilities for the benefit of these companies. The Gladstone City Council has provided new roads also for the benefit of these companies. In 1978-79 the Government’s own Decentralisation Advisory Board, at page 2 1 of its annual report, stated:

The demands placed upon the region ‘s resources to meet the growth needs of industry and the associated urban expansion have resulted in insufficient local funds being available to provide necessary community and social amenities in Gladstone.

In many ways Gladstone is the Australian resource equivalent of the manufacturing export processing zones of Asia. Although Australia will not act as a free trade enclave in the same way as the Philippines and many other countries, developments in Gladstone suggest that what the workers gain in money wages they lose through the poverty of social wage provisions. Housing is scarce, expensive and company controlled. That is an extremely sad situation. Schools are crowded; health and welfare services are inadequate; public transport and recreation facilities are poor; environmental pollution is alarming, especially as the power station, the alumina refinery and the aluminium smelter are located upwind of the residential area. The aluminium industry is associated with high levels of salinity in water, toxic fluoride emissions, alumina dust, caustic spray and the dumping of red mud. Gladstone is one of the so-called glamour growth regions under this Government. The problems facing the people of Bendigo, Ballarat, and the Latrobe Valley, as examples of declining centres in the country areas of Victoria, equally are disturbing.

With expanding exports of primary aluminium, imports of manufacturers increase, and the textile, clothing, footwear, furniture and electrical appliance industries, and others, decline. The major export of country towns is unemployed youth. This Government increasingly must understand that that is the sad social problem involved. For instance, in 1974 Ballarat had around 230 manufacturing establishments. Many have closed now and others have reduced their product range and have introduced new technological equipment. These rationalisations have meant a reduced supply of jobs in the Ballarat region, especially for women of whom a large proportion were employed in the production of textiles, textile goods and food and drink. The problems facing centres like Ballarat cannot be solved by any one level of government acting alone. Within an overall regional policy framework, a co-operative response is required by Federal, State and local governments. This concept of regionalism was developed by the Labor Party between 1969 and 1972 and was developed most strongly within the Department of Urban and Regional Development under the previous Federal Labor Government. In May 1978 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation produced a report entitled ‘The Commonwealth Government and the Urban Environment’. The report states, in part:

A positive Commonwealth Government policy on regional issues is essential, if for no other reason than to establish and maintain a line of communication for the discussion of the impact that Commonwealth Government decisions have on the local area.

The report of that Standing Committee continues:

A prime objective should be to ensure there is no overlapping or divergence of action.

It asserts that co-operation between local councils or voluntary co-operative regionalism is ‘a useful tool to promote efficiency and economy in public administration’. It states that in order to foster innovation and sound planning what is required is ‘responsible decentralised government, retaining local democracy and accountability rather than remote, centralised decision making’. That report was made two years ago by a Government committee with a majority of Government members, yet the Government has not acted on it.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr UREN:

– Before the suspension of the sitting, I was referring to my motion in regard to regionalism and regional expenditure plans. I quoted from the report of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Conservation which supports the arguments for the need for planning of regionalism. The Committee recommended that the Commonwealth Government explicitly recognise the advantages inherent in area based co-ordination and take positive steps, in conjunction with the States and local government, to develop further the concept of voluntary co-operative regional arrangements based on local government. That report, as I stated earlier, was presented two years ago and yet this Parliament has not discussed it. This Government has done nothing to act on those recommendations. The report of the Crawford Study Group on Structural Adjustment was presented a year ago and there is no sign that this Government intends to act on its regional policy recommendations.

Let me now turn to the policy of the Australian Labor Party. The Labor Party recognises local government as an equal partner in the government of Australia. The Labor Party recognises the problems faced by people in both the expanding and the declining regions. The Labor Party is committed to a policy of intergovernmental co-operation, including regionalism. It was our experience, when in government, that strong regional identities emerged throughout Australia in such diverse areas as the western regions of Sydney and Melbourne, the iron triangle of South Australia, the Tamar region of Tasmania, the Moreton and Gladstone regions of Queensland and the Illawarra and Hunter regions of New South Wales. These are just some examples of the regions that are now developing. It was our experience that State and local governments of varying political persuasion supported our commitment to the growth centres of Bathurst-Orange, Albury-Wodonga and Macarthur.

It was our experience that, when people saw that governments were prepared to take an active interest in helping them to meet their regional needs, they became more involved in the process of decision-making about their regions. New ideas emerged from the people of those regions responsive to the needs of those regions and appropriate to the human and physical resources of those regions. Those concepts are still there. The needs and the resources are there. Those regions have a great potential to develop viable, productive and service enterprises. We cannot alford to let them decay. If the community facilities are improved and planned and if health, education, welfare and recreational services are provided, the needs of the people can be met. Employment can be generated and investment is more likely to locate in those regions. Where private firms are reluctant to decentralise their operations there is an opportunity for Federal and State governments and regional organisations of local councils to establish enterprises in those regions.

The Labor Party considers that it is essential that the program of support for regional organisations of local government councils is implemented in order to allow them to develop effective responses to common problems. The growth of selected regional centres, such as Albury-Wodonga, Bathurst-Orange and Macarthur, which is on the outskirts of Sydney, should be encouraged by the decentralisation of appropriate sections of State and Federal government administration, by the expansion of social and physical infrastructure and by the provision of incentives for investment in industry. Those selected regions where the standards of community service provisions are below what is acceptable in other regions should be given a guarantee of financial support for a given period. Local government bodies should be given financial encouragement to develop employmentgenerating enterprises in selected regions, to expand public transport services, to improve environmental protection, and to provide for a better exchange of information.

These are urgent local priorities. They are essential national priorities. A Labor government will be committed to these social priorities. The sad situation which exists is that the Government, which has a very large support from the National Country Party, says that it is in support of decentralisation and regionalism and against the overcentralisation of cities such as Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra, Adelaide and Penh. It is about time this Government acted on regional politicies as put forward by the Australian Labor Party.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

-Is the motion seconded?

Mr Howe:

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

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

– I rise to oppose the motion in the form moved by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). He described this motion as one on regionalism. The speech which we have heard here today is one that the honourable member has made time and time again. It is a speech which is confused in its thinking. In some respects it does identify the problems that arise in a dynamic and developing economy. All economies change from time to time. That change takes place on occasions quickly and at other times more slowly. Change goes on all the time. That change occurs because we find major energy resources in remote places. We develop those resources and people move to those regional centres and establish new towns and settlements. The reasons for the existence of cities and towns change. The rate of growth of these centres slows and on occasions becomes negative.

In his speech the honourable member made out that there was one way and one way only in which these problems could be resolved. He indicated that we should develop a policy of regionalism. He did not define what he meant by regionalism. In Australia today we have a system of government which is regionally based. We have six States and the Northern Territory, which are in themselves major regions. It is true that their boundaries were defined some time ago and, in some respects, due to the accident of history. Nevertheless, the people living within the boundaries of those regions proudly support and wish to see the continuance of the region or State in which they live.

In addition, we have a third sphere of government known as local government. Local government is a form of regional government. In some areas the territory of these governments is large. In other areas local governments’ areas are small. The honourable member for Reid is advocating that the States and local governments are unable to make the decisions needed by the communities within their boundaries and that the decisions should all be centralised upon Canberra. The Leader of the Government in which the honourable member was a Minister said in a well publicised speech that in Australia there should be fewer local governments and no

States. He advocated a system of government in Australia based upon administrative regions.

We on this side of the House believe that the power and sovereignty- the capacity to legislate, power and authority, the capacity to determine priorities and define policies- should be distributed among three spheres of government. We on this side of the House acknowledge that local government, having started as the creature of State governments- as indeed the Northern Territory started as the creature of this Parliament- is maturing from an administrative arm of State governments into an autonomous sovereign sphere of government. The Government wants to see that continued. It believes the regions’ that are governed by local government can be strengthened and that the capacity of local government alone or in concert with local government in adjoining areas can be strengthened by the Government’s federalism policy. The Government has done a number of things to strengthen local government and it will do more. For example, it has given local government the opportunity to participate in the discussions of the Advisory Council for InterGovernment Relations which is now looking into the question of what relationships should exist between the spheres of government. Why is this important? It is important because we have identified that the sorts of problems to which the honourable member for Reid drew our attention do exist.

The Government does not believe these problems will best be solved in the interests of the people in local government areas or in States by centralising the decision-making process in Canberra. The Government wants to decentralise the decision-making process. It wants to strengthen that decentralised decision-making process so that it is more sensitive to the needs of communities. The Government has given an immense charge to the Advisory Council on InterGovernment Relations. The Government has given it the task of advising what relationship should exist between the three spheres of government in this country. Of course, in looking into that matter, it must necessarily examine the relationships that should exist between adjoining local government areas where in circumstances, for one purpose or another, a larger area is a more appropriate area for which strategies and policies should be developed. The Government does not believe the sort of regionalism advocated by the honourable member for Reid when he was a Minister in the Labor Government should be imposed upon local government. Certainly, local government should be made alert to the interrelationship of its decisions with the decisions of adjoining local government bodies. Equally, all local government bodies should be made sensitive to the impact of the decision of the State and Commonwealth governments upon the people living in their areas, as State and Commonwealth governments should be made alert to the needs and influence of thendecisions in the areas governed by States and local governments. This Government has given local government a share of income tax, has broadened its revenue base and has made certain that a significant proportion of that revenue is distributed in accordance with equalisation principles. The problems of a town like Gladstone can be overcome through the effective equalisation of local government bodies in the distribution of local governments share of personal income tax.

The Government has shown its concern in other ways. Time does not permit me to enlarge upon them because this debate shortly will be drawn to a conclusion. The Government has recognised the need for better data and statistics. The Australian Bureau of Statistics is developing local government information gathering processes so that decisions can be taken on the basis of known facts rather than on the basis of guesses. Likewise, this Government changed the legislation dealing with the Industries Assistance Commission to require that Commission to bring into account the locational impacts of any recommendation which it made. This is in stark contrast to the actions of the Labor Government of which the honourable member for Reid was a member. The Labor Government destroyed the industries of country towns. It destroyed the textile industry by across-the-board tariff reductions of 25 per cent. Furthermore, the Government has shown in other areas its sensitivity to the impact of developments in the urban area. It was under a Liberal National Country Party Government that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation conducted an inquiry into the impact of government decisions of” the urban environment. Its report was entitled: ‘The Commonwealth Government and the Urban Environment’. For the honourable member for Reid to suggest that that inquiry has made no impact is to misread the situation. It is quite clear to honourable members on this side of the House that that thoughtful, sensitive, concerned and perceptive report has had a very real impact on all spheres of government. It has made all spheres of government and all departments within government a little more sensitive to the regional implications of the decisions that they take. Honourable members on this side of the House want to ensure that Australia develops in a way that its towns and settlements can -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The time allotted for preference to General Business Notice No. 1 has expired. The honourable member for Sturt will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day under General Business for the next sitting.

page 3076

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr UREN:
Reid

– I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Reid may make a personal explanation on that basis.

Mr UREN:

– The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) misrepresented me on two counts. Firstly, he said that as Minister for Urban and Regional Development I tried to centralise all power in Canberra. Secondly, he said that I wanted to amalgamate local government authorities into larger bodies and that I would impose that view on local government. In relation to his comment that I tried to centralise power in Canberra I should like to say that basically the philosophy which I always advocated was contrary to that. I said that I was in favour of decentralisation because I was against centralism. I represent people living in the outer fringes of Sydney. I have seen what overcentralisation can do in major capital cities. You may recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that at the end of my speech I reminded you, as a member of the National Country Party, of that situation. In relation to the second point raised by the honourable member for Sturt about the amalgamation of local government authorities I should like to say that the role I played as the Minister for Urban and Regional Development and the role played by my Department at all times was to persuade local governments to make their own decisions. In fact, the Labor Government introduced one program that encouraged -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Reid has the indulgence of the Chair to make a personal explanation on the score that he was misrepresented. I ask the honourable member not to expand his remarks.

Mr UREN:

-One of the Labor Government’s programs was to allocate money to local authorities. The local government authorities wanted to come together as voluntary bodies to create regionalism. That is the Australian Labor Party’s policy now. It was its policy then and it is still its policy.

Mr Bourchier:

– I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Reid claimed to have been misrepresented and was given the opportunity to point out briefly where he was misrepresented. He should not make a statement on the matter.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Chair is alert to that requirement. The honourable member for Reid has concluded his personal explanation.

page 3076

QUESTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURE

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
Lilley

-On behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure I present the report of the Committee entitled: ‘Alternative delivery systems for Commonwealth public works’, together with a transcript of proceedings and certain documents authorised for publication.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS (Lilley)-by leave-This report results from the request from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works that the Standing Committee on Expenditure examine the use of project management as an alternative method of delivering major capital works of the Commonwealth. The Committee was guided by the terms of this request. This is the second request the Expenditure Committee has received from another parliamentary committee. The first request was from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation and related to the Northern Territory forestry program. When we add to these requests suggestions that fall within the Committee’s terms of reference made in reports of other parliamentary committeesfor example, the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare entitled ‘Through a Glass, Darkly’, and a report from the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations on the Advance to the Minister for Finance- one can see a ray of hope of healthy co-operation that is emerging between the various committees of the Parliament. I thank all these committees, and, in particular, I thank the chairmen of these committees for this important innovation.

The subject matter of this report and inquiry has been very technical. This has meant an additional effort on the part of the sub-committee members- the deputy chairman the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown), the honourable member for Henty (Mr Aldred) and I as chairman- to understand the issues. It did appear, however, that most witnesses were challenging the efficacy of the traditional system to deliver public works in an economical and efficient way. Various alternatives were suggested by witnesses. Technical complexities were compounded by the lack of clarity in the information given to us, but after examining most of the evidence as to what are the appropriate matters for inquiry, we agreed that the questions that should be addressed are, firstly, whether a greater proportion of public works should be delivered by systems other than the traditional system; and if the answer is in the affirmative, secondly, the implications for the role of the Department of Housing and Construction. Once we stated our purpose in this way we realised we were on familiar ground. One of the major interests of the Committee is program evaluation in which we attempt to assess the success of a program in meeting its objectives and examining whether there are different ways- that is program alternatives- of meeting those objectives, particularly ones which lower costs.

Obviously, the starting point is the statement of the objectives of the Commonwealth works program. Initially, we constructed those objectives from the April 1979 submission of the Department of Housing and Construction. We further realised that only governments can set objectives for themselves. Accordingly, we corresponded with the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Groom) who gave us the objectives. We then proceeded to assess the extent to which the various delivery systems meet these objectives. The delivery systems chosen were the traditional system, design-construct, construction management, project management and selective tendering, which is a minor variation to the traditional system.

Four conclusions were reached on the issues. Firstly, the choice of a particular delivery system for a particular project has to be made in the context of the circumstances of that project and is, hence, a matter of judgment for the administrators. Secondly, the choice of a particular delivery system for a particular project should continue to reside with the organisation that has prime carriage for the co-ordination of the planning, design and construction of public works. Thirdly, it is not practical to formulate guidelines for the selection of a particular delivery system. Fourthly, since a government department or agency is responsible to government and the

Parliament for the efficient administration of public works, that department or agency should always have overriding authority over project management companies and others on those works.

Those conclusions can be said to be negative ones in that they do not make a contribution to increasing efficiency or improving accountability to the Parliament. To expect reports always to contain such contributions is to equate scrutiny with criticism. This is a view the Committee does not hold. However, the inquiry did throw up matters in relation to efficiency and to accountability. Concerning accountability, the Committee has recommended, firstly, that the Department of Housing and Construction either include in its annual reports or supply to the Parliament Standing Committee on Public Works for inclusion in that Committee’s general reports the following information on each completed major capital work: The tender price, costs of rise and fall contract clauses, design alterations and other costs specified and the delivery system or systems used for each project. Secondly, it was recommended that the Department of Housing and Construction expedite the preparation of design and supervision costs for major public works and publish these costs in its annual reports.

This information should assist both departments and organisations located in the private sector to challenge the ways in which the Department of Housing and Construction is administering government programs. Without this information we feel that the questioning will continue to be based on assertions rather than wellthought out arguments. Finally, in an attempt to improve the efficient administration of construction programs, the Committee’s third recommendation was that the Department of Housing and Construction assess the advantages and disadvantages of contractual project management and use this delivery system when circumstances permit its use. In a nutshell this is what the report represents.

I make it quite clear that a wide-ranging inquiry into the administrative efficiency of the Department of Housing and Construction was not contemplated at any stage. Some of the areas witnesses wanted examined are more appropriately dealt with in such an inquiry. We were guided always by the precise terms of the requests from the Public Works Committee. The information the Committee has asked for should enable it and other bodies to assess much better whether there is a case and a cause for such a wide-ranging inquiry.

page 3078

QUESTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ROAD SAFETY

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

-On behalf of the Standing Committee on Road Safety, I present the report of the Committee on alcohol, drugs and road safety, together with the transcript of evidence and extracts from the minutes of proceedings.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr KATTER:

-by leave-First of all, I would like to thank the secretariat staff and my Committee members. We were really put to the test on this occasion because, at the critical moment when we were about to produce this report, we lost the services of Frank Hinkley, who was then the Secretary to the Committee. His place was taken by Bill Mutton, who did a splendid job which was far beyond what one would have expected under the circumstances. He stepped in without having heard the evidence and without having been associated with the hearings. He was ably assisted by Kristin Ballard. I pay particular tribute to those two people and, in addition, to David South and Dr Joe Santamaria. Undoubtedly, members of the public at times say to themselves: ‘How can a group of politicians be expert on road safety and in the critical involvement of that subject?’ On all occasions while I have been on this Committee we have had the advantage of having not only consultants who were nationally equipped, but also consultants with an international reputation. They assisted the Committee in a very decisive manner.

This report was produced as part of a general investigation into human behaviour as it applies to road safety. The first term of reference which we have dealt with concerns alcohol and drugs. Driving under the influence of alcohol is the most important single factor contributing to serious road crashes; the statistics are horrifying. In 1979, 3,506 people were killed in road crashes in Australia. At least one-third of all adults killed-that is about 1,000 people in 1979- would have had a significant concentration of alcohol in their blood. Furthermore, many of those unaffected by alcohol would have been killed in crashes involving a driver who was affected by alcohol. Research suggests that alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent of crashes involving a fatality.

In 1977 over 91,600 people were injured in more than 67,500 reported road crashes in Australia. In some 34 per cent of all road crashes resulting in personal injury at least one driver, rider or pedestrian would have had a significant blood alcohol content. Finally, this dismal record of statistics tells us that a survey in Adelaide has shown that overall 8.4 per cent of drivers surveyed had been drinking; 2.5 per cent of drivers had a blood alcohol content exceeding 0.05 grams per hundred millilitres and 1.6 per cent had a content exceeding 0.08 millilitres. In the period from 9 p.m. to 3 a.m. on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights, 28.9 per cent had been drinking; 16.1 per cent had a blood alcohol content exceeding 0.05 grams per hundred millilitres and 1 1.7 per cent had a content exceeding 0.08 millilitres. That might sound a rather dry statistical record. One cannot dramatise them or bring them out in colour- except that the colour might be blood red. One cannot make the statistics something that would appeal to the nation. We want them to terrify the nation.

No one who is familiar with the problem of drink driving doubts that it is a road safety and community health problem of truly major proportions. The drink driving problem is one of great complexity. Drinking and driving are integral parts of most people’s way of life. Many social pressures tend to support, even encourage, drink driving. On the other hand, the opposing forces do not have a strong influence on a significant proportion of the community. Leaving my formal report for a moment, I just mention that there is a very grave responsibility on those who are handling the advertising and the glamorising of beer more particularly, but alcohol generally.

Penalties for drink driving are already quite severe, yet the law is frequently and consistently disobeyed. Drink driving is still not seen by many as a criminal act. The motorist who breaks a drink driving law but who is not involved in a serious crash resulting in injury is not seen as an antisocial criminal but as a basically law-abiding citizen. These permissive attitudes to drink driving are a fundamental impediment to other measures aimed at minimising the drink driving problem. Modifying such attitudes must be seen as a high priority, long term objective.

Governments have become increasingly aware in the last decade of the significance of alcohol as a contributing factor in road crashes. Efforts have been made to combat it, for example through the use of the breathalyser and the imposition of severe penalties. Despite such efforts the problem remains critically serious. The Committee ‘s major recommendation is that random breath testing be introduced in all States and Territories. I can imagine the reaction from people who ask: ‘What about our sacred right, the right of the individual?’ What about the right of the individual who goes out in his car with his wife to have an afternoon drive? Some hood or hooligan full of grog comes along in a car which possibly should not be on the road and wipes out the lives of those two people, and probably the lives of a couple of kids thrown in for good measure.

Late in 1978 the effectiveness of random breath testing was subjected to an evaluation in Victoria- a very important operation, may I say- and my deputy chairman, the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones), who has done such a splendid job on the Committee will have something more to say about that. During the evaluation period, testing was carried out in short, intense bursts accompanied by widespread publicity. This use of random breath testing was found to be most effective in reducing alcohol related road crashes. Although it has not yet been established that other methods of using random breath testing are effective, we concluded that its potential value was such that all States and Territories should introduce it. I repeat that, without delay- because every hour a life is being wiped out in this nation- all States and Territories should introduce random breath testing.

The purpose of random breath testing is to raise each potential drink driver’s estimation of the likelihood of his being detected. It is clear that raising such estimations is an important determinant of the effectiveness of penalties. But important though it is, this is just one facet of the drink driving problem. A variety of measures are required to deal with the many other facets. For example, there is a need for effective rehabilitation programs for people with drinking problems. Greater efforts need to be made in schools and in the mass media to attempt to modify community attitudes toward drink driving. Research needs to be undertaken on how the drinking environment might be changed to reduce the incidence of drink driving. The physical road environment needs to be improved to make it more forgiving of impaired driving performance. More effort needs to go into the development of mechanical devices for vehicles to prevent drink driving from occurring. I deviate again for a moment to draw the attention of honourable members to a device that was shown recently on Nationwide. One breathes into the device- a little box. If one has over the allowed blood alcohol content one cannot start the motor of one’s car- a simple device, but an effective one. I ask the Department of Transport to look closely at that device. I think it is practical and will help tremendously.

There is a need to evaluate carefully those counter measures which have been adopted already. The magnitude of the problem created by drivers affected by drugs other than alcohol and by drugs in combination with alcohol is not yet known. We were not able to get a great deal of clear and decisive evidence. Indeed, little is known of the effects of many drugs on driving skills. It is clear, however, that even some commonly prescribed drugs, especially when used with alcohol, can have seriously adverse effects on driving skills. Whilst it seems clear that the problem of drink driving is much greater than that of driving under the influence of drugs, the Committee believes that measures to counter the latter problem are needed and that lack of knowledge is a basic impediment. The Committee has identified several areas in which reseach is required. The use of alcohol and drugs presents a variety of problems for the community. There are limits to the extent to which driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs can be dealt with in isolation from the more general problem of abuse of these substances. There appears to be a ground swell of community concern about the abuse of alcohol and other drugs. The Committee’s inquiry, I believe, clearly demonstrated that this concern is well justified.

In conclusion, I thank again the deputy chairman of the Committee, the honourable member for Newcastle, for always being present to assist when I was not about. I also thank the other members of the Committee. I do not want to pick out individuals, but in particular I wish to thank the honourable member for Barton (Mr Bradfield), the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys).

Dr Klugman:

– You are picking out individuals.

Mr KATTER:

– I am picking out all the individuals. The Committee worked extremely hard for one reason. I repeat that we lost the services of our secretary who was the reservoir of information. Quite suddenly, he was not there. Again I commend the secretary and his assistant, Mrs Ballard, for doing a splendid job. I am very concerned that the Government might at some future time feel that we are duplicating the work which has been done in some of the States. It would be a sad and serious situation if this Standing Committee on Road Safety were no longer vigilant, in examining closely and with a great sense of responsibility the greatest killer this country will ever know; that is, the killer or the roads. The numbers are increasing day by day. There are 10 road deaths per day now. I will leave the House to make its own conclusions in that regard.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-by leave- In speaking to the report presented by the Standing Committee on Road Safety on alcohol, drugs and road safety I take up the point raised by the Chairman of the Committee, the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), at the conclusion of his speech. He raised the questions of whether the Federal Parliament should have a committee to investigate road safety, whether there should be an office of road safety and whether there should be a standards authoritywhatever field of operation there might be. In my opinion there cannot be too many committees working on this subject stirring up public opinion, government support and finance to improve our road system, the behaviour of people who drive the vehicles on those roads and the vehicles they travel in.

We have seen in the last decade and a half quite a substantial change in the public attitude to road safety. Twenty years ago when certain people started talking about the car manufacturer being required to improve the standard and safety of the vehicles he was building, such as by the installation of seat belts, and about the need for breathalyser testing- the call is now for random breathalyser testing- there were always those in the community who referred to them as ratbags and treated them as such. But I am pleased to say that the people who had the interest and courage to become involved in road safety at that time have been directly instrumental in bringing about quite a substantial reduction in the number of road deaths in the community. Whether in Australia, the United States of America, Europe or elsewhere, there has been a need for people to become involved and interested in the problem, to try to do something about it. We cannot get away from the fact. I advise people, if they are not prepared to read the whole of the report- a course which I recommend strongly- at least to read its major findings and recommendations. That will give them something to think about, something on which to act.

I come back to the clear and concise fact that in 1979 3,506 people were killed on the roads. Of that number, 1,800, or more than half, died as the result of the consumption of alcohol by some person: Either the driver or a pedestrian was under the influence.

When it is suggested that a driver should be prosecuted and sent to prison because he has been involved in a crash while under the influence, there is a great cry about civil liberties. Similarly, when the law was changed to require the wearing of a seat belt, there was talk of taking away people’s civil liberties. The same can be said of the use of the breathalyser or of random testing. As long as I have the right to vote in this Parliament I will continue to vote for the taking away of those civil liberties. A driver who is under the influence of alcohol is certainly not in control of his vehicle. If such people want to kill themselves that is their prerogative, but it is not their prerogative to kill other, innocent people, whether they be drivers of vehicles or pedestrians.

The community must harden to acceptance of the point of view that the consumption of alcohol in the community presents a social problem. Quite apart from the road safety aspect, it is a major social problem in industry and commerce. It is not always the little fellow on the bottom of the ladder who has the problem. It is also found among the people on the top rung, at the administrative level. Indeed, the problem at that level is one of major consequence. The community must tackle this social problem. People must be prepared for the Government to fund a full investigation of the problem and to do as much as possible to help people who have the problem. We are told that there are as many as a quarter of a million alcoholics in the community. That is a heck of a big percentage of our population of some 4]A million. Therefore, the whole question has to be tackled as a major social problem. I have mentioned that in one year it contributed to the death of some 1,800 people. I intend to keep referring to that fact because it is important that we keep hammering the point.

Labor supporters engaged in demonstrations against the Vietnam War in which, in the period from 1964 to 1971, 494 Australian servicemen were killed. There was a great public outcry about it, but there has been no public outcry about the fact that 1,800 people were killed last year alone as a result of the consumption of alcohol. We have in the community people who say that it is a breach of their civil liberties if, when they are driving, a policeman pulls them up and says: ‘Breathe into this; take this test’. The Committee has made a very strong recommendation in favour of random testing and State governments being urged to amend their traffic Acts to that end. Unless random testing is properly policed it will not be effective. That will mean that the publicans, the club secretaries and the club committees will squeal like hell because they will find that the random breath testing crew is just up the road, that as the drunks come out they will be tested. There is only one way to deal with such drivers. Until the community is prepared to face that fact we will continue each year to kill 1,800 people on the roads as a consequence of alcohol consumption.

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You are lucky you do not drink.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I do not, and I do not want some mug to kill me either. An intense study was carried out by the Victorian Government over Friday, Saturday and Sunday nightsthe killer nights. It was discovered that on those nights a decrease of between 65 per cent and 70 per cent in fatalities occurred. That was for the simple reason that people went out that night knowing that if they exceeded the 0.05 per cent blood alcohol level which is permissible in Victoria there would be a distinct possibility that they would be pulled up and have to submit to a breathalyser test. The result was that they either did not drink or stayed at home and drank. That is their prerogative. Alternatively, if they went out they used public transport. All that the Committee is saying is this: If you want to drink that is your right but you should not drive a motor vehicle if you do. That is the whole point that the Committee is making.

The Committee has recommended that the Government carry out a series of investigations. I do not propose to take up the time of the House by reading the recommendations but certain points have been brought out positively in them. The Committee accepts as fact that the consumption of alcohol is a major social problem that must be tackled by government on the basis of intensive investigation and study to find out the best way of overcoming it. I am discussing the consumption of alcohol from the road safety aspect only. I am not referring to the other major social problems that flow from it, those that involve the family and so on. That is a separate aspect with which others may deal.

I do not altogether agree with that part of the Committee’s report which states that, for about 25 per cent of drivers who have been prosecuted for consuming in excess of the permissible amount of alcohol, increased penalties would have no effect at all. There is a fair amount of evidence which shows that they are alcoholics, people who have a drinking problem and who will continue to drink irrespective of the penalty. I do not accept the suggestion that they will continue to do so irrespective of the penalty. I believe if they are hit hard enough they will seek alternative methods of transportation- public or some other form. I return to the point that people must be shown that they cannot kill their fellow men in the process of going out and enjoying themselves. I hope that the State parliaments, and the Federal Minister within whose responsibility traffic control in the Australian Capital Territory falls, will have the courage to initiate compulsory random breathalyser testing and that it will be rigidly enforced on the basis of people being told that if they drink and drive they will have a better than even money chance of being caught.

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Would you flog them or hang them?

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-If they murdered others, yes, I would flog them and hang them. I recommend the report to interested people. I believe that basically it is a good report. I believe that governments, State and Federal, should be prepared to carry out the Committee’s recommendations and provide the finance that is necessary to endeavour to overcome this major social problem.

Mr PORTER:
Barker

-Mr Deputy Chairman, I seek leave to make a short statement on the same matter.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! The House, strangely enough, seems to be in some quandary today as to how to address the Chair. We have had a series of addresses to the ‘Chairman’ or the ‘Deputy Chairman’. The term of address is ‘Deputy Speaker’.

Mr PORTER:

-Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As a member of the Standing Committee on Road Safety, I wish to make a few comments on this -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is seeking leave?

Mr PORTER:

– Yes.

Leave granted.

Mr PORTER:

-Thank you. I wish to make a few comments on this extremely important report The Chairman of the Committee outlined the problems. To put them in very clear terms, on average in Australia nearly 10 people a day are killed on the roads. That means that on average every 2Vi hours someone in Australia dies as the result of a road accident. This report, which is the result of a long and intensive inquiry, gathers together an enormous amount of material. The inquiry was initiated on 29 May 1978. We received 139 submissions and 133 witnesses were heard. I have no doubt at all that the report will be an enormously useful starting point for researchers and others who are involved with road safety.

I make two points. One of the results of all the evidence that was put to the Committee was that the Committee was not convinced that further increases in penalties for drink driving would be effective in the long term in overcoming the problem. Penalties vary from State to State but generally they are quite severe. The problem remains that most people believe that they have a good chance while driving under the influence of getting to their destinations and of not being stopped by the police. Generally, people’s prospects of being picked up for drink driving are low. Therefore, perhaps increasing the penalties is not the answer. Perhaps increasing people’s belief that they may be caught for drink driving if they are driving under the influence is the answer. This has led the Committee to the view that random breath testing, used in specific road safety campaigns, could be a useful tool in reducing the number of deaths and injuries on our roads.

The other point I make as a result of the inquiry is that I was extremely impressed with some of the rehabilitation programs which are undertaken in some States. For example, it is not uncommon in Victoria for a magistrate to order a person who is convicted of a drink driving offence to undertake a course of lectures prior to his licence being reinstated. Such courses involve the attendance of doctors, policemen and others, who lecture the people involved. I am quite sure that many people do not understand the effect that alcohol can have on them physically in causing the destruction or breakdown of parts of their body and the effect that it has on their control of their vehicles. Drink driving is an extremely serious problem in Australia. It is my hope that this report will contribute positively to public awareness of the problems that are involved and will assist in overcoming some of the carnage on our roads.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-by leave-I join with the honourable members who preceded me in this debate in their comments relating to the tabling of this very important report. The issue of the impact of drink driving upon our community extends beyond party political lines. It has clearly had the support across the board of the Standing Committee on Road Safety. As the Chairman of the Committee mentioned, the only socially acceptable killers in this country are drinking drivers. That situation arises very much from the facts that, firstly, a social behaviour has been established in relation to alcohol over many decades and, secondly, as the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), who preceded me mentioned, there is little chance of being caught.

Some of the recommendations of the Committee aim to increase the chance of detection. Once people come to recognise that their chances of being caught are much greater, we are likely to have some movement towards a change in community attitudes to drinking and driving. I think the ingestion of alcohol before driving is a factor in the aggressiveness of some motor vehicle drivers. So many people seem to drive their cars in the way in which they would wear a gun if they were back in the days of the wild west. That kind of road behaviour has a serious impact upon other drivers and particularly upon the drivers of two-wheeled vehicles- motor cyclists and cyclists. I believe that the lack of concern and the arrogance of some drivers in most cases follows the ingestion of alcohol. There has to be a change of social attitudes to this combination of drinking and driving.

The report outlines the enormous toll that alcohol takes on motor vehicle drivers, passengers and pedestrians. The most disastrous impact of all is the impact upon young people. I stress that in 80 per cent of single vehicle fatal crashes involving drivers under 25 years of age, alcohol is a major contributing factor. The combination of the consumption of alcohol and driving is a community problem. We must all join together in developing a solution to it. It is criminal, in my view, that young people gain legal access to alcohol and to motor vehicles at almost the same time. It is estimated that the driving impairment of a 17-year-old person is 10 times greater than that of a 30-year-old person following a given consumption of alcohol. Yet enormous peer pressures are placed upon young people to join in the consumption of alcohol or to develop the practised habit of consuming alcohol. They are made to feel that they are less than men, less than adults, unless they are able to cope with a quantity of alcohol. To encourage young people to drink and then allow them to drive is to invite them to play Russian roulette with their lives and with the lives of other, innocent road users.

I make mention particularly of the role of leading sporting personalities in the promotion of the sale of alcohol, particularly on television. In this area of promotion the pitch of the message of the advertisement is aimed at the younger age groups in the community. The younger people are made to feel that they are less than successful, that they cannot be successful or competitive in sport, that they cannot achieve, unless they are able to swig a can of beer as we see so often on the television commercials. I would like to see some of the other leading sportsmen and sportswomen of our nation joining in an opposite campaign to neutralise the disastrous effect of the promotion of alcohol.

Sir Donald Bradman, in his younger days and at the peak of his career, used to say quite openly that he did not drink alcohol, that he was a teetotaller. Surely there are some sportsmen like Sir Donald Bradman around today who can follow his lead in promoting a deterrent to the consumption of alcohol. I do not know whether these leading sporting personalities are paid for their appearances. I do not know what consideration they receive or what their motivation is. I can only appeal to them to have a look at the figures of the fatalities and injuries of young people who drive motor vehicles following the consumption of alcohol. I ask them: Are they doing the right thing for those young people and for all of the other young people of Australia whom they encourage to drink by their appearance in commercials. Added to that, I believe that in all public places where liquor is sold, such as hotels, restaurants and clubs, there should be an equal promotion and availability of a range of non-alcoholic drinks and low alcohol content drinks so that a choice is available. We find in so many cases at present that only alcohol is available.

I conclude with one of the Committee’s recommendations. It reads: consideration be given to reducing the excise imposed on low alcohol beer (defined as containing not more than 2.5 per cent of alcohol by weight ).

I think it is a worthy recommendation. As a member of the Committee I support it, but it is not an answer in itself, although it appears to be having some favourable effect upon the problem. It is one of the tools which are available to us. I support the remarks of the honourable members who preceded me about the recommendations of the Committee. I ask the community to come together, putting politics aside, in facing up to this most difficult and disastrous problem.

page 3083

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES

Motion (by Mr Viner)- by leave- agreed to:

That during the consideration of the matter referred to the Committee of Privileges on 23 April 1980, Mr Barry Jones be appointed to the Committee in place of Mr Holding, appointed on 1 May 1980, Mr Millar be appointed in place of Mr Lucock and Mr Les Johnson be appointed in place of Mr Clyde Cameron and that during consideration of the matter referred to the Committee on Ti September 1979 Mr Millar- be appointed in place of Mr Lucock and Mr Les Johnson be appointed in place of Mr Clyde Cameron.

page 3083

AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF ABORIGINAL STUDIES

Motion (by Mr Viner)- by leave- agreed to:

That in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Act 1964 this House appoints Mr West as a member of the Council of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, to replace Dr Everingham who has resigned, until the dissolution of the Thirty-first Parliament.

page 3083

HEALTH INSURANCE

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Speaker has received letters from both the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett) and the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by Standing Order 107, Mr Speaker has selected the matter which in his opinion is the most urgent and important, that is that proposed by the honourable member for Bonython, namely:

The growing uncertainty, fanned by widespread and seemingly well-informed press speculation on further changes to health insurance arrangements.

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

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

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

-As I predicted on the last occasion when -

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the business of the day be called on.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The question is that the business of the day be called on.

Dr Blewett:

– It is the Chair’s task to protect the rights of the ordinary members of this Parliament. I would point out that in this session the Opposition has been allowed to debate only 12 out of 32 potential matters of public importance. I ask, therefore -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I must point out immediately that the Chair does carry that responsibility within the confines of the Standing Order. The proceedings before the House are consistent with Standing Orders and therefore the question has been put.

Question put.

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

AYES: 67

NOES: 31

Majority…… 36

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 3084

QUESTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION

Mr HODGES:
Petrie

-I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation to present its report on south-west Tasmania and the Gordon River Power Development, Stage Two, to Mr Speaker for printing and circulation during the forthcoming long adjournment.

Leave not granted.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Mr Howe) proposed:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Batman moving a motion enabling the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation to present its report on the South-west Tasmania and the Gordon River Power Development, Stage Two, to Mr Speaker for printing and circulation during the forthcoming long adjournment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The motion must be seconded and presented to me in writing.

Mr Simon:

– I second the motion.

Question put.

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

AYES: 33

NOES: 63

Majority……. 30

In division-

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 3085

SHIPPING REGISTRATION BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Shipping Registration Bill is an important step forward in the development of Australia’s status as an independent nation. One of the attributes of national sovereignty is the right of a country to determine the conditions for the grant of its nationality to ships. In international law ships have the nationality of the country whose flag they are entitled to fly and it is customary, at least for the larger ships, to require them to be registered in order to secure the right to fly the national flag. The present law governing the registration of ships in Australia, was enacted by the Parliament at Westminister 86 years ago and is contained in Part I of the Merchant Shipping Act 1 894. Originally that law applied throughout the British Empire and it proceeded on the basis that a ship was a British ship if it was owned by a British subject or corporation in any part of the Empire. The Act required all British ships to be registered except certain small ships of less than 15 tons carrying capacity. Registration could be effected at any British port of registry throughout the Empire and this entailed the entry of particulars of the ship and of its owners and mortgagees in the register at the port. The registrar at the port was required to transmit returns at regular intervals to the Registrar-General of Shipping and Seamen at Cardiff and in that way a complete record of all British ships was built up. However this procedure has been abandoned in recent years.

From the commencement of the Statute of Westminister 1 93 1 the various member countries of the British Commonwealth were free to repeal the Merchant Shipping Act 1 894 and to establish their own shipping registers. However, under an agreement negotiated at the same time in 1931 the laws of each country were required to adopt a common status of ‘British ship’ and to follow closely the provisions of Part I of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. That agreement, the British

Commonwealth Merchant Shipping Agreement 1931, was rescinded by all member countries by mutual agreement in 1978. Australia is the only major independent member of the Commonwealth, other than Britain itself, to have continued to operate under the Merchant Shipping Act system and the stage has now been reached where it is essential that we legislate to put an end to this anachronism. The Commonwealth countries have recently agreed on common principles for the future operation of their own shipping registers and in accordance with those principles Britain itself is expected to legislate to confine the Merchant Shipping Act system in Britain, to ships more than 50 per cent owned by residents of Britain or companies based in Britain. It is understood that the adoption by Australia of its own national system will simplify the task that the British authorities are undertaking in the United Kingdom.

The principles underlying the present Bill have been the subject of extensive discussion with the States and their views have been taken into account in the framing of the legislation. However, several States have sought an opportunity to examine the Bill itself and there has been widespread interest in the subject since the proposed legislation was announced in January. The Government considers, therefore, that it would be desirable on a subject as important and complex as this to allow the Bill to lie on the table over the winter recess with a view to its passage in the next sittings.

I turn now to a description of the main features of the Bill. The first thing it does is repeal Part I of the Merchant Shipping Act 1 894 insofar as it is part of the law of Australia, thus terminating Australia’s reliance on the British legislation and clearing the way for the adoption of an appropriate Australian system. The next provisions spell out the ships that are eligible for Australian registration, either on a compulsory or on a voluntary basis. The main elements are: Defence Force ships are excluded; registration is compulsory only for Australian-owned commercial ships of 12 metres or more in length, other than Government ships, fishing vessels and pleasure craft; Australian-owned ships for which registration is not compulsory may be registered on a voluntary basis; also ships under 12 metres in length that are operated by Australian citizens or residents may be registered; registration is also permitted in the case of foreign-owned ships that are demise chartered to Australian interests.

The procedures for registration, including the evidence of ownership required, the division of property in the ship into 64 shares, issuing of registration certificates and of provisional certificates and the naming and marking of the ship have been made broadly comparable with the British system to ensure that the changeover from that system to the Australian system can be effected with a minimum of inconvenience for shipowners. The same can be said of the provisions of Part III of the Bill which deal with transfers and transmission of title and the registration and priority of mortgages. The proposal to adopt the Australian national flag as the proper national colours for Australian ships has aroused considerable interest if not controversy in some quarters although it was made some four years ago by Commissioner Malcolm Summers in the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Maritime Industry. Because of the interest in this subject I propose to deal with it at some length.

The present position with regard to merchant ships and other civilian craft, including fishing vessels and pleasure yachts, is covered by a combination of British and Australian laws. The effect of these is that for merchant ships registered in Australia and covered by the Commonwealth Navigation Act 1912 the British Red Ensign defaced by the stars shown on the Australian national flag is declared to be the proper colours by section 406 of that Act. For ships not covered by the Navigation Act, section 73 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 and British Admiralty warrants issued under that section prescribe the flag. There is a general warrant dated 25 November 1938 which declares the British Red Ensign defaced by the badge of the Commonwealth to be the proper colours for ships and boats belonging to British subjects resident in Australia. That flag, although described in different words, is the same as the flag prescribed by the Navigation Act for Australian merchant ships. It was subsequently described in greater detail in the Flags Act 1953 which declares that it shall be known as the Australian Red Ensign. In addition to the general warrant of 1938 the British Admiralty has issued individual warrants to certain members of some 16 yacht clubs in Australia authorising them to wear the British Blue Ensign, either undefaced or in a defaced form. The British Blue Ensign is similar to the Australian national flag but without the stars. Approximately 400 Australian yacht owners have been accorded the privilege of using the British Blue Ensign in place of the Australian Red Ensign.

In proposing that the Australian national flag should be the proper national colours for Australian ships the Government has taken into account a number of considerations. The first is that at the present time Australians do not have the right to fly the Australian national flag at sea. Honourable members will recall the statement by the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay) on 10 May last year on the extension of the free issue of the national flag when he said:

The National Flag is our symbol of national unity. As such, the Government is concerned to encourage the flying of the National Flag as widely as possible. The proper and dignified use of the National Flag can only encourage national consciousness.

Those are words of wisdom from the Minister for Administrative Services. The Government considers that the philosophy underlying that statement should be a universal one and it should apply at sea as much as it does on land. In coming to that conclusion the Government has noted that the vast majority of other countries, including many Commonwealth countries, have also adopted their national flag as the ensign for merchant ships and other vessels.

There are other reasons for terminating the present usage of the Red and Blue Ensigns. Under the Geneva Convention on the High Seas 1958, to which Australia is a party, ships have the nationality of the country whose flag they are entitled to fly. It follows that if Australia is to confer its nationality on ships it cannot perpetuate the practice of permitting a flag other than a flag of Australian nationality to be used as national colours on Australian ships. The Blue Ensign is a flag of British nationality and the Red Ensign is ambiguous because, as I have mentioned, it is authorised under both British and Australian law.

The international principles apply particularly on the high seas and there is less difficulty in permitting a departure from the Convention’s principles in the Australian territorial sea and internal waters. In deference to the concern expressed by the yacht owners who presently have Blue Ensign privileges the Bill permits the continued use of that flag in Australian waters for a period of two years from the commencing date of the proposed new system. I should mention that the commencing date will occur not on royal assent but some time later, possibly up to 12 months after royal assent, depending on how long it takes to complete the necessary administrative procedures and subordinate legislation. It should also be noted that the Bill does not make it compulsory for Australian pleasure craft owners to register in Australia so that a yacht owner who wishes to retain the use of the British Blue Ensign will have the option of transferring the registration of his yacht to a British port of registry outside Australia.

So far as the Australian Red Ensign is concerned, the Bill envisages that on the commencement date it will be replaced by the Australian national flag. In this connection there will be complementary amendments of the Flags Act 1953 and of the Navigation Act 1912. The Flags Amendment Bill is being introduced now and the Navigation Amendment Bill (No. 2) which is still being drafted will be introduced in the next sittings. Perhaps those people who have an interest in flags and protocol could, during the period this Bill will lie on the table, let the Government have the benefit of their views on this subject. I have no doubt that they will respond and their views will be considered. The Bill also preserves the use of the flag of a State or Territory in Australian waters and contains provisions in respect of flag rights for unregistered Australian ships.

The provisions of Parts IV and V of the Bill set out the broad administrative arrangements for the establishment and operation of the Australian Register of Ships. In this area there are some significant departures from the present system. The proposed Australian system is basically a centralised system in that there will be only one register.

The Bill provides that the Register and copies of the Register or of such part or parts of the Register as the Minister directs shall be kept at such places as the Minister directs. It also provides that there shall be at such places in Australia as the Minister determines, an Australian shipping registration office and such number of branch registration offices as the Minister determines. This is a flexible arrangement and it enables a certain amount of decentralisation. However, it does not suffer from the disadvantage of the present system in Australia under which there is a separate register at each of 20 ports of registry and the complete record of all ships registered in Australia is not available at any one place. One consequence of that change is that there will be no ports of registry as such and the practice of marking the ship’s port of registry on the stern need not be continued. However, because of the importance of the port of registry concept for legal and other purposes, the Bill makes provision for the adoption of a concept of home port for each ship and the regulations will spell this out in greater detail including the practice of continuing to mark the port on the ship’s stern.

Part VI of the Bill contains a number of miscellaneous provisions including power to remove unqualified ships from the Register, the provision of offences and the preservation of State laws relating to the licensing of small, craft for identification purposes.

Finally, the Bill contains transitional provisions that have been framed in such a way as to minimise any inconvenience to the owners and mortgagees of ships registered in Australia under the Merchant Shipping Act. On the commencement date the existing registers will be deemed to form part of the Australian Register and no further action will be required of owners or mortgagees in order to effect the transition to the Australian Register. The Australian Register will of course make use of modern procedures, equipment and documentation and ships will be progressively transferred over to the new documentation after the commencement date. Mr Deputy Speaker, as I mentioned this Bill is an important step forward in the development of our status as an independent nation and I commend it to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 3087

FLAGS AMENDMENT BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

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

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This is a small Bill to complement the Shipping Registration Bill 1980 by repealing the references in the Flags Act 1953 to the Australian Red Ensign. The Shipping Registration Bill proposes that the Australian national flag be the proper national colours for Australian ships covered by that Bill and this will mean phasing out the Australian Red Ensign.

I refer honourable members to the remarks I made in my second reading speech on the Shipping Registration Bill on the question of flags to be worn by Australian ships. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 3087

PREFERENCE TO AUSTRALIAN GOODS (COMMONWEALTH AUTHORITIES) BILL 1980

Bill presented by Mr John McLeay, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to provide for Commonwealth authorities to comply with the Government’s policy of giving preference to Australian-made goods in Commonwealth procurement. The Bill will override certain provisions of legislation governing some statutory authorities which at present inhibit the ability of those authorities to carry out the Government’s Australian preference policy, and will provide procedures whereby adherence to the policy will be facilitated.

This Government has taken the view that producers of Australian goods and related services and their employees should receive a measure of preference when bidding for contracts to be arranged by Commonwealth departments and authorities. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) announced a policy of giving preference to Australian-made goods in September 1976. This policy was based on the traditional approach of giving selective assistance in special circumstances. Over the succeeding year, however, it became clear that the policy was not sufficiently effective. Accordingly, in October 1977, the Government decided to adopt a more positive preference policy, and this was announced by the Prime Minister in his election policy speech in 1977. In accordance with this policy government departments and authorities were instructed to:

  1. give preference in Commonwealth procurement to goods of Australian origin or of relatively greater Australian content unless there were substantial reasons to the contrary; and
  2. to draw up tender specifications so as not to exclude Australian supplies suitable for or reasonably adaptable to their needs.

Whereas, in the past, there had to be special grounds for giving preference to Australianmade goods, departments and authorities are now required to provide substantial reasons if they wish to do otherwise than purchase Australian-made goods or goods of relatively greater Australian content. The policy motivates companies bidding for Commonwealth contracts to examine carefully the possibility of increasing the use of materials and components from Australian sources, thus creating a flow-on effect.

Since the introduction of the policy, however, it has become apparent that there is some unevenness in compliance by the various Commonwealth authorities. The enabling legislation of some authorities has the effect that purchasing must be on the basis of best value for money. In some cases legislation provides for ministerial decision in respect of major purchases only, whilst in the majority of cases the enabling legislation of authorities does not provide for Government direction on purchasing matters. These and other factors have resulted in some inconsistency in implementation of the Government’s preference policy.

I should point out that purchases by Commonwealth authorities represent a very significant proportion of total Commonwealth purchases. Purchases by departments of state are estimated to be in the region of $ 1,500m per annum whereas purchases by the Commonwealth authorities are estimated to be in the region of $3,300m per annum. It can be seen that purchases by authorities are more significant in total value than purchases by departments and are therefore of considerable importance in the context of the preference policy.

My Department has conducted a survey of the extent of compliance with the preference policy by authorities. The results of this survey show that, whilst the majority of authorities indicated that they were complying fully with the Government’s policy of preference to Australian-made goods, there was another group of authorities which found it necessary to qualify their responses. A further group indicated that they were unable to comply with the Government’s policy.

In view of all these factors, the Government decided to introduce overriding legislation to facilitate and ensure compliance by Commonwealth authorities with the preference policy, except where specific exemptions are granted. The Government recognises that there will be some special cases where authorities may need to be exempted from the provisions of the legislation; for example, full compliance with the preference policy might, in some instances, jeopardise the commercial viability of a business undertaking. The Bill provides the necessary flexibility to cope with these special cases.

In this regard, the Prime Minister has written to the Premiers of Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia concerning the possible extension of the Government’s preference policy to certain bodies jointly conducted by the Commonwealth and a State government or governments. There would be obvious advantages in a uniform approach to preference in government purchasing across Australia as a whole. The practice of individual States pursuing their own purchasing preference schemes for suppliers in their States can lead to a distortion of trade among the States. This may encourage a greater degree of industry fragmentation than would otherwise occur. This could mean that we are not achieving the optimum use of our resources throughout the Commonwealth as a whole.

I now turn to the main features of the Bill. The Bill covers all authorities established under Commonwealth law and under the law of the Australian Capital Territory. Authorities which are jointly conducted by the Commonwealth Government and another government or governments will, however, be removed from the scope of the legislation by regulation, except where, in the case of Commonwealth-State authorities, the partners agree to the preference policy being applied to the authority. I should mention that the coverage of the Bill does not extend to companies incorporated under State law. Qantas Airways Ltd and other Commonwealth-owned companies established under State law are, however, subject to direction by the Government as principal or sole shareholder through their respective Ministers. Unless specifically exempted such companies will, therefore, be subject to the same requirements as those set out in this Bill.

The first of the operative clauses of the Bill, clause 4, recognises the possibility that the drafting of specifications for a procurement in a narrow or restrictive way can render Australianmade goods ineligible to meet a requirement. Clause 4 provides that specifications are not to be drawn up in such a way as to exclude suitable goods of Australian origin or higher Australian content from consideration. The Bill also contains, in clause 5, provisions requiring the invitation of tenders for significant purchases either publicly or from a list of registered tenderers. These requirements are based upon the finance regulations under the Audit Act which govern purchases by departments and authorities within the public account. They are designed to ensure that there is no undue restriction on the opportunity for firms to tender for the requirements of authorities. They include the normal exceptions to the general public tender rule which apply under the finance regulations.

The authority to approve exceptions, by a Certificate of Inexpediency’ procedure, will be appropriately delegated to officers of authorities. I should mention that the system of open lists of registered tenderers set out in clause 6 represents a departure from the tendering procedures which apply to departments. It is included in the Bill because the Government recognises that some authorities, especially business undertakings, may require a more flexible purchasing system than departments. The registered tenderer system will, however, involve regular advertisements by the authority concerned to meet the underlying principles of public tendering.

I now move to the stage of tender evaluation and contract award, the stage where preference is applied. It is a long-standing principle of Commonwealth purchasing that Australian producers should be entitled to the same protection against competition for imports in relation to Government purchases as they enjoy under the Customs tariff in relation to commercial transactions. Accordingly, in the case of Government purchases, departments and authorities are required to evaluate tenders on a duty paid basis whether or not any imported goods offered are to be exempt from duty as Commonwealth Government imports. The Bill provides the necessary procedures to give effect to this policy.

Tenderers are also to be required to set out the Australian content of the goods tendered or, in the case of purchases of small value, information as to whether the goods are of Australian origin. Authorities will be required to follow the procedures already in general operation and which were described in my media release of 2 October 1979. These procedures have the effect that for purchases under the value at which public tenders are required to be invited, a simple Australian-made preference may be applied at point of purchase against products identified as imports.

For purchases above the public tender threshold, or in smaller purchases where the Australian content method is used, but where the lowest suitable tender is less than $50,000, a general Australian-made preference factor will be applied resulting in a margin of preference related to the Australian content of the goods tendered. In the case of all purchases costing $50,000 or more where the highest Australiancontent suitable tender is proposed to be passed over, or for lesser purchases with special features, cases are referred to the Minister for Administrative Services who decides the case or refers it for consideration by the Industry Policy Committee of Cabinet.

The preference margin applied in the case of purchases which follow the Australian content approach will be 20 per cent of the value of the Australian content of* each tender, the resultant figure being subtracted from each tender price. In the case of smaller purchases, generally below the $5,000 public tender threshold, a loading of 20 per cent is added to the duty paid prices of all offers identified as of imported origin. In both cases, the lowest suitable tender or quotation is then accepted. I propose to introduce an amendment to the Bill in the Budget session to incorporate these preference margins in the legislation.

I should mention that the present preference arrangements, and this Bill, recognise the difficulty of arriving at precise measures of Australian content. Accordingly, differences in Australian content between tenders of less than 10 per cent are to be disregarded. To ensure that contracts are not awarded to tenderers submitting inaccurate or misleading estimates of local content, selective investigations of claimed Australian content levels are undertaken by investigators from the Department of Administrative Services. Lists of suppliers who provide consistent or substantial misstatements of Australian content are to be compiled and circulated to Commonwealth departments and authorities.

Clause 15 of the Bill provides for the disclosure to interested persons such as unsuccessful tenderers of the level of Australian content of successful tenders. This enables unsuccessful tenderers to challenge any claims they consider doubtful. Also, to ensure that the level of content tendered is achieved, appropriate conditions are being developed to provide for enforcement of Australian content levels submitted by successful tenderers. Spot checks will also be carried out by departmental investigators, particularly in the case of period contracts to ensure that the Australian content, on the basis of which a contract was awarded, is achieved.

As I indicated earlier, the Bill also provides for certain exemptions to be granted by the Minister for Administrative Services where it can be shown that the commercial viability of a government business undertaking or the ability of a Commonwealth authority to fulfil all of its functions, including any financial requirements, would be jeopardised by applying preference to some or all of its purchases. The clause of the Bill concerned, clause 16, is drafted in such a way as to permit exemption of a particular purchase by an authority, of purchases of a particular class of goods by an authority, or of all the purchases of an authority. These exemption provisions are designed to allow the necessary flexibility to deal with special cases whilst not detracting from the overall impact of the policy. Other provisions of the Bill enable the Governor-General to make regulations prescribing various matters arising under the clauses, and enable the Minister for Administrative Services to seek such information as he may require concerning procurement by Commonwealth authorities to enable him to administer the legislation. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Dr Klugman) adjourned.

page 3090

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1980

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill amends the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, firstly, to implement policy decisions arising from the Government’s consideration of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal’s Report entitled: ‘Self-Regulation for Broadcasters?’ and, secondly, to provide for the holding of general inquiries by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Honourable members will recall that I foreshadowed the introduction of this Bill in the House on 23 April this year when I explained the provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1980. At that time, I mentioned that the Government believed that this was an area of government policy which required the widest possible public consultation. Accordingly, the Government’s intention is that this Bill be allowed to lie on the table of the House during the coming winter recess. This is designed to provide honourable members and other interested organisations and individuals an opportunity to study the precise form of the legislation and to make their views known to the Parliament.

Therefore, at the same time as I introduce this Bill, I invite all honourable members to forward their comments to me over the coming weeks. I intend to provide copies of the Bill to interested organisations and members of the public upon request, and I will welcome their comments. In view of the fact that ample opportunity is to be given for detailed scrutiny of the provisions of the Bill, I propose to confine my following remarks to its major features.

The Bill provides for the deletion of existing program and advertising standards presently being administered by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. In their place it introduces a system of codes of broadcasting practice which will require licensees to televise programs designed and suitable for children under the age of 13 years which will establish requirements on broadcasters in the area of Australian content, and which establishes what amount of time will be allowed to be devoted to advertising and nonprogram material. It also relates to the kinds of classifications which are to cover television programs and what announcements broadcasters are to make about Tribunal inquiries. Outside the specific matters provided for in the Bill and subject to the other provisions of the principal Act, for example in relation to blasphemous, indecent or obscene programs, the regulation of programs will be a matter for licensees and their industry bodies.

Honourable members will see that the Bill establishes detailed procedures for consultation with broadcasting industry bodies to develop codes. It empowers the Tribunal to approve codes or to determine codes if it is not able to give its approval to codes submitted to it. It is important to note that in giving this approval, or in its own determination, the Tribunal is required to have regard to representations made to it by members of the public and evidence and submissions from the public at inquiries held by the Tribunal.

In addition, the Bill provides for general Tribunal inquiries into any or all of the following matters: The adequacy of radio or television services in Australia or in any part of Australia, including the nature and quality of programs; the radio or television broadcasting codes to apply to licensees; and the need for radio or television ser- < vices in Australia or any part of Australia. I believe that all who have taken a part in the administration of the broadcasting industry in this country- broadcasters and community organisations alike- have uniformly recognised the need for these general inquiries.

Finally, I would like to remind the House that the inquiry procedures of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal are at the moment subject to consideration by the Administrative Review Tribunal. This is an important process and I am confident that this review will lead to significant changes in these matters. I would encourage any interested member of the Parliament or the public to take advantage of this opportunity to comment on Tribunal inquiry procedures. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Innes) adjourned.

page 3091

REHABILITATION OF RADIO AUSTRALIA FACILITIES

Approval of Work: Public Works Committee Act

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

– I move:

The proposal is to restore the facilities damaged during Cyclone Tracy with a view to allowing resumption of full overseas transmission service by the end of 1982. This proposal comprises repairs to the access jetty and provision of a new wharf head; repair and structural upgrading of buildings including services and provision of limited cyclone-proof accommodation; repairs to overhead electrical power transmission lines, substation and switch yards; repair and replacement of submarine power cables; and the replacement of transmitting aerials, associated transmission lines and switching facilities. The estimated cost of the proposal referred to the Committee was $10m at September 1979 prices, being $6.7m for radio technical equipment and $3. 3m for the civil works component.

In reporting favourably on the proposal, the Public Works Committee has made five observations which deserve some comment. In recommendation 4 the Committee is critical of the fact that the Department of Defence was not consulted when the question of a possible alternative site at Humpty Doo was first considered. I understand that this criticism arises from evidence to the Committee that the Government directed departments to consider alternative sites in May 1977. Subsequent considerations indicated major savings in time and capital costs in favour of the Cox Peninsula site and no significant savings in operational costs for other sites. The decision to proceed at Cox Peninsula was then taken on economic grounds and there was no necessity, at that stage, to consult the Department of Defence. It was not until August 1979 when reassessments indicated the possibility of savings in operational costs for the Humpty Doo area that it was then considered necessary to involve the Department of Defence and this was done promptly.

The Committee also recommends that the Government give early consideration to the installation of a further transmitter at Carnarvon. Preliminary investigations suggest that this is a feasible proposition and it will be considered further. In its final recommendation the Committee indicated that the inland radio service should proceed without delay and that the transmitters should be incorporated into the Radio Australia facilities during the rehabilitation. Provision of a high frequency inland radio service to the Northern Territory had been approved and planning for its installation was well advanced at the time of the cyclone in December 1974. Preliminary planning indicates that the most costeffective way of providing the inland service would be to co-locate it with the Radio Australia facilities at Cox Peninsula. Further detailed propagation studies are being undertaken at present and the timing of the installation will be subject to a satisfactory outcome of these studies and of funding considerations.

A further recommendation in the body of the report on which I wish to comment is contained in paragraph 5 1. It is that the Northern Territory Government be consulted during the design of the new wharf head to ensure that it is adapted, at Northern Territory Government expense, for public use. Preliminary consultations to this end have already been held with the Northern Territory Government. Finally, the Committee notes the possibility that other sites might be more cost effective but believes the time considerations override such possible benefits and recommends construction of the works in the reference. The Government endorses this view and if the House agrees to support this motion, detailed planning can continue in accordance with the recommendations of the Public Works Committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3092

WESTERN AUSTRALIA AGREEMENT (ORD RIVER IRRIGATION) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 May, on motion by Mr Anthony:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-The Western Australia Agreement (Ord River Irrigation) Bill is to enable the Commonwealth Government to provide additional funds to the Ord River project in Western Australia. This assistance is to be in the form of a loan for expenditure on crop handling and processing facilities. Although funds for this loan are available under the 1968 agreement between the Commonwealth and Western Australia, that agreement does not provide for expenditure for this purpose. Since the joint Commonwealth-Western Australian Ord

River Irrigation Area Review Committee recommended that some of the remaining funds should be used for crop facilities, that agreement is now being amended. The State Government has requested funds to contribute towards the cost of an additional 3,000-tonne capacity rice storage and associated facilities. The loan is to be serviced by the rice industry by way of a levy on rice production. This, of course, is assuming that sufficient rice is produced. Given the history of the Ord there is no guarantee that rice will prove a more profitable crop than previous products.

The Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) in his second reading speech pointed out that this additional storage capacity will be required to cope with the projected expansion in the rice industry following crop successes over the past few seasons. Although the Opposition is supporting this legislation, we have a great deal less optimism concerning the future of the Ord project than that demonstrated by both the Commonwealth and Western Austraiian governments. We support limited funding for the project because a commitment has been made to the farmers who settled in the area, farmers who believed the promises of the Western Australian Government.

In the early days of the scheme the then State Minister, now Sir Charles Court, heralded the project as one of the great promises of the future. This is part of the cargo cult mentality which is still carried on by the Premier of Western Australia. Now it is not irrigation schemes, but new mines, most of which never eventuated. Sir Charles Court made great projections about rice, sugar cane and oil seed crops, none of which have been achieved. The entire history of the Ord has been one of failure. One of Australia’s better known agricultural economists once described it as a triumph of political expediency over basic common sense. Close to $100m has been spent on the scheme but it still remains unproductive.

Despite recent limited successes with rice a profitable system of farming the Ord is still to be found. Its history can be traced back to the 1930s, when it was felt that something should be done to develop the Kimberley region. This was well before there were any signs of the large mining developments. Various research stations were established during the next 20 years and, after considerable pressure from Western Australia, the Commonwealth Government agreed in 1957 to provide a grant of $5m. Since then large amounts of assistance have been given. In 1958 this amount was increased to $10m. As originally envisaged, the project was to cost $29m and consist of four stages. Only two of these stages have been completed at a cost of nearly $100m. There have been some signs of success during the past 17 years since the project was officially started, but all of these have been very short lived.

Of all the crops expected to be grown, cotton became the preferred crop. In 1966-67 farms in the region produced about 20 per cent of Australia’s cotton crop; yields were high. It was soon realised that without the payment of the cotton bounty by the Commonwealth that production would have been far from profitable. High hopes were also held for the cattle industry. By the mid-1970s both industries had virtually been destroyed. Insect infestation virtually ruined the cotton crop and insecticide spraying of the cotton also put paid to the potential cattle industry. It has been a really happy story there. It was originally forecast by Sir Charles Court that 20,000 people would settle in the Ord region. How this man can be believed about anything is absolutely beyond me. Yet he is still being listened to by the nation as a serious -

Mr Hyde:

– Everyone is entitled to one error.

Mr KEATING:

– As the honourable gentleman interjects, everyone is entitled to one error, but this was a $ 100m error. But what a mess this area is. Even when cotton was showing favourable signs, the maximum number of cotton producing farms was 31. That dropped to six with the cotton failures. Now there are 19 farms with some expectations of the number increasing.

The fledgeling rice industry has some potential. The last wet season saw the greatest acreage under crop since the scheme started in 1 963 but even with the recent increase in rice production the scheme will never reach those production levels originally projected.

The Joint Commonwealth- Western Australian Review Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Norman Young which completed its inquiry at the end of 1978 considered the option that the Ord scheme should no longer be supported by government. He stated that this course ‘had to be seriously considered because of the controversy which has surrounded the Ord project since its inception, and the present low level of productivity’. The Committee concluded:

In terms of contribution to net increase in national output the project has been of no benefit.

Despite that conclusion the Committee recommended continued government support of a limited nature of five years. That recommendation was accepted by the Commonwealth Government. On the basis of the Young report there is no real argument for continued large financial support by the Commonwealth. The report provides the perfect reasons for phasing out government support for the Ord quickly and spending the funds in more profitable areas. It is unlikely that a profitable use of the Ord will be found. Talk of a sugar cane and ethanol production is now in the wind. The Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd has recently completed a study for Western Australia on the feasibility of a sugar industry. Apparently the conclusion of this study was that sugar would be uneconomic unless the price received were greater than $350 a tonne. The current price is about only $325 a tonne. This makes it much more expensive to grow sugar in the Ord than in Queensland. When transport costs are included, ethanol production would also be uneconomic.

Another proposal being looked at for the region is to use the main dam as a source of hydroelectricity. The quantity of water in this dam is about nine times that in Sydney Harbour. A feasibility study is currently being conducted by the Federal, Western Australian and Northern Territory governments. Under the proposed scheme, Western Australia would build a 60 megawatt station costing about $45 m and it would cost a further $45m to build a 600- kilometre transmission line to Darwin. Local power demand would not be enough to warrant this project but with the demand of Darwin it may prove viable. Darwin is certainly in need of new sources of power. The Federal Government is facing increasing subsidies for the city’s unreliable power system. A condition of the Northern Territory achieving self-government was that Darwin power charges would be kept at the same level as those in northern Queensland. These subsidies could amount to $50m by the early 1980s. The construction of a hydro scheme could at least save this expense. In the long run, it may prove to be a profitable use of the largest white elephant Australia has ever been associated with.

The irony of the Ord scheme is that there is a very strong likelihood that commercial diamond deposits are under the main dam. That is indeed ironic for the most indefatigable of miners, Sir Charles Court. It may be that the best reserves in the State are under the water itself. It may eventuate that the dam should be drained in order to mine these deposits.

Mr Hyde:

-Ha ha!

Mr KEATING:

– One cannot help but laugh. After 20 years and the expenditure of $ 100m we may end up where we were 20 years ago before the scheme began. This is all part of the imagination, involving the Third World battle and things like that, of Sir Charles Court. He talked about these things at the Australian Mining Industry Council meeting last Monday. He has never changed his tune. It is the same story, the same appeal- the cargo cult mentality of more mines, more projects, more development. Apparently the economics are just to be ignored. Whether one can sell the material, whether one can get it to market, whether one can get the right price, whether the ore bodies are of sufficient grade to be mined, whether the shape of the ore bodies can be handled by engineering are all beside the point. Everyone has to rush in to develop because the great Sir Charles Court has deemed that this is the way in which Australia should be developed. The Ord River scheme stands to condemn him for that style of thinking in Australia. It should expose to most people the fact that this development for development’s sake syndrome which Sir Charles Court and others are associated with does not bring employment or wealth to the cities of Australia, to the areas where people could really use these kinds of public infrastructure and public resources. I believe that places very serious caveats on the unfettered development syndrome under which people like Sir Charles Court tend to operate. Of course Australia wants development; but it wants sensible, planned, coordinated and rational development by which the wealth accrues to the Australian people and hundreds of millions of dollars of public infrastructure are used for the great benefit of most Australians and not to satisfy the wild dreams of some recalcitrant State Premiers.

Mr COTTER:
Kalgoorlie

-I wish to make a few comments on the Western Australia Agreement (Ord River Irrigation) Bill 1980. It pleases me to note that the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) had a very reasoned and reasonable approach to the subject, although I disagree on quite a few of the points he made. I had prepared a lot of background information for this debate but apparently the honourable member for Blaxland used the same briefing material; so I will not go through that area. It just demonstrates that there can be a certain amount of bipartisanship in this Parliament when it comes to great projects like the Ord River scheme. The Ord River scheme, of course, as everyone would know, is in the northern part of my electorate. It is about 3,500 kilometres from Perth. My electorate itself is some 3,500 to 4,000 kilometres in length and some 2,500 to 3,000 kilometres wide. So I can easily fit into it some of the big projects such as the Pilbara iron ore mines and the Ord River scheme.

Whilst many problems have been attached to the Ord River scheme one of the main faults I could find with it was that it was developed before its time. I think that history will demonstrate that the Ord River scheme in the longer term will be a well worthwhile and highly successful operation. Over many years the farmers of the Ord River scheme have had an enormous number of problems unprecedented in farming and rural industries. They have had to cope with the massive growth of weeds and the massive growth and expansion of insect plagues in that northern area, mostly because never before anywhere in Australia has there been a tropical, permanently wet agricultural environment. The honourable member for Blaxland mentioned the failure of the cotton crops and other crops in that area which devasted the farmers concerned. These were definite failures. Whilst it is often said that the Government has put a lot of money into the area, individual farmers have also been prepared to stake many years of their lives and enormous quantities of their own personal money. It is not all a one-sided picture. There are 24 farmers presently on the Ord River, not 19 as the honourable member for Blaxland indicated earlier.

There is a growing tendency for farmers to take up land on the Ord River. In fact, today more country in the Ord River area is under agriculture than ever before. That demonstrates that most of the problems which have beset the farmers in the past are in fact being solved. The future of the Ord River scheme, I believe, is very bright indeed. During the speech of the honourable member for Blaxland we heard the historical rundown of how the Ord River came into being, its size and the extent of the irrigable area. We also heard about the three stages of the scheme. So I will not go over all of that ground. There are some very interesting factors. For instance, at present 22,000 acres are under agriculture with 24 farms now productive. Many crops are being successfully grown. In the last 12 months production was as follows: Sunflower, 4,000 tonnes; rice, 6,000 tonnes; sorghum, 2,000 tonnes; soya beans, 2,000 tonnes and mung beans, 150 tonnes. Other crops, particularly large areas of experimental crops, were successfully grown.

The Ord River today is playing a very important part as a research centre for tropical agriculture not only for Australia but also for near member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations. While on a visit last year to several ASEAN countries I was privileged to see and note several Australian aid projects in Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia, for instance. Those countries are using techniques developed in the Ord River scheme. Some of the crops that are proving to be highly successful in the Ord River irrigation area are presently being promoted and grown in these countries and the necessary techniques are being taught to the local indigenous people. I took particular note, for instance, that the crops of mung beans now being grown in the aid projects in the ASEAN countries are a source of high protein food. They are being promoted as a large scale crop for use by large numbers of people. The basic research work on those crops was done on the Ord River.

More recently we have seen the growth of sugar cane production on the Ord River. It has proven highly successful. As reported in the West Australian of 6 September 1 979, the Department of Agriculture has stated that 20 hectares of sugar cane gave an average yield of 216 tonnes per hectare, with an average extractable sugar content of 13.03 per cent, equivalent to an average of 28.24 tonnes per hectare. The Australian yield is a little more than 1 1 tonnes per hectare. Little wonder that cane growers in Queensland are interested in growing their sugar quota on the Ord River. Obviously, if the yield per hectare can be almost doubled costs will be much lower. So there is great interest on the part of Queensland cane growers to move to the Ord River scheme and grow their sugar quota there. That is quite a new and growing aspect and one of the reasons why the Ord River may prove to be totally viable, but that will take some time.

In addition to the growing of sugar in the area, there is the prospect of developing an ethanol plant for the production of transport fuels for the north of Australia. Although the concept is in its early stages, with the ever-increasing prices of oil and oil products and the long haul to northern Australia, I have no doubt that at some time in the future a viable ethanol plant will be developed in the Ord River area.

A feasibility study is being undertaken concerning the development of a hydro-electric scheme on the Ord River. It is to the credit of the planners, and particularly the Premier of Western Australia, that they showed sufficient foresight when the dam was being built to make provision for building into the wall a hydro-electric power station. If the feasibility study proves that the project will be viable, a 60 megawatt power station will be installed in the wall. Power could then be transmitted to Darwin. This would save enormous quantities of fuel oil which are being burnt in the northern part of Australia. Such a power station would have the capacity also to supply power to East Kimberley projects, especially the valuable projects associated with the Argyle diamond finds, the nickel, lead and zinc deposits around Halls Creek, as well as the silver, lead and zinc deposits in the Northern Territory and just north of the Ord River dam itself.

Very big ore bodies have been proven in that area. The difficulty in developing them in the extreme north of Australia is posed by the logistics and high cost involved. As is well known, the first major project to get off the ground in the area will help to trigger a whole series of mining developments. The infrastructure and service industries needed for a mining development would then be in a much better position to service a second, third or fourth project. I have little doubt that a viable diamond project will be developed at Argyle, which runs down into the headwaters of the Ord River dam. It has been described in the Press quite openly as the richest diamond find in the world, with an estimated value of $4,000 billion. I repeat, $4,000 billion, not $4,000m. That is a lot of money. The diamond earth has the highest grade that has been discovered anywhere in the world and the indications are that we could see a viable mining operation in that area very shortly.

I pay tribute to the people of the Kimberleys, of Kununurra, for their determination to stay on when everything appeared to be against them, when no government appeared to have much interest in their welfare. Those people fought on against enormous odds. They pay the highest tax rate in Australia. They have a differential tax rate which would operate as a penalty on any person. It is something that, apart from other aspects, needs to be rectified. Every item that is transported to Kununurra attracts a higher rate of tax than is levied anywhere else that I know of in Australia. Even on a daily basis, those people pay a higher rate of tax than does anybody else. It is estimated that their cost of living, as well as the cost of building and development, is about 2% times that of people in the southern parts of the State. That is an enormous penalty to pay, but people have been willing to pour their life savings into the area, to devote to it enormous amounts of work as well. They have proven that, with determination and grit- and certainly some government assistance by way of subsidy and the like- the important aspects of tropical agricultural research can be carried out.

I am not for one moment suggesting that at this stage the Ord River project is viable. It is a long way from being so but the present Bill permits moneys to be loaned to the Western Australian Government for its development. It is estimated that a sum of $320,000 will be needed. I have before me a copy of a letter from Mr Andrew Mensaros, the Minister for Works and Water Resources in Western Australia, to Senator Carrick amending the State’s original application for funds. Originally an application was made for funds to build a 3,000 tonne rice storage silo on the Ord River. The estimated cost escalated from $500,000 to $738,000 and eventually to about $1.3m, when the ancillary equipment is taken into account. The present proposal is to build a storage facility with a capacity of 1,200 tonnes, at a cost of about $320,000, plus an additional $30,000 to upgrade a transformer and switch gear. That is the amount that would be authorised under this Bill. I ask that the letter, in its entirety, be incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The letter read as follows-

Minister’s Office Dumas House, 2 Havelock Street, West Perth

Western Australia 6005

Dear Senator Carrick,

On April 24 this year I wrote to you advising that the consulting engineer had been instructed to proceed with the preparation of tender documents for the construction of a 3000 tonne silo at Kununurra.

Tenders have now been received for the site works and structural steel components of the silo. The lowest tender in each case has been considerably above the estimate and it has become apparent that the silo and associated facilities will cost considerably more than the estimated $738,000.

The State Government has therefore decided not to proceed with construction of the 3000 tonne silo but instead to construct a further four 300 tonne silos. These smaller silos form part of the ultimate batch drying complex and as outlined in my previous letter, have been an option given close consideration by the State.

The 1200 tonnes of storage and associated conveyors are estimated to cost $320,000 and in addition, as for the 3000 tonne silo, $30,000 is required to upgrade the transformer and switchgear supplying the rice mill to cope with the increased load.

This late change of plans is to be regretted but the escalation in cost for the large silo left the State Government with no option.

Your formal approval for the construction of the 1200 tonnes of storage under the Western Australian Agreement (Ord River Irrigation) Act 1968-80 is sought as a matter of urgency to allow this facility to be completed in time for the rice harvest in October-November 1980.

Yours sincerely ANDREW MENSAROS Minister for Works and Water Resources

Senator the Hon. J. L. Carrick

Minister for National Development and Energy Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600.

Mr COTTER:

-I thank the House. The loan to develop this grain handling facility will be repaid by a levy imposed on the growers. Thus in the longer term the growers themselves will repay it. It is unlike the type of assistance that has been provided to other primary industries, such as the wool growing, wheat growing and other industries in respect of which it has been necessary from time to time to provide government assistance.

In respect of research, I wish to refer to the quite amazing defeat of the insect problem that was encountered on the Ord River during the period when cotton was grown there. Insects became such a problem that as many as 30 sprayings a season were necessary and even then the yields from crops were enormously reduced. Basically, the Heliothis caterpillar caused most of the problem. It was discovered that the use of chemicals had all sorts of deleterious effects not only on the environment itself but also on animals that graze in the area and on its water fowl and bird life. Moreover, an enormous build-up of chemicals in the soil occurred. It was apparent that that rate of application of chemicals could not continue and when the cotton industry fell into a hole a great deal of research was done on the control of insects. It was soon discovered that another native insect was a predator of the Heliothis. It was bred in millions and, upon being released, almost wiped out the Heliothis.

There has now been the further development that if any of the insect populations get out of balance the ability exists to use viruses for their control. Those are quite exciting and farreaching developments in the control of insects. They could have application not only in tropical agriculture but also elsewhere. If we develop a biological warfare situation in which an insect species gets out of balance, we will be able to use viruses- experimental plots have been used to prove the viability of this method- to bring the insect population back into balance. The crops that have been grown in the area have provided many employment prospects for people who presently live in the Ord River and Kimberley areas.

The honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) said many derogatory things about the Premier of Western Australia. For example, he said that he was a leader of a cargo cult and that he had not developed any worthwhile projects. I just remind the honourable member that it was mostly the vision of Sir Charles Court, the Premier of the day Sir David Brand, and others in the Western Australian Parliament which initiated the massive Pilbara iron ore developments and which initiated the development of other projects in the Kimberleys. Those people have been far sighted in that they are responsible for the development of many job creating activities in those areas. Whilst the honourable member for Blaxland criticised Sir Charles Court for encouraging more development, more projects and more railway lines, he did not say anything about the greater number of jobs that are created. He cannot get away from the fact that over 40,000 people are living in the Pilbara region of Western Australia who were not living in that area a few short years ago. It is foolish to say that mining developments do not create jobs. It is quite well demonstrated that whilst mining developments are not high employers of labour in the mines themselves, the spin-off and multiplier effects of those developments are quite dramatic. Many people depend on these mining industries one way or another, either directly or indirectly, for their employment.

It is with this in mind that I have great confidence in the Kimberley area. Not only do I have confidence in the developments for the mining of the diamond, nickel, lead and zinc deposits, but also do I think the Ord River scheme itself will prove one day to be a very viable, very worthwhile operation. If it saves the amount of oil which we believe it will save when power is delivered to the east Kimberley region and to Darwin- it is an enormous quantity of powerthat will have a large beneficial effect on our foreign reserve earnings which will far outweigh the expenditure on the Ord River. In fact, I am given to understand that it could outweigh that expenditure in one year alone. The power possibility of the Ord River scheme is quite dramatic. It cannot be dismissed. I am confident that it will be one of the major developments in that area.

In the few seconds that I have remaining, I pay enormous tribute to the people who have not given in. The people connected with the Ord River scheme and the people of Kununurra and Wyndham have been determined to see this scheme through. I know some of those people very well indeed. I know that they have put the best part of their lives into the development of and research into the Ord River. They have spent enormous quantities of money- their own money- in developing their farms and producing products which today are proving to be viable. I believe that the Ord River scheme will one day be viable and will justify the far-sightedness of Sir Charles Court in this area.

Mr KERIN:
Werriwa

-For much the same reasons as were given by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Cotter), the Opposition does not oppose this Bill. We recognise that the money could have been better spent but we are not opposing the Bill, for the sake of the people of the area. They have put their money into the area and they are the people who have shown the determination. There is a fair amount of consensus in this debate in terms of the people of Kununurra and the Ord River area. However, I take issue with the honourable member for Kalgoorlie in that he misstated the case put by the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating). He said that the honourable member for Blaxland stated that mining projects did not create jobs. The Australian Labor Party has never said that. All the honourable member for Blaxland was pointing out was Sir Charles Court’s cargo cult mentality. Sir Charles seems to think that we should mine anything regardless of the circumstances. The whole point of the question is that it is harsh economics that determine whether various projects will be viable. Of course, it is harsh economics that have rendered the Ord River scheme such a disaster.

I will not go through the machinery aspects of this Bill. We all know what they are. Of the funds available, a sum is now to be diverted for the provisions of rice storage facilities. It is a great pity that the scheme has run into so much trouble, but it is not with hindsight that its critics have been triumphant. Mr Bruce Davidson and quite a few other economists have been debating the wisdom of irrigation throughout Australia for a long time. This was as far back as the early 1960s, if not the 1950s, when some of these schemes were being looked at with a new vigour for the first time. At best the project could be described as experimental- a $ 100m experiment It is indicative of its lack of success as an irrigation project that suggestions such as that to build a hydro-electric power station for another $90m, to drain Lake Argyle to mine for diamonds or, in the context of irrigation, to allow South East Asian migrants to farm the area, have been made. It is in the context that these comments have been made seriously that we can see the lack of success of the scheme.

There are few political points to be made by rubbishing the scheme totally but, if the blame is to be sheeted home, it must be laid at the feet of Sir Charles Court, or Cargo Cult Court as he is known. Sir Charles does not understand market economics. However, he certainly understands the pork barrel. In pursuing such a wildly rural socialist scheme he ‘has effectively wasted scores of millions of taxpayers ‘ dollars with no gain to the national revenue. Quite apart from the agronomic problems, the scheme was doomed by the factor of transport costs which added to input costs and the costs of freight to market. Having spent the initial money, governments have been trying desperately to find some justification for it and have poured good money after bad. Once capital has been expended on the construction of a dam there is no turning back. Even if a project is an abject failure, the economist’s dictum is the same as that of the understanding lover- let bygones by bygones. Many an interesting human relationship has been built on past experience and many an economic opportunity has been created by past expenditure. In economics, however, past mistakes are not validated by future successes.

The present Government recognised the problems of the Ord River project and in 1977 it appointed a joint State-Commonwealth review committee to review the project and report on the future development of the area. That report was tabled in this Parliament on 27 February 1979. The Bill which is before the House flows directly from that report. We all know of the various industries that have collapsed over the years. The review committee basically had two options- to recommend that the scheme be no longer supported by the Government or to recommend that support be continued in some way. The first option was seriously considered because of the controversy which has surrounded the Ord project since its inception and because of its present low level of productivity. The Committee found that in terms of contribution to net increase in national output the project has been of no benefit at all.

The review committee believed that a decision in effect to abandon the Ord project would not have been justified because, firstly, there was no basis for assuming that the adverse factors which had inhibited the development of the Ord project in the past, including in particular the failure of the cotton industry, would necessarily persist in the future; and, secondly, because further time was still needed in order to determine whether the combined results of research programs and commercial farming experience since the failure of the cotton industry were likely to provide a basis for profitable agricultural activities in the Ord region in the future. They are both basically status quo findings and they must be subject to the greatest doubt. In my mind they tend to represent a political rather than an economic finding.

Anyone who has looked at the report will know what the committee’s recommendations are. I may as well read them into the Hansard record. The first one reads: the Western Australian Government should consider an expansion of agricultural research in the ORIA.

The second recommendation reads: the Commonwealth Government should reappraise its commitment to agricultural and environmental research in the ORIA, recognising that by and large the research programs of CSIRO do not have a direct relevance to the immediate problems of the ORIA.

The Committee also recommended: . . that the West Australian Government should provide support for commercial farming on the ORIA for a specific period.

I think last year it underwrote the safflower crop, but in the event no public money was needed. The review committee really only pointed to the possibility of rice and safflower production being commercially successful. It stated that the cultivation of the soya bean and the mung bean could be in prospect if technical and market arrangements could be overcome. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie has pointed to some of the research possibilities in that area.

The review committee concluded that the cultivation of sugar, sugarcane and cassava for ethanol, kenaf for the production of pulp or paper and cotton are all highly suspect as viable activities. Even with rice, it is my understanding that the submission by the Western Australian Government to the review committee considered rice viable only if a subsidy were involved and if a very efficient rice mill were constructed; hence the Bill before us. The rice project still has to overcome the problems of birds and transport once it can get over the problem of insects. One thing the review committee was not asked to look at was the cost of getting out. If such a project were entertained- maybe in five years time it will be- the cost would be considerable as Kununurra is now a minor administrative centre. The abandonment of irrigation works will entail much work to leave them in an environmentally safe condition.

I guess at this time it may be more sensible to talk about drought than irrigation. If we can combine the two concepts, it is generally agreed now that it is far cheaper to avoid the effects of drought by storing grain than by irrigation. I would like to spend the last of my few minutes talking about the whole ideas of the economics of irrigation because what has happened in the

Ord, I think, is symptomatic of what will happen with respect to any major irrigation project in this country in the immediate future. We all understand the pressure by various people for irrigation projects, particularly if they are in a river valley and where a dam and irrigation solve some of their immediate problems and give them an edge on their fellow farmers. By and large, it is the public purse that has to come good in these sorts of areas.

Very few, if any, of our public irrigation schemes, including the land settlements schemes established in the Murray-Darling basin after both world wars, have been regarded totally as an economic success. To many this seems incongruous. We have almost 1.5 m hectares under irrigation in Australia. Almost two-thirds of it is used for lucerne and pasture production for our efficient and profitable livestock industries. Irrigation accounts for almost all of our cotton industry; about 93 per cent of our tobacco crop; more than 20 per cent of production in our efficient sugar industry; two-thirds of our vegetables and grapes; and half of the national fruit crop. Over 250,000 hectares of cereals are grown on irrigated land.

Most of our community leaders are aware that irrigation, despite its trials and tribulations, has been an integral part of the development of rural Australia. So there is a paradox. We are reaping the benefits of some of the pasture irrigation projects in the past, but they do not stand up to the economic tests of today. I guess we can point to the paradox even further by saying that much of the development in Australia has been based on failures and the lessons of those failures. So what is the key to this paradox? Many of the pioneering efforts of our predecessors, if required to pass these rigorous cost-benefit analyses to which modern irrigation proposals are subjected, would never have been undertaken. Yet, in many cases, those very pioneering efforts have paved the way to growth, development and, in some cases, prosperity.

Some of Australia’s foremost political, scientific and commercial people have concluded from this paradox that there is something fundamentally wrong with the way economists evaluate irrigation proposals. They say that economists have no vision and that their dollars and cents mentality is too narrow. If they had their way we would never build for the future. I believe this view is not well founded. Unfortunately for the proponents of the expansion of irrigation in Australia, it is not well founded. The answer to the paradox, of course, lies in the concept of sunk capital. When, eventually, someone begins to make money from production of something- we yet know not what in the Ord River- in some irrigation area, many will claim that the faith was justified and that the economic pessimists were proven wrong. I believe those who stake that sort of claim will not be vindicated and will deceive only a few voters in the very short term.

If uneconomic projects had not been undertaken, the funds would have been invested elsewhere or would have been spent by taxpayers on current consumption and would have indirectly generated further investment. The community would have benefited from the increased income yielded by the wiser investments. The economic opportunities opened by these investments would, a priori, have been at least equal to those opened up by the capital sunk into an uneconomic irrigation scheme.

It is certainly true that large amounts of expenditure by governments are allocated to areas not subjected to the same rigorous cost-benefit analyses that irrigation proposals are. However, that is very much a second-best argument in favour of irrigation schemes. The first-best solution is that similar economic tests should be applied to expenditure by governments in other areas and, it is hoped, this is a trend that is gaining some momentum. It is a pity that some of these analyses are not put forward on proposals such as the Casey University or whatever that idea is now called.

To assess the economic benefit of irrigation we have to look first of all at the key variables in agriculture, one of which is market prices for agricultural commodities and the relative costs of dry-land versus irrigation production and marketing. Here again, if we just talk about market prices, we need to add another qualificationthat is, that prices are determined not only by domestic and export demand but also by the exchange rate and the exchange rate itself is determined by other aspects of the economy. It is relevant to ask whether changes in the key variables that determine the economics of public expenditure on irrigation may have been such as to reverse earlier conclusions. These key variables include the production of agricultural commodity relevant to the cost of dry-land versus irrigated. The relative costs of irrigated versus non-irrigated production are affected mainly by technical change. For practical purposes, the latter issue probably comes down to whether technological progress has been faster in water rentention and reticulation and irrigated production or in dry-land farming.

Developments in the technology of water retention and reticulation are well outside the field of an agricultural economist, but we need to point out that extensive agriculture seems to be becoming more and more economic relative to intensive production under irrigation. Large scale grain production has increased in profitability because much larger machinery has increased the efficiency of dry-land farming. Greatly improved timeliness in cultivation, sowing and harvesting has substantially improved the farmers’ capacity to capitalise on limited supplies of soil moisture.

The only other matter I would like to touch on is the question of the price of irrigation water. First of all if we look at the way the price of irrigation water is administered through all the complex of Commonwealth and State government departments with respect to the River Murray irrigation systems in the various States, we really do have a dog’s breakfast and not something related to market economics as such. I think the whole question of economic organisation and administration of irrigation in Australia is something that needs to be looked at one day. If I can use an analogy in terms of the way I believe irrigation water should be priced, we can take the supposed rationale behind the Government’s policy of charging consumers of liquid fuels the full economic cost of those fuels. The rationale for that has two fundamental premises: When fuel is cheap, consumers will waste it; when fuel is cheap producers will not search for undeveloped new fuels and new methods of using fuels. One can argue about whether that is the main motivation of the Government. I think the main motivation is revenue. That is the stated rationale and in economic terms there is some sense to it if the Government were being honest about its implementation.

If we can apply that sort of reasoning, there are really two basic ways of rationing supplies and stimulating production of scarce resources in a mixed enterprise economy like that of Australia’s. One is to charge the correct economic price, and this method involves decentralised decision making, fewer administrators, and the prospect of efficiency losses through political patronage is low. If an early experience of the fuel pricing policy is any indication, we seem to see that there is still an amount of political, if not patronage, indecision because the Government is not following its policy through.

The alternative method, if I can come back to the subject of water, is the basic method of regulating production or regulating prices by means of a complex set of administrative procedures, regulations and rules of thumb by which production decisions and the needs of individual consumers are determined centrally. This method is administratively costly and, to my mind, its effectiveness is a matter for empirical investigation. Historically, price has played only a very minor role in determining the quantity of irrigation water retained or the allocation of water among competing uses in Australia. Prices have generally been set to cover only annual servicing charges, excluding the capital cost of structures. For example, in the initial study of the Bundaberg scheme, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics in 1 974 estimated the economic cost of water as $39.38 a millilitre. Charges in that year ended up being $13 a millilitre. So we can point to many places where the price of irrigation water is not charged at an economic rate.

I would say that in straightforward terms the price paid for most water used in irrigation in Australia is too low. If prices were increased, a number of improvements in the economic organisation of irrigation could be expected. First, high prices would result in reduced use of water by current users. This would free some water for use by existing irrigators on other parts of their land for other crop or livestock production or for application to new land. Secondly, a recognition of the true value of water would result in many irrigators increasing their use of other inputs, particularly fertiliser. This again would result in increased efficiency in irrigated agricultural production. Thirdly, new producers would be able to enter irrigated agricultural production, thus increasing the efficiency of production on some existing dry land holdings. Fourthly, strong incentives would be given for the reduction of water wasting.

One could point to a few other benefits in a strictly economic sense. I do not think strict economics will prevail in this matter. It is subject to so much political bargaining and farmers have so much at stake in their existing level and mode of production. That is the whole problem with respect to the Ord River scheme. We have this concept of sunk capital. The money has been put there. The farmers have put money in. Some of them have gone bust, some have stayed and some are farming at less than the optimum level; but they are stuck there. That is the way many farmers feel about irrigation throughout Australia.

The basic problem of the Ord is not just the economics of water and of irrigation. In fact we can produce large quantities of agricultural commodities without irrigation. The basic factors that have always prevailed against the success of the Ord scheme have been agronomic factors and the distance from supply centres and markets. The cost of getting inputs for agricultural production in that place, some 3,500 kilometres from Perth, has been overwhelming. That is why the project has not succeeded. To sum up, the Opposition does not oppose this move by the Government. It will involve only a small amount of money, considering what has been spent there. We do not oppose it for the sake of the people who are stuck there, the people who have put their own money in, and because of the determination with which they are trying to continue to make a living in that part of the world.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3101

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 1980

Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.

Motion (by Mr Garland) agreed to:

That the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

In Committee

Consideration of Senate ‘s amendments.

Senate’s amendments-

No. 1- Page 6, clause 10, sub-clause (1), proposed paragraph 80 (d), lines 28 to 30, leave out the proposed paragraph, insert the following paragraphs: “(d) set out the name and address of each person whom the Comptroller is required to consider for the purposes of paragraph (a), (b), (c) or(d) of sub-section (l)of section 81; (da) set out such particulars of the matters that the Comptroller is required to consider for the purposes of paragraph (e), (f) or (g) of sub-section ( 1 ) of section 81 as will enable him adequately to consider those matters; and”.

No. 2- Page 7, clause 10, sub-clause ( 1 ), proposed paragraph 81 (2) (a), line 25, at end of proposed paragraph, add “committed within the 10 years immediately preceding the making of the application ‘ ‘.

No. 3- Page 7, clause 10, sub-clause ( 1 ), proposed paragraph 81 (2)(b), at end of proposed paragraph, add “, being an offence committed within the 10 years immediately preceding the making of the application “.

No. 4- Page 7, clause 10, sub-clause (1), proposed paragraph 8 1 (2) (e), line 33, leave out “ , or ought reasonably to have known,”.

No. 5- Page 8, clause 10, sub-clause ( 1 ), proposed paragraph 82 ( 1 ) (d), line 4, before “change” insert “substantial”.

No. 6- Page 8, clause 10, sub-clause (1), proposed paragraph 82(l)(e), line 6, before “change” insert “substantial”.

No. 7- Page 8, clause 10, sub-clause ( 1 ), proposed paragraph 82(l)(f), line 8, before “change” insert “substantial”.

No. 8- Page 8, clause 10, sub-clause (1), proposed subsection 82 ( 1), lines 10 and 1 1, leave out “forthwith give the Comptroller particulars in writing of that person”, insert “, within 30 days after the occurrence of the event, change, conviction of bankruptcy, as the case requires, give the Comptroller particulars in writing of that event ‘ ‘.

No. 9- Page 18, clause 1 1, sub-clause ( 1 ), after proposed paragraph 183CA(l)(c), insert the following new paragraph: “(ca) set out the name and address of each person whom the Comptroller is required to consider for the purposes of sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (a) of subsection ( 1 ), or paragraph (b) or (c) of sub-section ( 1 ), of section 183CC;”.

No. 10- Page 18, clause 11, sub-clause (1), proposed paragraph 183CA(l)(d), line 33, leave out “sections 183CC and 183CD”, insert “sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of sub-section ( 1 ) of section 1 83CC and section I83CD”.

No. 11- Page 20, clause 11, sub-clause (1), proposed paragraph 183cc (4) (a), line 9, at end of proposed paragraph, add “committed within the 10 years immediately preceding the making of the application “.

No. 12- Page 20, clause 11, sub-clause (I), proposed paragraph 183cc(4)(d), line 14, leave out “, or ought reasonably to have known, ‘ ‘.

No. 1 3- Page 2 1 , clause 11, sub-clause ( 1 ), proposed su fasection 183cG(l), line 37, leave out “forthwith” insert “, within 30 days after the occurrence of the conviction, bankruptcy or liquidation, as the case requires, “.

No. 14- Page 22, clause 1 1, sub-clause ( 1 ), proposed subsection 183CG (2), lines 13 and 14, leave out “forthwith give the Comptroller particulars in writing of that person”, insert “, within 30 days after the occurrence of the event, change, conviction or bankruptcy, as the case requires, give the Comptroller particulars in writing of that event ‘ ‘.

Motion ( by Mr Groom) proposed.

That the Senate ‘s amendments be agreed to.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-The Customs Amendment Bill (No. 3) passed through the House of Representatives a few days ago. We were told at the time that there had been full consultation with all interested parties. Regrettably, that has proved not to be so. Those affected by the warehousing provisions of this Bill were not consulted. They have subsequently been in touch not only with me and some of my colleagues but also with the Government. I should explain that the Customs agents were given 10 months to consult with the Government and were given the draft Bill, but somehow the Australian Duty Free Operators Association was not brought into the arrangements for consultation, although it was grievously affected by provisions in the Bill. I do not wish to be misrepresented or misunderstood on this question. As I said earlier, the Association got in touch with me, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Garland) and others in recent days. I am glad to see the Minister now in the chamber so that he is able to put his interpretation on this matter.

The complaints and charges of the Australian Duty Free Operators Association, which have been substantiated by many honourable members on both sides of the chamber, were that its civil rights had been trampled on. As has now been noted, from the Association’s point of view there are some quite horrific requirements for the keeping of personal records and the divulging of personal information. The Government came up with some amendments in the Senate. Regret- ttably, they are so numerous and some of them are so small that they have not even been read to the Committee. If they were read, anybody listening would be very bored. They were moved in total in the way that the Minister, who is at the table, has just moved them. I assert on behalf of the Opposition that, from our study of this important subject, the amendments do not go far enough. We know that the Government has attempted to correct the original deficiencies, and for that I give it credit. In the short time the Opposition has had to examine these last minute amendments, it seems, I repeat, that they do not go far enough to safeguard the normal civil rights of people conducting warehouses.

In the Senate last night the Opposition moved seven amendments, which some Government senators supported. Whether they did so by their votes I am not sure because, as honourable members in this chamber know, we do not yet have the advantage of being able to read the Senate Hansard, or House of Representatives Hansard, which covers the period of the sitting late last night and early this morning when those seven amendments were moved. I have had verbal information from one or two Government senators to the effect that they support at least two or three of the Opposition’s amendments. I did the right thing. I got in touch with the Minister and said how much I hoped he would accept at least two or three of the seven amendments. He explained to me that because it was the last sitting day in this session, he did not have time to take the amendments to the relevant committees of the Cabinet to pursue the matter in the way that he would want to.

Mr Garland:

– Thank you for that! I will remember that when I am speaking to you on the phone next.

Mr HURFORD:

– I did not realise that that was confidential information. I apologise if it was. The Minister certainly should have said so if it was. I cannot understand why it would be confidential information. I am explaining why I readily accept the attitude which the Minister expressed to me prior to our coming into this chamber. That, indeed, is the only reason why I am not pressing the amendments right now. I do draw everyone’s attention to the amendments which will appear in the Senate Hansard, when it is available. I will not take up the time of the House by repeating those amendments for the reasons which the Minister has given to me which I understood would be made public. I do hope nevertheless that the Minister will look at the amendments moved in the Senate. Indeed, I will follow up, in writing to him, the details of those amendments. I hope he will take back to the Cabinet committees, to the Government parties, to this chamber and to the Senate at the earliest opportunity during the Budget session, more safeguards for the civil liberties of people who are affected by this legislation.

Although one or two of the Government’s amendments which have just been moved do clear up some points that were in conflict with or harsh on the people concerned, similar problems in other clauses of the Bill we believe have been overlooked. I will not go into the details now. I do have strong objections to the fact that we have to deal with this legislation at the last minute, on the last day of this session. However, there is much in the Bill that makes it advisable for us to see it passed. I hope and trust that we will have another opportunity of clearing up the outstanding matters very soon.

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Curtin · LP

– I find the remarks made by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) somewhat astonishing in the circumstances. It is not the first time that he has made points like this in this chamber in a seemingly reasonable way. I want to point out to the House how unreasonable his suggestions are. In the first place, this Bill contains a great number of amendments. In a technical sense it is complicated because of the necessity for the draftsman to make amendments over a number of issues in a way that will leave the legislation complete. Often a simple amendment will require consequential amendments later on.

The honourable member told us that he has not had enough time. This Bill was introduced in this chamber weeks ago. I provided the Opposition with officials who were experts in a number of areas so that it would be able to consider these matters. It is not true for the honourable member to say that no consultations were held. In my speech, I referred to the Customs agents’ organisations. Certainly there were a number of consultations with them. It is true that another organisation- I think its name is the Duty Free Agents Association or a similar name- contacted me, I think on 9 May, and put to me the proposition that there ought to be some amendments. A large number of amendments were made. In fact, the actual amendments we are dealing with from the Senate are based on matters which this organisation raised. The Opposition introduced into the Senate yesterday further amendments to those already introduced. These could have been considered by the Opposition a long time ago. They were based on matters which were drawn to the attention of many honourable members, on this side of the House as well as the Opposition. As I have said, these provisions have been sitting in the Bill for some weeks. Now the Opposition wants to go further. This proposal was drawn to my attention after lunch today.

Mr Hurford:

– By me.

Mr GARLAND:

– Well, it was actually mentioned by somebody else first, but certainly it was raised by the honourable member around that time. To be more precise, it was drawn to my attention around 2.30 p.m. Mr Chairman, as you know, amendments are not made lightly to Acts of Parliament. Therefore they cannot really be made quickly. Anybody who has any experience with drafting knows that amendments to legislation have to go through a process. They have to go through an examination by parliamentary draftsmen to ensure that what is being changed in one clause of a Bill does not affect other clauses. Since the Opposition is taking the attitude that we are rushing this legislation, let me point out that this matter has been discussed by interested parties for quite some time. Members of the Opposition did not approach the Government in the Senate and say: ‘We think that there are deficiencies in these amendments and we want to make seven more amendments’. By not doing so the Opposition did not give us an opportunity to look at them last night. They were brought in at the last minute and the Opposition tried to move them all at once. At 3 o’clock this afternoon when I asked for a copy of those proposed amendments- the Senate Hansard has not been published yet- I found that I could not get a copy of them.

Mr Hurford:

– I would have given you a copy.

Mr GARLAND:

-That may be so. One would think that anyone who genuinely wanted amendments made to a Bill would go to the Minister and say: ‘I think these changes ought to be made at the earliest possible moment’. So I reject the suggestion that the Government has not been cooperative and not been endeavouring to do its best. I have the Government’s authority to make changes to the Bill to try to meet a number of objections. To be confronted with this suggestion regarding a number of additional amendments proposed virtually at the last minute, I do not believe is fair or valid. There has been sufficient time to consider this Bill.

As I indicated to the honourable member earlier, I am prepared to look at these additional amendments and to have them examined. I am also prepared, if I come to the conclusion that the present provisions will lead to anything unfair- I am not convinced of that on the basis of the evidence that has been put to me so far- it may be possible and lawful for me to do something administratively. In the meantime, the Government proposes to proceed with this legislation. There are a number of other provisions and objectives in the Bill. I do reject the proposition that we have been in any/way difficult to deal with. On the contrary- I put this to the Opposition because I think a number of those remarks made by the honourable member have been unfair- the Government has shown a high degree of willingness in trying to meet the objections of organisations in the community and comments of senators and members in this matter.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Garland) has no grounds for rejecting anything. He was not in the chamber at the beginning of my remarks, so he did not know that I had put the matter totally into context before he came into the chamber. I explained that there had been 10 months- more than normal- of negotiations with the Customs agents’ association. I gave the Government credit for that. I explained that even the Customs agents’ association had received a copy of the Bill. I gave the Government credit for that. But I do not blame the Minister personally for the oversight. There was an oversight inasmuch as the Australian Duty Free Operators Association was not taken into consultations. Indeed, it did not approach the Opposition about the legislation until this Bill had received the publicity by being passed by this chamber. It is only since it has been passed by this chamber that these matters have been drawn to our attention. Jointly, we have come to the conclusion that there is harshness in the Customs Amendment Bill (No. 3) as it relates to people who run warehouses and their employees. Jointly we have come to our separate conclusions on that harshness.

The Government has moved a number of amendments in the Senate. It was only in relation to those amendments which were moved yesterday by the Government in the Senate that I said that the Opposition had not had time to consider them properly; nor had the Opposition had time to consider the extra representations which have been made by a number of other people. Representations have been made not only by the Duty Free Operators Association but also by the important Storemen and Packers Union of Australia which represents hundreds and hundreds of people working in warehouses and who are affected by this legislation. It was in relation to that matter that I said there had not been time to look at the Government’s amendments and to compare them with what we considered would be adequate amendments to safeguard the civil liberties of those people running these warehouses and operating in them. I assert that all of the amendments of the Opposition have great merit. After I heard of the fate of the Government’s amendments in the Senate and, indeed, the rejection of the Opposition’s amendments in the Senate, at the first available opportunity I offered to explain those amendments to the Minister. I understand he did not have the time- he is a busy Minister- and I do not blame him for that.

Mr Garland:

– What time was that?

Mr HURFORD:

– I rang the Minister at 2.-30 this afternoon.

Mr Garland:

– What about all morning?

Mr HURFORD:

– I gather that the Minister was busy with other matters this morning. One would only have to follow the proceedings in this chamber this morning to know that there were matters to be dealt with other than this legislation that now concerns us. I had hoped that at least three of the seven amendments might be accepted. I have given reasons why I am not pursuing those three amendments. I suggest that the high and mighty attitude displayed by the Minister when making the remarks that we have just heard is not justified. In relation to these matters it is a pity that the Minister does not have more opportunity for taking decisions himself. It is pity that he did not find time, after I eventually got in touch with him, to look at the merits of the Opposition ‘s amendments. A number of Government senators and, I believe, a number of honourable members in this chamber would have supported these amendments had they had an opportunity to study them.

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Curtin · LP

– It is clear in my mind that the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) did not mention these consultations in his first speech in the way that he has mentioned them in his second speech. I listened to the opening remarks of the honourable member even though I was not in the chamber. However, Hansard will record that matter one way or the other. The honourable member really cannot expect me to take seriously the remark that the Opposition wanted these amendments accepted and that it has done all it can to achieve that end. These amendments were introduced into the Senate late last night and there was no opportunity to consider them. The honourable member contacted me only at 2.30 p.m. today when this Bill was expected to be debated at about 3.30 p.m. In other words, he gave me one hour within which to look at these amendments which he tells me now are very important.

Anybody on the Government side who has been concerned with these matters will know that that is just impractical. If I had been sent the amendments at 10 o’clock last night- surely they must have been drawn up by that time- there would have been greater evidence of good faith in relation to the matter. But that is not what happened. The amendments were brought in without notice and all the intervening time was wasted. It was said that I have a high and mighty attitude in this regard, but this Government has endeavoured to move amendments to meet representations made by the organisation concerned. Consultations took place on 9 May and continued until the following Monday. The Government was receptive to those consultations. The Labor Party, when in office, did no such thing. It gave not one hour, one week, one month, or one year of warning. The sorts of suggestions made were never taken seriously when honourable members opposite were on this side of the House.

Mr Hurford:

- Mr Chairman -

The CHAIRMAN:

– I ask the honourable member for Adelaide to resume his seat. I trust that both honourable gentlemen who have spoken recently will not be unmindful of the fact that the Chair extended considerable latitude to them on the basis of relevance. I suggest that it might be counterbalancing if the matter were not pursued beyond this point.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported.

Adoption of Report

Motion (by Mr Garland) proposed:

That the report of the Committee be adopted.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-I wish to speak briefly to the motion for the adoption of the report. Everybody in this chamber, and other people interested in this matter, should know that the amendments that were moved in the Senate had to be redrawn before they could be brought into the House of Representatives. If the amendments that were in the Senate late last night or early this morning have to be debated so soon in this chamber it causes enormous hardship for those people who have this responsibility. I hope that that will leave a different complexion on the matter in the mind of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Garland) and in the minds of others as to why it was very difficult to contact the Minister earlier on the matter.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3105

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE: STAFF FACILITIES

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

– I placed on the Notice Paper question No. 5390 which was directed to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). It posed a series of questions relating to the Parliamentary refreshment rooms and the staff cafeteria. I was prompted to ask these questions because for quite some considerable timeparticularly during the time that I was shadow Minister for the Capital Territory- substandard facilities have been afforded to the staff in Parliament House during recreation periods. I cite as an example of that the fact that some of the cleaners in Parliament House have to go for some of their breaks to the little places that some people use for other purposes. That is the background to what prompted me to put a question on the Notice Paper. From discussions I have had with you, Mr Speaker, and with members of the Joint House Committee, I am satisfied that steps are being taken to investigate the whole matter of the staff cafeteria and, I hope, other areas to which I have made reference. I see no longer the necessity to proceed with this question on the Notice Paper. I ask that it be withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I thank the honourable member for Melbourne. I will direct that the question be so withdrawn.

page 3105

QUESTION

QUESTION ON NOTICE

Mr SPEAKER:

-Yesterday afternoon the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) lodged with the Clerk a question on notice. The question would normally have appeared on the Notice Paper for today but inadvertently it was not included with questions sent to the Government Printer last night and does not appear on today’s Notice Paper. If the House rises tonight the next Notice Paper will not be published until August this year and the terms of the question will not be published until that time. This would be unfortunate, given that it was a clerical mistake.

In these unusual circumstances I propose to have the terms of the question printed in the Hansard for today at the end of the printed Notices of Motion and before answers to Questions. The questions will be treated as a question placed on notice on 22 May 1980 and, unless answered in the meantime, will be included in the next Notice Paper to be published.

page 3105

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 15 May, on motion by Mr Garland:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Curtin · LP

- Mr Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1980, as they are associated measures? Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-As we have just heard, we are debating cognately the Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1980 and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1980.I say straight away that the Opposition does not oppose either of these Bills. However, we do remain concerned at the way in which the Parliament deals with proposals for tariffs and exicse. I will be moving a second reading amendment dealing with this matter at a later stage. Firstly, let me deal with the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1980. The main purpose of this Bill is to enact tariff changes which were made by Customs tariff proposals Nos 3 1 to 35 of last year and also proposals Nos 1 to 7 of this year. These proposals have been tabled in the Parliament at various times since 25 October last year.

In accordance with current practice, the rates of duty imposed under the respective proposals generally took effect on the day after they were tabled, although in some cases the tariff changes had been implemented originally by notices in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette during the last parliamentary recess. In practical terms this debate is thus the first opportunity that the Parliament has had to consider measures which have been in effect for some time. That is a small mercy when it is noted that the tariff changes enacted by the Bill are very large in number and have little, if anything, in common. Let me just run through the list of changes. They include such matters as baby carriages and parts therefor, coated copying film, certain engines not exceeding 7.46 kW, rotary cultivators and tractors having a power of less than 15 kW, dental materials, furniture, grapes and wine, passenger motor vehicles and components- that is, the removal of import restrictions in relation to thosethe removal of primage duty, rubber products, ships, boats and other vessels not exceeding 6,000 tons gross register, spirits, spirituous beverages and so on.

The importance of this Bill is revealed by this long list of the industries to which it relates. The total number of workers directly engaged in these industries and hence directly affected by this legislation is approximately 100,000. That is, one out of every 12 workers in Australian manufacturing industry is directly affected by this Bill, which is rather quietly wending its way through the very limited process of parliamentary scrutiny which belated debates such as this one can provide. I cannot in the time available make detailed comments on the wide range of goods and products which are included in this Bill. As a matter of general observation, it can be stated that the measures contained in the Bill either accord with the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission or, where they do not so accord, they err on the side of slightly more gradual reductions in the level of tariff assistance accorded to local industries. The word err’ should be taken with a certain qualification. The fact is that, where the Government has disagreed with the IAC, the Government has been rather more kind to the industries than the IAC was.

This overall approach of maintaining current levels of assistance at present while looking towards a limited and phased reduction in protection over the long term is in accord with the Opposition’s attitude to industry protection in

Australia. The Opposition, I repeat, does not oppose this Bill. That is not to say that we accept the present policies of this present Government towards Australian industry. The policies of the Government are clearly inadequate and destructive in that they prefer confrontation to consultation in so many cases. They enforce fiscal and monetary cutbacks which continue to cause grievous damage to the Australian economy and the level of employment in industry in this country. Most importantly, in the context of this debate, the tariff policies of the Government stand in glaring isolation from other essential industry and industrial manpower policies which are needed to achieve a sustainable economic recovery in our country.

Until this government begins to show some sign of recognising the human impact and the social basis of industry policy, it cannot expect to gain any support from working people of this country. To rely on the operation of so-called market forces in a country where every market is distorted by a wide range of factors and where the basic conditions in the market depend upon the supportive activities of government is, to us, completely unacceptable. Perhaps of the most crucial importance in this respect is the need for a flexible, highly trained and adequately rewarded work force. It is absolutely essential that manpower and training programs which are aimed at the needs of the 1980s and the 1990s are developed in Australia. We are short of skills now, yet we are bumping along on the bottom of one of the longest recessionary troughs that we have had. What enormous bottlenecks there will be for skilled people if and when we at last get the economy moving.

All that this Government offers is everexpanding dole queues and a callous disregard of the manpower requirements which structural and technological change are imposing on Australia. At the same time workers who do have a job have been subjected to the most divisive and substantial tax slug in the history of our nation. One only has to look at direct taxes in proportion to the gross domestic product to know that this is so. Whilst the Opposition supports the Bills before the House dealing with tariffs, it nonetheless condemns the Government for its obvious and tragic failures in industry and economic policy over the last four and a half years. In other words, there are errors of omission in relation to the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill. 1 draw attention to some of those errors of omission.

The Australian Labor Party has a vision of a developing decade before us in the 1980s, but it wants that development to not only be in Australian hands. The Labor Party wants the benefits of that development to be spread amongst a greater number of Australians than is envisaged by the present Government. That means manufacturing jobs; it means tying the fortunes of our Australian manufacturing industry to the development which we are all expecting in the 1980s and which we, in the Labor Party, want to nurture int he 1 980s. To tie manufacturing jobs to the great development projects in this country does mean being much more resolute when it comes to ensuring that a lot of the machinery for that development is made here. If that machinery is not totally produced here, offset arrangements have to be made to ensure that a great deal of the heavy equipment and many of the parts are made in Australia.

We talk a lot about the offset arrangements, for instance, in relation to defence equipment. We in the Opposition blame the Government for not being more resolute in that respect. We in the Opposition talk also, although we do not hear this sort of talk from the Government, of the need for offset arrangements in relation to the manufacturing of computer equipment. This is a computer age. The advantages of mechanisation are going tremendously to overseas countries because we are importing many of our computers. We believe that we ought to be manufcturing more of the parts in Australia. More than anything else, in this context of developing new jobs in manufacturing industries in the decade ahead, which is so much the subject of this Bill, we must ensure that they are manufacturing jobs related to the manufacture of the heavy and other equipment and indeed jobs in relation to the services which are needed in the development industries of this country.

I wish now to make particular reference to some of the specific proposals which are enacted by this Bill. The rates of duty applicable to grapes and wine are an exception to the general rule in that the recommendation of the IAC that the level of tariff be reduced to 25 per cent was rejected. Whilst the Opposition accepts and supports this decision it must be restated that the fundamental problems of Australia’s wine industry remain. I refer in particular to the excise impost of $16 a litre on brandy produced in Australia. This compares with an impost of $10.21 a litre which prevailed before the 1978 Budget. The Fraser Government has done much to hinder development in the State from which I come, South Australia. This is a clear example what this Fraser Government has done to the Australian brandy industry which is so important to my State. This is yet another example of the high tax policy of this Government. It is a particularly pernicious tax because it both distorts the market for grapes in Australia and imposes a heavy burden on a small sector of Australian industry. Whilst the Opposition supports the Government’s decision on rates of duty for this industry, it condemns the Government for its sleight of hand in continuing to rob the Australian wine industry through its notorious high taxation policies.

The second specific matter in this Bill to which I would like to draw attention and which should be commented on is the decision to increase the range of goods which are eligible for new or increased margins of tariff preference and higher quotas where these goods are imported from developing countries. We support this decision. We believe increasing trade with the developing nations, particularly those to our north, is essential provided that such trade does not unduly hamper the development of our own industries. The use of a preferential tariff system can be designed to ensure that such countries can compete with other nations on the Australian market while, at the same time, providing an overall level of assistance which is needed to secure the viability of local producers.

Before moving onto the matter which I mentioned previously relating to the procedures whereby this Parliament reviews tariff decisions, I should like to say something about the Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1980 which is also being considered in this cognate debate. The purpose of this Bill is to deem as lawful all customs duties collected pursuant to Customs Tariff Proposal No. 8 which has been brought into this Parliament this year. This was the only proposal not covered by the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1980. Customs Tariff Proposal No. 8 relates to gearboxes, gears and shaft couplings. The Government has essentially accepted the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission which were to increase the level of tariff protection for this industry, given its declining share of the total Australian market. In fact, the Government has been slightly more generous than the IAC in that it has extended the period of short term additional assistance from two years to three years. The total number of people employed in this industry is about 710 of which about 45 per cent are employed by one company, David Browns. Just as I indicated in relation to the various products dealt with by the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1980 the Opposition supports the Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1980 because it adopts a responsible approach.

When assistance to industry is reduced to reduce costs it should be done on phased basis over the longer term. That reduction should not be done peremptorily, all at once.

Finally I should like to turn to the question of procedures, whereby this Parliament considers tariff and excise proposals. I indicated earlier the enormous importance of these measures to the Australian economy and to Australian workers. The Bills we are debating today directly affect, as I said earlier, 100,000 workers. That means that 100,000 families will be affected by these Bills. Even more people will be indirectly affected. I am referring to those people who rely for their living on those 100,000 workers. Of course, within a few weeks an even greater number of people will be subject to a Government decision which will have a profound effect on their lives. I refer, of course, to the impending decision of the IAC’s report into the textile, clothing and footwear industries. In the normal course of events, this decision will be announced and implemented perhaps six months before the relevant legislation is subject to the scrutiny of this Parliament. I have said previously that I cannot see the logic in a situation where it is sufficiently important for a body like the IAC to put time and effort into individual recommendations; yet apparently it is not important enough for the Parliament of Australia to be involved in the scrutinising process. This scrutinising process is even more important today because this Government, in keeping with its rapacious and callous taxation policies, is now using the Customs tariff device not merely to protect local industry but as an instrument to raise revenue. I refer, of course, to the 2 per cent Customs duty across the board for items which were not subject to another duty. Clearly it is a revenue raising device.

It is a matter of grave concern to the Opposition and to the Australian people that Customs tariffs and petroleum excise taxes have been imposed at a level whereby they have attained the status of major instruments of macroeconomic policy. This is the situation despite the fact that such measures escape the proper scrutiny of the Parliament. The late night readings, usually without more than a few hours notice, of such tariffproposals by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs stand in pale contrast to the public focus on the annual Budget debate. Yet, the tariffproposals are enormously important. In many cases they are as important as the Budget debates which go on for days in this Parliament. The role and conventions of the Parliament have been downgraded and abused enough in the past few years. We saw them abused again today when another matter of public importance was knocked off. We very nearly did not get a General Business debate. As I said, the conventions of the Parliament have been downgraded enough. We have to think about how we can improve that situation now.

For some time I have sought the establishment of a new procedure for properly assessing tariff proposals. I have previously moved an amendment in this Parliament to set up a standing committee of this Parliament to examine in greater detail customs duties and excise generally. I will move that motion again later. On the IS November last year in response to the amendment I had moved the then Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee) said:

It has been said by a number of people in this Parliament that there is virtue in having more debate on tariff issues, and with that I concur.

That Minister undertook to take up the matter with the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). Six days later the then Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, Mr Fife, reiterated this undertaking. He said that he would take up the matter during the following recess. I do not know what consideration was given to this question, but I do know that on 1 May this year the new Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Garland), the present Minister, when referring to my proposal in the House said:

I must say with all candour that I do not believe it is practicable to adopt his suggestion. It would require a complete change in the proceedings and the legislation. Perhaps that could be debated on another occasion. There will be an opportunity for such debate.

We have been given that opportunity today. I regarded the Minister’s response then as a lame response. I hope he will consider this matter again. The Minister is saying that the Government thinks the restoration of the proper role of this Parliament is too difficult. I do not think it is too difficult. I think it is absolutely essential. It is not too difficult for the Government to raise thousands of millions of dollars of revenue from Australian motorists, but apparently it is too difficult to debate properly such measures in the Parliament. I point out to the House and to other people in the community that excise proposals which are dealt with in customs legislation are fleecing the public. I refer particularly to the petrol taxes that have been imposed. I reject the attitude of the Minister and of the Government. I foreshadow that I will move an amendment to the Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1980. The amendment which I will move could well be applied to both Bills. The amendment that I propose to move to the second Bill states:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: whilst not opposing the Bill, the House is of the opinion that a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Tariffs and Excise should be established to examine each change in tariffs and excise following the gazettal of proposals or their being introduced into the Parliament on the one hand and before related Bills are introduced into the House on the other hand ‘.

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

– I will start where the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) finished his boundary riding. I agree with the view he expressed. I will not be supporting this amendment in voting, but I will be supporting it in principle because the honourable member did raise a very pertinent point. I suggest to him that rather than another committee being created this matter could very well be considered by the Government members Reform Committee, which is presided over by the honourable member for Moore (Mr Hyde) from Western Australia. So there is agreement in the proposition raised by the honourable member for Adelaide. Too often we consider important matters in great haste.

It has always worried and concerned me that we debate many Customs items in isolation rather one Bill dealing with them together. The honourable member made an excellent point and it should be pursued. I agree with the thrust of his argument. I disagree with his somewhat implied criticism of the Government’s policies of excise duties and tax revenue raising methods. I remind him that the founding fathers in establishing this federation and in framing the Constitution specifically provided that the Commonwealth government should have sole powers over exise duties. It is to be regretted that the Government found it necessary, as part of its budgetary and fiscal policy, to include a two per cent primage duty on imports to Australia. We are under continual threat from people requiring more services and greater financial support. I remind the honourable member that in the early days of the federation we had nine Cabinet Ministers and seven different departments. At the present we have 27 Cabinet Ministers and 40 different departments. There is tremendous expenditure by a sympathetic Government in areas such as health, welfare and education.

This Bill seeks to legalise certain procedures particularly in relation to the 2 per cent duty. Certain contracts were entered into with other countries which it is necessary for us to honour. It is also noteworthy that this Bill gives impetus to the Government’s decision to reduce preferences to imports from the United Kingdom thus allowing the developing nations within close proximity to Australia to trade without that competition. I remind all honourable members that it is necessary for us to improve the trading opportunities of these developing countries. They can buy from us only if they can sell to us. I fully applaud the sentiments of my own leader, the Right Honourable J. D. Anthony. In a speech last year he indicated that all preferences to the United Kingdom would be removed as from July 1981. It is good to know that we will not live in isolation from the developing countries very close to us.

I wish to talk briefly on a couple of excise matters which have concerned me. Perhaps the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Garland) will be able to consider them before further legislation is introduced in the Budget session. I deal particularly with the ruling that departmental officers give on what is suitably equivalent, particularly in agricultural machinery. It is all very well for someone in the Department to say that because a machine will plant seed it is suitably equivalent to an imported machine. There is a vast difference between a machine that will plant 60 seeds in 100 feetperhaps it will plant all those seeds in the last foot- as opposed to a precision planter which will plant one seed every 18 inches, where it is wanted. There is an enormous difference in the yield from crops which are planted with precision planter as opposed to a planter which scatters seed everywhere.

I ask the Minister to consider that matter during the recess and in preparing legislation for the Budget session. I also ask him to give consideration to allowing machinery importers who have stock in bond to do pre-delivery service on those machines. Quite often much work is required on this machinery before it is delivered. We run into a time factor. People who purchase machinery at the last minute are not allowed in to the bond stores to move such things as headercombs. This is something the Minister should consider.

I indicate my total support for the fact that there is to be no duty on grapes and wine products. Originally I did not hold this view, but I was persuaded by the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O ‘Keefe), the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) and the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). They pointed out that the wine industry is under very great difficulty. It is good to see that this primary industry is not being subjected to duties. I am told by those three honourable members that Australian wines are amongst the very best in the world and do not face competition from overseas competitors quality wise. I support the legislation and the

National Country Party supports the legislation wholeheartedly.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a secondtime.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr Garland) read a third dme.

page 3110

CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 1 May, on motion by Mr Garland:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: whilst not opposing the Bill, the House is of the opinion that a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Customs and Excise Tariffs should be established to examine each change in customs and excise tariffs following the gazettal of proposals or their being introduced into the Parliament on the one hand and before related Bills are introduced into the House on the other hand ‘.

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

– Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Dawkins:

– I second the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

Sitting suspended from 6.2 to 8 p.m.

page 3110

ANTARCTIC TREATY (ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 April, on the motion by Mr Thomson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-Those honourable members who have looked at the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Bill 1980 would be aware that the purpose of the Bill is to provide for the protection of Antarctic wildlife and for the preservation of areas of ecological and scientific importance in the Antarctic.

Let me give the background to the legislation. The conservation measures contained in the Bill arise from a long standing international agreement first recommended at the Third Antarctic Consultative Meeting back in 1964. Australia was an original signatory to the Antarctic Treaty of 1959 and continues to play an active role in the support and development of the Treaty organisation. The Antarctic Treaty has ensured that Antarctica remains a zone of peace and international co-operation. Progress is being made towards a convention for the conservation of Antarctic marine living recources. There was a meeting in Canberra on this subject during the last two or three weeks. The proposed convention will ensure that any exploitation of the living resources of the Southern Ocean is conducted according to sound ecological and environmental principles.

The Bill gives effect to one of the major conservation agreements negotiated under the Antarctic Treaty. It is known as the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora. The Agreement establishes a system of wildlife protection. The Bill gives the Agreed Measures force of law and under these Agreed Measures all wildlife in Antartica is protected. The agreement ratified by this Bill makes provision for three categories of special protection: Firstly, specially protected species; secondly, specially protected areas; and, thirdly, sites of special scientific interest. The Bill establishes controls over the importation of animals and plants and provides for the malting of regulations to cover the control of pollution, the use of motor vehicles and other issues relating to environmental protection.

The Opposition of course supports the legislation. I would, more in the spirit of fun, I suppose, like to criticise very quickly a couple of measures which are proposed under this Bill. I assume that in fact the Bill enforces these socalled Agreed Measures which have been agreed to by many other people. But I do question paragraph (c) of sub-clause (1) of clause 19 of the Bill which provides for offences relating to the environment. Clause 19(1) states:

A person shall not-

bring into the Antarctic an animal, plant, virus, bacterium, yeast or fungus that is not indigenous to the Antarctic;

I think we all know what is intended there. But I argue that in fact it would be impossible for anyone to go to the Antarctic without bringing in a virus, bacterium, yeast or fungus that is not indigenous to the Antarctic because all of us have these bacteria, et cetera, inside our bodies and unless we were sterilised completely- in that case we would be mummies; not in the maternal sense- we would all contain some of these viruses and bacteria, et cetera. The intention, of course, is not along those lines but it just strikes me as a bit funny that if I went down to the Antarctic and automatically, by my very presence, introduced into the Antarctic bacteria and viruses which are not indigenous to the Antarctic, I would in theory be liable to a fine of $2,000 or imprisonment for 12 months, or both.

Again, more in a spirit of fun than in real criticism, because I know that the provision arises from an international convention, I question clause 19 (2) (e), which states:

  1. ) a person shall not, in the Antarctic-

    1. while on foot, disturb a concentration of birds or seals during any period while they are breeding;

I do not know what the definition of ‘breeding ‘is or whether by ‘breeding’ we are talking about mating’, but apparently it is a criticism of voyeurism as far as animals are concerned. It is an interesting attitude to take. Again, I have no doubt that there is a fairly good reason behind inserting that provision but, if it ever came to the point where somebody was charged with that offence- again the fine is $2,000 or imprisonment for 12 months- it would be interesting to know what is the legal definition of the words while they are breeding’. I do not know whether one can define exactly the sorts of actions one is trying to prevent. I think we are all aware of what we are trying to protect in the environment in the Antarctic. How to go about it exactly in a legal sense of course is much more difficult. One can only hope that the people who are there at present and who are likely to be there in the near future are people dedicated to the aims of this legislation. I suppose the difficulty would arise if the Antarctic ever became more accessible to large numbers of people in a commercial sense and so on.

I pay tribute to the Australian Antarctic Division for the scientific work it is doing there. I think we are all aware that there is some doubt outside Australia as to exactly what our position is regarding that part of the Antarctic to which we lay claim. I think it is important for us to show that we are working very closely with all the other treaty nations in trying to establish scientific investigation and co-operation in the Antarctic. We have to show that we have a national research program going on there. We have to show that we are really spending money there and helping not only ourselves but also scientific knowledge as a whole and that we are helping greatly conservation in the Antarctic.

There are criticisms, of course, by some who feel very strongly about conservation that the propositions do not go far enough. I cannot really see what we can do about that in a legal sense. I was not able to participate in the recent, convention but it appears to me at this stage that there is a large amount of goodwill amongst ali the treaty nations and the other countries participating there. Let us hope that it will stay that way. Whilst there are in the Antarctic biological resources such as krill and probably minerals for exploitation in the long run, I hope that people will see that at this stage we have to proceed very slowly so as not to interfere with the ecological equilibrium which exists there at present. It would indeed be terrible if some kind of disease were introduced into the area and large proportions of the birds, seals or fauna were to disappear from the area. I commend the Bill to the House. I am sure that those on this side of the House support the aim and the contents of this legislation.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

– It is with some considerable enthusiasm and optimism that I join this debate, albeit briefly. Like the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) I am proud of the fact that Australia has had a direct contact with the Antarctic since the year 1810 when Captain Fred Hasselburg discovered Macquarie Island, which, of course, is part of Tasmania and that Australia is playing a very prominent role in the discussions, negotiations, treaties and conventions which will lay down the guidelines for the administration of the Antarctic into the twenty-first century.

Macquarie Island is in the electorate of Franklin and I place on record the support that I have had from my colleague, the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), with respect to a number of initiatives. These have led to a situation in which I can say in this Parliament tonight that not only Australia but also Tasmania, as the southernmost State and closest in proximity to the Antarctic, is now on the world map. I am delighted that the Minister for Science and the Environment, David Thomson, is at the table in the chamber tonight. It has been his great privilege to be Minister at a time when very important decisions have been taken with respect to the Antarctic. I intend to refer to them briefly.

Some four years ago I achieved fairly wide Press headlines by making the comment that, unless the countries of the world made proper arrangements for the management of the Antarctic, it was quite conceivable that World War III could be fought over its resources in the twentyfirst century. At the time many people regarded that statement as outlandish, but I wonder how many people listening to this broadcast tonight realise that in the waters surrounding the Antarctic there is more fish protein than is found in the total world catch today and that there are on the Antarctic continent fuel and mineral resources which would justify its being described as the gold mine of the world resources. The Antarctic will play a most important role in determining the kind of world that we will have in the twentyfirst century.

A number of initiatives including, as I have always conceded, the very first came from my predecessor in this House, the former honourable member for Denison, Mr John Coates. He put forward publicly for the first time the proposition that the headquarters of the Antarctic Division of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, hitherto located at four sites in Melbourne, should be transferred to Hobart and specifically Kingston. I have always given the honourable member credit for making that proposal, which was picked up by our Government and made a personal commitment by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) at a very difficult time. There was a number of problems concerning the Public Works Committee hearing, as well as logistic problems to be overcome. The fact is that a magnificent Antarctic Division headquarters is being constructed at Kingston, Tasmania, will be completed four months ahead of schedule and handed over to the division early next year.

Next Tuesday the Minister for Science and the Environment will travel to Hobart with several members of the Public Works Committee, including the Deputy Chairman, the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson), for the official opening of the analytical laboratories, the first section of the division to be completed. As a result of that decision, which involved an expenditure of $ 10m for the establishment of what I can now say publicly is a complex of international prestige, the complex has been seen by international experts. Representatives of the 15 Antarctic Treaty nations travelled to Hobart a fortnight ago with a view to inspecting potential sites for the headquarters of the International Antarctic Commission. The group travelled to Kingston and saw this superb scientific complex of international standing.

What has followed that visit? The decision to establish in Kingston the headquarters of the Antarctic Division has become the catalyst for some of the most exciting developments that could ever occur in Australia or Tasmania. I commend the Minister and the Government upon the commitment to establish the magnificent $25m CSIRO marine science laboratories in Hobart. That establishment has been drawn logically to that part of Australia by the establishment of the Antarctic Division headquarters there.

The historic decision, reached this week, to establish the headquarters of the International Antarctic Commission in Hobart, has really put Tasmania, Hobart and the federal electorate of Denison on the world map. The decision has been hailed on both sides of the House and in both Houses of Parliament. I believe that the Minister at the table, his predecessor and the Prime Minister especially, are entitled to the acclamation and gratitude of the people of not just Tasmania but also Australia for proposing Hobart as the site for the International Antarctic Commission’s headquarters.

I wish to refer to one man who cannot stand up here and seek credit. I place on record my belief that without the work of Ambassador Keith Brennan, a distinguished Australian diplomat, who led our delegation to the Antarctic conference on marine living resources in Canberra during the last fortnight, one who has headed Australian delegations to the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, the establishment of the international headquarters would not have occurred.

I must also place on record the gratitude of all delegates to the Antarctic conference to Ambassador John Ryan, the chairman of that historic conference, which concluded on Tuesday with the signing of the international convention which effectively is the successor of the 1 959 Antarctic Treaty. The international convention is intimately interwoven with the objectives of this Bill, in that the convention deals with the marine living resources of the Antarctic. The Bill before us deals specifically with the Antarctic Treaty environment protection aspects of the continent itself.

My time is short but I wish to make certain predictions as to what will happen. The establishment of the headquarters of the International Antarctic Commission can proceed as soon as eight of the 1 5 Antarctic nations ratify the convention that was signed in Canberra this week. I am convinced- and I believe that all Australians will rejoice in the knowledge- that individual nations will now wish to establish their own Antarctic embassies, as I call them- their own Antarctic bases- in proximity to the international headquarters. One can imagine what it will mean to have 15 or 20 international Antarctic embassies or bases in southern Tasmania, at a cost of possibly $10m apiece, with an annual recurrent expenditure running into millions and millions of dollars, and with delegates coming from all over the world up to four times a year for conventions, treaty meetings and the like. The prospects for Tasmania and Australia internationally with respect to the management of the Antarctic are almost beyond one ‘s comprehension.

I wish finally to refer to two matters in particular. Argentina proposed an alternative site to Australia’s nomination of Hobart. It did not pursue the matter but has submitted a bid for the possible establishment at Mar del Plata in that country of the international headquarters of the commission which will deal with the mineral and fuel resources of the Antarctic. If for any reason Argentina is not acceptable, or is unable to provide the site at the appropriate time, I suggest strongly that that commission should be headquartered in Hobart adjacent to the body which will deal with the continent’s marine and living resources.

Lastly -

Mr Innes:

– Finally -

Mr HODGMAN:

– I know that my colleague from Melbourne will be interested in this aspect also. The International Law of the Sea Tribunal has not yet been given a home. I propose officially and formally to the Government of Australia that Hobart should be offered as the world headquarters for that tribunal. I take the interjections of the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes) in good part because I know that he wants to see good things happen for Australia and Tasmania. I commend the Minister, who is known in Tasmania as the $34m Minister, because that is the value the State of the decisions that have come to fruition during the early part of his term as Minister. I hope that he will make the sum $100m before he is moved to another portfolio. I support the Bill.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-I pay tribute to the honourable member for Hawker, Ralph Jacobi, who for personal reasons is unable to be here tonight. He has done a terrific amount of work on this topic for many years and has participated in at least two or three of the conventions on it. He is a real expert on the topic on our side of the House. Again, I pay special tribute to the work that he has done during the last few weeks.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3113

TRADE PRACTICES (BOYCOTTS) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.

Motion (by Mr Street) agreed to:

That the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

In Committee

Consideration of Senate ‘s amendments.

Senate ‘s amendments-

No. 1- Page 1, clause 3, paragraph (b), proposed paragraph 6(2)(ea), lines 19 and 20, leave out ‘in paragraph 45D(l)(a) the words “the third person is a corporation and” were omitted’, insert ‘paragraph 45D(l)(a) were omitted’.

No. 2- Page 2, clause 4, proposed paragraph 45d ( 1 ) (a), lines 12 to 18, leave out the proposed paragraph, insert the following paragraph:

the third person is, and the fourth person is not, a corporation and-

the conduct would have or be likely to have the effect of causing-

substantial loss or damage to the business of the third person or of a body corporate that is related to that person; or

a substantial lessening of competition in any market in which the third person or a body corporate that is related to that person supplied or acquires goods or services; and

the conduct is engaged in for the purpose, and would have or be likely to have the effect, of causing-

substantial loss or damage to the business of the fourth person; or

a substantial lessening of competition in any market in which the fourth person acquires goods or services; or’.

Motion (by Mr Street) proposed:

That the amendments be agreed to.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The amendments, which the Government has accepted, were drawn up by Senator Evans in the Senate. He did so in an endeavour to clarify the situation following the previous drafting of the Bill. I do not know whether this amendment will achieve the success that the

Government hopes for. I refer to the decision in the Lockhart case. I do not know whether any honourable member has addressed his mind to the question of whether one of the parties involved in that case was not in fact an employer of the persons who fall within the definitions contained in Part I or Part II of the principal Act. This amendment is another attempt to try to clarify the situation. I might add that we sought some clarification in the second reading debate as to what the amended section 45D would really mean and what the proposed new section 45E would really mean. The Ministers concerned did not give us any help at that time. We have now before us amendments which indicate that where the third person is a corporation, the fourth person is not. The legislation would come into effect when there was a substantial loss or damage to the business of the fourth person. An effort is being made to clarify the situation. Allegedly, primary boycotts are permissible and secondary boycotts are not. I can still envisage circumstances which I think will cause a fair amount of difficulty.

I make the point that in agreeing to these amendments we in no way agree to the Bill. We think it represents the wrong approach to industrial matters. We think the Government, if it remains in office for long enough, will have enough hindsight to see that these matters ought to be dealt with under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act because we will always be headed for industrial trouble. The amendments do something towards clarification of the situation and accordingly the Opposition has no objection to them.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 3114

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Mr Street)- by leave- agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent General Business Order of the Day No. 13 being called on forthwith.

page 3114

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 May, on motion by Mr Burr:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-My remarks in support of the Bill will be very brief. I wish to place on record the gratitude of the Parliament to Senator Peter Rae who introduced this private member’s Bill in another place where it was passed without dissent. The Bill, which was very competently introduced into this House by my colleague the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr), removes an unjust and antiquated anomaly- an anomaly which could easily have led to a situation, and has in fact led to a situation in years gone by, of a person being subjected to a double penalty in respect of a breach of a provision of the Act. I believe if a person breaks the law he should be subjected to one penalty and one penalty only. Indeed, the common law supports very strongly the proposition that a double penalty is wrong. It is a violation of a citizen’s basic rights that he should be penalised twice for committing the one offence.

For the benefit of those persons who are listening to this debate, the situation is that prior to the amending Bill being introduced a person who trangressed the provisions of the Wireless Telegrapy Act was liable not only to prosecution, including substantial penalties involving a fine and, in the case of subsequent offences, imprisonment, but also administratively to the forfeiture of the equipment involved. With modern day telecommunications systems, when we look at the cost of radios and the like in respect of fishing vessels and other activities, that could have involved a financial penalty of several thousand dollars.

I am delighted that the Bill was passed in the Senate without dissent. It was supported by both the Government and the Opposition. I compliment Senator Peter Rae because he is the man who discovered this injustice on the statute book. He is the man who was prepared to do something about it, to bring in a private members Bill, to get it through the Senate and then to entrust it to my colleague the honourable member for Wilmot, to whom I believe this House is also indebted. I have done some investigation and I do not believe that a private members Bill has been introduced by a Government back bencher in this House for something in excess of 20 years. The honourable member for Wilmot is entitled to the gratitude of the House. I support the Bill. I know that my colleague the honourable member for Melbourne will support it with equal enthusiasm.

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

-The Opposition supports this Bill which seeks to amend the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1905-1973. However, it should be clearly understood that there are certain things in this legislation which are of concern to the Opposition and on which I would like to elaborate. The first point to be made is the Bill is a private members Bill. There is nothing wrong with that per se. But what it means by corollary is that it is not a Bill introduced by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) on behalf of the Government. It is a poor reflection on the administration of the Wireless Telegraphy Act by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications and his Department that it was necessary for a private member to redress a situation. The honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) has participated in the introduction of this Bill and he is to be congratulated, as are the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) and Senator Rae. However, the fact remains that it has been necessary to correct a situation caused by the failure of the administration to overcome an obvious problem.

The honourable member for Denison pointed out in his short address that the Bill will not only correct a theoretical anachronism but also redress an injustice facing a fisherman who may have had $4,500 worth of radio equipment confiscated by the Commonwealth and been fined for the failure to pay a $50 licence fee. The unenviable position in which that fisherman found himself could have been redressed had the Government introduced an amendment such as the one we are now discussing. I make the objective point that there is a whole range of legislation, not only the Wireless Telegraphy Act, which is antiquated and to which this House ought to have regard. But the Government and the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, who is the Minister responsible, have done nothing of the sort. In fact, I am informed that the fisherman’s plight could have been corrected without resort to legislative changes. It is the opinion of certain of the Commonwealth law officers that the position could have been remedied by purely administrative action. All the Minister had to do was to make a few changes within his Department. I repeat that no such action was forthcoming. It was left to the initiative of private members- Senator Rae and the honourable member for Wilmot- to take action to have this situation redressed. The resolution of this matter, need not have taken the time of the Parliament. The matter could have been handled by the Minister acting in a purely administrative capacity. In these circumstances the action that has been taken is all the more to the credit of the people to whom I have just made reference.

The second matter that concerns the Opposition is that this amendment to the Wireless Telegraphy Act is in isolation from many of the other needed changes to the Act. Many of the penalties contained in the Act are quite draconian. They were instituted at a time when the Commonwealth was fearful of its own integrity in the light of the new technology of radio communications. Consequently a State monopoly of the use of radio transmitters was decreed and appropriate penalties were set for unauthorised use. Of course, those days are long gone, but the penalties remain. The amendment to the Bill gives the Minister discretion in the application of those penalties under one section of the principal Act and many such penalties remain unchallenged.

Let me give an example of the problems within the ambit of the Act. A person is liable to a fine of $1,000 or five years imprisonment for transmitting or receiving messages by wireless telegraphy except as authorised under the Act. Radios on overseas ships while in Australian waters are subject to the control of the Minister and may be used only by his authority or in accordance with the Act. The operation of private radio stations, such as the rather famous ones which operate outside of British territorial waters, are subject to penalties of up to five years in gaol. Our friend the honourable member for Holt (Mr Yates) waves his head about. For the information of people in the public gallery that is a natural consequence of his operation. He does nothing more than that in the Parliament. There are further provisions which allow for summary treatment by the courts of offenders under the Act with penalties of up to six months imprisonment or a fine of $100. Clearly there are entailed in this Act excessive and contradictory penalties that are indicative of the thorough overhaul for which the Opposition believes the Wireless Telegraphy Act is long overdue.

There is a whole range of areas in which the Minister has failed purely and simply in an administrative sense. The Minister has had an opportunity to correct a situation, but this has not happened. I am not complaining about the manner in which this legislation was introduced because I have already gone to greater lengths than necessary to congratulate those who are responsible for this legislation. In fact the Opposition could have taken such action. I have made a range of investigations. I might add that I spoke to Senator Rae before this legislation was introduced as a private members Bill. I wanted to ensure that it had a clear passage. We are not arguing about that. As the shadow Minister I have investigated over a long time a whole range of areas which could be handled by administrative operation rather than by the legislative process. We should be looking at the draconian implications of what happened so many years ago when legislation was introduced for a completely different purpose. Many things have changed in the meantime and therefore the legislation ought to be changed as quickly as possible.

The third matter which the Opposition finds worrying is the general administration by the Postal and Telecommunications Department and the Minister of the system of radio licensing. Most honourable members will be aware, no doubt if only as a result of the voluminous representations that they have received, that the Government’s decision to raise radio communication licence fees last year was poorly received by most groups of licence holders. In fact it is quite likely that the fisherman whose plight prompted this amendment was caught without a licence after his refusal to pay when his fee was doubled to something like $50. That is not an incredible amount of money but it’s one of the many licensing imposts under the Wireless Telegraphy Act that ought to be considered. Revenue from recent fee increases is expected to leap from $8.3m to over $ 14m despite the total cost of only something like $7.7m for administering the radio spectrum. The services provided to spectrum users by the Postal and Telecommunications Department are entirely inadequate. One example is the policing of the private use of the air waves. In this respect the Government has embarked on an exercise designed almost to double the revenue.

Changes in staff ceilings for radio inspectors and officers working in other problem areas were promised. The Government has a hypocritical and the isolationist attitude to safety programs. The prime concern is not safety but is the amount of money that can be collected. The Minister ought to apply himself to that matter. There has been a tremendous response from the boating organisations, from those who, I guess, have enough money to buy a boat and from other groups which are affected by the increases and which police certain areas of responsibility, including fire protection. Councils from as far away as Western Australia have written to me as the shadow Minister for Post and Telecommunications. They have been carrying out their responsibilities with regard to paying of licence fees. The whole thing needs to be dealt with in a more professional way than the Minister has dealt with it until now.

The Minister announced a further fees review, and reports are now appearing in the Press suggesting that for most users fees will be decreased. But the fact is that the whole operation has been a shemozzle. It is to the discredit of the Minister that it has operated in that way. However, the revenue will not decrease. The Department is to engage in that favourite action of government, shuffling cards from one deck to another. Commonwealth users of the radio spectrum previously exempt from fees are now to pay fees which will more than make up the expected shortfall from the coming reductions in fees. Of course, it is as plain as a pikestaff that such an exercise will bring only an illusory increase in Government revenue. An increase in income for the Postal and Telecommunications Department will be matched by corresponding outflows from other Government departments. There will be more eggs in one basket and fewer in others, but the number of eggs will remain constant.

As I said when beginning this address this evening, the Opposition completely concurs with this amending Bill. It regrets the necessity for such a Bill and points out the necessity for further amendments to the principal Act. I also repeat that the Opposition is aware of the criticism of the Minister and of his Department’s lax administration which has meant that such necessary amendments are not being debated here today. The Opposition is similarly critical of the Minister’s handling of radio communication licence fees. After a mishmash of increases, reviews and reductions, no just and proper policy has emerged. All these matters are apposite to the Bill under discussion today. Perhaps we ought to consider the principal Act as a whole. I point out that it ought not to have been necessary for Senator Rae to have gone to the lengths that he went to. Who will suffer the consequences of the mismanagement and inappropriate actions of the Government? The sufferers will be those individuals who have been affected in the past. I do not know which Minister will reply to me this evening.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs is paying attention. Give him a run.

Mr INNES:

– I hope that some honourable members are paying attention because I am showing the inefficiency of the Ministers involved.

Mr Ellicott:

– I take a point of order. The honourable member for Wilmot is here to answer all the questions. This is a private member’s Bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-(Hon. Ian Robinson)- There is no point of order.

Mr INNES:

– I am very pleased the Minister for the Capital Territory has intervened in this debate. I thought that mouth to mouth resuscitation was confined to the beaches. Now we have it in the Parliament. We have seen the Minister for the Capital Territory advising the back bencher who is the Charlie McCarthy about the place to stand up on behalf of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, who has seen fit not even to attend this evening; he is not even in the House. I understand the next member of the High Court, perhaps the next Chief Justice, is a very eloquent and admirable person to represent the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I congratulate him on one of his major speeches in the House this session! But the Minister for the Capital Territory has not answered the question. The Minister for Post and Telecommunications had a responsibility to exercise whatever authority he had under the principal Act. Whichever way the Government twists and turns, those who have had their equipment confiscated as a result of the Minister’s failure to act over this period can place the responsibility at the feet of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. No matter how much his colleague would like to protect him, it is his responsibility.

It seems to me that we could have done a range of things with regard to the Act if the Minister had acted responsibly. We would not have needed a private member’s Bill dealing with such an important aspect of it if the Minister had acted in a proper way. I repeat what I said in the first instance. The Opposition is not opposed to this Bill. I had a long discussion with Senator Rae, who introduced it into the Senate. We ironed out all the problems that might have arisen out of some of the Bill’s technicalities. I congratulate him for his initiative in introducing it. We have made a long examination of the Wireless Telegraphy Act and, whilst we support this Bill, we give notice that in the future we will introduce some amendments to the legislation to clear up some of the difficulties which have arisen out of the failure of the Minister and those responsible to face up to their responsibilities.

Mr YATES:
Holt

-No words can possibly detract from the tremendous event which has just occurred in the Parliament; that is, for the first time for a great many years a private member has introduced and had passed an extremely important Bill which affects many Australians: Whatever the Opposition may say about it, it had the opportunity to do likewise. It fell to Senator Rae to bring forward the Bill and to the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) to introduce it in this House. He has created beyond doubt in the minds of the people in this country a feeling that the back bench members of the Liberal Party really concern themselves with legislation and are the people whom they can rely on to introduce private Bills to amend what they think to be wrong in any form of government Bill or government administration. Thanks to Tasmanians again, the people are able to perceive the ways in which a sensible Bill can be introduced to this House.

Nothing can be said more to their credit than that they have created in our Parliament and in this House an historic event. I hope that in the future they will introduce even more Bills from the back benches and that they will never fail to support their electors whenever they think the Government has not passed legislation which they believe is in their interest. As a back bench member interested in parliamentary procedure, there is nothing more for me to say than that it is a tremendous parliamentary event. I extend my congratulations to the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr). I hope he will convey those sentiments to Senator Rae in the other place. I hope the Bill proceeds with great success and the acclaim of all of the back bench members of this House and of the Australian people.

Mr BURR:
Wilmot

-in reply-In closing the debate I want to thank my colleagues, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) and the honourable member for Holt (Mr Yates), for the kind words they have expressed. I agree with the honourable member for Holt when he says that in some ways this is an historical Bill. It shows to the people of Australia that private members of parliament are able to bring forward matters into legislation and have that legislation accepted on the statute book. This is a proud day in the history of our Parliament and of our legislative procedures.

I thank the Opposition for its co-operation in this debate. I know that the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes) and Senator Rae have conferred on several occasions in drawing up the details of this Bill. There has been close cooperation between the Opposition and Senator Rae on this matter. But I point out to the honourable member for Melbourne who claimed that this matter could, perhaps, have been corrected by administrative procedures within the Department itself that it was the advice of the AttorneyGeneral’s Department that the confiscated equipment could not be returned to its rightful owner under the legislation as it is presently drafted. In order for the equipment to be returned to its rightful owner the Act had to be amended. That is the reason for the introduction of this Bill into the Parliament.

The honourable member for Melbourne made other suggestions to the Government that I am not qualified to answer. The only thing that I can say to the honourable member is that I am quite sure that the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) is doing all within his power to ensure that there is a proper review of the Wireless Telegraph Act. I am quite sure that necessary amendments will be brought in by the Government at the appropriate time. I thank the Opposition for its co-operation in supporting this Bill. I thank the Government also for the support it has given to Senator Rae and me in allowing this Bill to be brought forward.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3118

PIPELINE AUTHORITY AMENDMENT BILL 1979

In Committee

Consideration of Senate’s amendments.

Senate’s amendments-

No. 1- Page 2, clause 3, paragraphs (f) and (g), lines 13 to 15, leave out the paragraphs, insert the following paragraphs: “(f) by omitting from sub-section (1) the definition of Secretary’ and substituting the following definition: “securities” includes stocks, debentures, debenture stocks, notes, bonds, promissory notes, bills of exchange and similar instruments or documents; ‘; and

by omitting sub-section (2) and substituting the following sub-section: “(2) In this Act, a reference to dealing with securities shall be read as including a reference to-

creating, executing, entering into, drawing, making, accepting, indorsing, issuing, discounting, selling, purchasing or reselling securities;

b ) creating, selling, purchasing or reselling rights or options in respect of securities; and

entering into agreements or other arrangements relating to securities. “.

No. 2-Page 7, clause 18, lines 10 to 28, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: “18. Section 25 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following sections are substituted:

The Minister for Finance may, on behalf of the Commonwealth, out of moneys appropriated by the Parliament for the purpose, lend moneys to the Authority on such terms and conditions as the Minister for Finance determines. 25a. (1) The Authority may, with the approval of the Treasurer but not otherwise, from time to time, borrow moneys (otherwise than from the Commonwealth) on such terms and conditions as the Treasurer approves.

Approvals for the purposes of sub-section ( 1 ) may be in respect of particular borrowings or in respect of borrowings included within specified classes of borrowings.

The Treasurer may, on behalf of the Commonwealth, guarantee the repayment by the Authority of amounts borrowed under this section and the payment of interest on amounts so borrowed. 25b. (1) The Authority may, with the approval of the Treasurer but not otherwise, deal with securities.

Where the Authority borrows or otherwise raises moneys by dealing with securities, the Treasurer may determine that the repayment by the Authority of the amount borrowed or raised, and the payment by the Authority of interest (if any) on those amounts, are, by force of this subsection, guaranteed by the Commonwealth.

The power of the Treasurer to make a determination for the purposes of sub-section (2) extends to the making of a determination in respect of-

securities included in a specified class, or specified classes, of securities; and

transactions included in a specified class, or specified classes, of transactions. 25c. The Authority may give security over the whole or any part of its assets-

for the repayment of moneys borrowed under section 25a and the payment of any moneys that the Authority is otherwise liable to pay in respect of those borrowings; and

for the payment of any moneys that the Authority is liable to pay in respect of dealings with securities in accordance with section 25B, including, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the payment of interest (if any) on moneys borrowed or otherwise raised by the Authority. 25d. The Authority shall not borrow, or otherwise raise, moneys except in accordance with sections 25, 25a and 25b.’.”.

No. 3- Page 8, after clause 20, insert the following new clause: “20 a. Section 33 of the Principal Act is amended-

by omitting from sub-section ( 1 ) ‘The Authority’ and substituting ‘Subject to sub-section (2a), the Authority’;

by inserting after sub-section (2) the following sub-section: (2a) Where the Treasurer so determines by notice published in the Gazette, stamp duty, or any similar tax, is not payable by the Authority or any other person under a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory in respect of-

a security dealt with by the Authority;

the issue, redemption, transfer, sale, purchase, re-sale, acquisition or discounting of such a security by the Authority or any other person, not including a transaction done without consideration or for an inadequate consideration;

any other transaction done for the purposes of a borrowing or other raising of moneys by the Authority; or

any other document executed by or on behalf of the Authority for the purpsoes of a borrowing or other raising of moneys by the Authority. (2b) The power conferred on the Treasurer by sub-section (2a) to make a determination extends to the making of a determination in respect of securities included in a specified class or specified classes of securities and in respect of documents or transactions included in a specified class or specified classes of documents or transactions.’; and

by omitting from sub-section (3) ‘The regulations’ and substituting ‘Subject to sub-section (2a), the regulations’.”.

Motion (by Mr Ellicott) proposed:

That the amendments be agreed to.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-There is a stack of amendments to the Pipeline Authority Amendment Bill 1979. As I understand it this Bill emasculates the Pipeline Authority. It removes from it the power to trade effectively. Under this Bill some of the Authority’s functions will be controlled in such a way that something that was launched as a major national work by the Labor Government will be reduced in its capacity to make this country better off. I would be grateful, of course, if the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) would indicate that that is not the case. Of course, it is the case. I remind the House that the Pipeline Authority is responsible for a major national work.

Dr Everingham:

– It is like the Snowy scheme.

Mr BRYANT:

-That is right. It is one of the great achievements of the Labor Government. It is continually ignored by the Government in its attacks upon the Labor Government. I was interested in the remarks made by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Groom) who introduced the Bill in this House. He said:

In brief,’ within a short time following completion of the Moomba-Sydney pipeline the Authority has become a net contributor to the Budget. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

This is one of the projects about which the Labor Government was charged with being extravagant. The end result, as has been pointed out by the Minister, is that it is a net contributor to the Budget. There are various amendments proposed to this Bill. The Bill itself seeks to amend the Pipeline Authority Act 1973. The amendments, as I see them, appear to be taking away from the Authority its capacity to trade effectively and to take the initiative in the matter of buying and selling of petroleum. The principle underlying the Bill is that the Authority must trade on accepted commercial principles, whatever they are. What are accepted commercial principles?

One of the habits of this Government is to expect government authorities to operate under a set of principles governing financial behaviour which is not expected of private enterprise. In the general run of things we have loaded most authorities such as this with an interest burden which was quite unnecessary because in the first instance the money put into them was from Consolidated Revenue. The difference, of course, between public enterprise of that sort and private enterprise is that there is in private enterprise a larger measure of equity capital which does not carry a continuous interest burden than there is in public enterprise. It was about 20 years ago I think that people started to talk in this way about the application of principles to trading and other activities of government authorities. The Post Office itself was the first victim, as I recall.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! I remind the honourable member that the Committee is considering the amendments. The honourable member is required to address himself in more specific terms to the amendments.

Mr BRYANT:

-That is right. These amendments cover such items as borrowing from the Commonwealth, borrowing otherwise than from the Commonwealth, dealings with securities, the Authority’s giving security, borrowings not otherwise permitted, and liability to taxation. I think these amendments cover almost every area of the financing of public enterprise. I think it is fair enough to compare public enterprise financing and private enterprise financing.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honourable member will relate his remarks to the amendments before the Committee in a more specific fashion.

Mr BRYANT:

– In what way would you like it explained to you, Mr Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN:

– I put it to the honourable member that he is making an admirable second reading speech on the matter.

Mr BRYANT:

-That is right. I suggest that the motion before the Committee puts us in no other position. There are a dozen or so amendments under consideration. They cover the whole range of the activities of the Authority. How else can they be dealt with?

The CHAIRMAN:

-The honourable member may proceed and identify the amendments as he deals with them.

Mr BRYANT:

– I am not going to sit down. I will make sure that the thousands of people who are listening tonight will understand that the Government is interfering with the effective work of one of the great achievements of the last 10 or 1 5 years, the Pipeline Authority, which is responsible for transmitting gas and other energy sources to the community. Of course, Canberra will be connected to this pipeline eventually. This is, in fact, a demonstration of the great difference between the Labor Government of 1972-75 and this Government.

I take up the matter of the difference between borrowings and equity capital. It is my belief, as I was attempting to explain in simple enough terms, that the difference between private enterprise in these matters and public enterprise is that we have now adopted the policy that almost all funds from the Commonwealth going into authorities such as this become borrowings rather than equity capital. In the case of private enterprise money invested becomes equity capital. The flexibility in paying dividends and equity capital is totally different from the responsibility and the continuing heavy burden imposed upon those public authorities when they are charged interest. This is a fundamental difference. Honourable members opposite- the tycoons that they are and represent- may well say that these are commercial principles. There are two different sets of principles which apply to public authorities and to private business. Therefore, I reject the general principles of the Bill and object to the way in which it has been dealt with.

I hope that the Minister will explain, if he can, where this provision strengthens the ability of the Pipeline Authority to carry out the duties imposed upon it. I suggest that the fuels authority which was to start in Canberra in 1975 could be taken up and could be given the task of distribution in Canberra. I only hope that people are aware that a substantial emasculation has taken place in one of the great constructive achievements in the period 1972-75. If the Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Adermann) who is at the table or honourable members opposite could point to one constructive achievement of this Government since 11 November or 13 December 1975 to equal the construction of the pipeline, I would be interested to hear what they have to say. Honourable members opposite should stand up and name one such achievement. They can obtain 10 minutes within which to do so. The Chairman of Committees is in a liberal minded mood tonight in relation to these matters. This is an opportunity for honourable members to explain whether the Government has done anything of this order in the last four and a half years.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– I hesitated for a moment in the hope that a member on the Government side would rise in his place to explain to the Committee what these amendments to the Pipeline Authority Amendment Bill are about. I know of at least two occasions today when a Government Minister has moved a whole series of amendments that have come from the Senate without any explanation whatsoever. I do not point to the Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Adermann) who is now at the table. He was not at the table when these amendments were moved; that was done by the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott). No explanation and no reasons were given why the Senate amended the Bill when it was passed by that chamber. In the last half an hour the honourable member for Holt (Mr Yates) made a short contribution in which he suggested that it was the Liberal back benchers of this Parliament who look at the legislation. If that is so, where are those Liberal back benchers now when this Pipeline Authority Amendment Bill is being debated? Why do they not fill in the gaps which exist because their Ministers cannot explain to us why these amendments have been moved?

I take up the challenge issued by the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) and seek explanations about these amendments. A short while ago honourable members in this chamber considered this matter, yet the senators found reason to make further changes to the legislation which was passed by this chamber. We have not learnt the reason for these changes. I welcome the fact that the Government accepts amendments: I guess that in this case they are Government amendments. I have not heard that some Government senators crossed the floor to force these amendments as they did on another matter tonight. These are Government amendments. I ask: Why have these amendments been made? I welcome the fact that the Government has an open mind and is prepared to bring in amendments at this stage. Surely, the Senate owes this chamber the courtesy of explaining its amendments to the legislation? In matters of this sort the Senate should not take this chamber for granted.

I point out to the Committee that the time is now five past nine. We have just under another hour and a half before the normal Adjournment debate. We have very little extra business to deal with. In the last fortnight, the Opposition has had two opportunities to raise business in this chamber. The Standing Orders provide for General Business on every second Thursday. We seek to raise matters of public importance every day. If we are lucky, we are successful on two days out of three. Today discussion of a matter of public importance was gagged and the General Business period was almost talked out. We have an hour and a half left to us, yet amendments such as these are rushed through this Committee without any explanation.

I point out to the Committee, and to everybody interested, the cavalier fashion in which we are being treated by the Government. The best contribution that we have heard for a long time from the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Roger Johnston)- we do not hear from him often- was by way of an interjection in which he sought to explain these amendments. I waited for him to get to his feet and to explain them in greater detail, but I waited in vain. I will sit down now in the hope that he or the Minister for Veterans Affairs will explain the amendments to us in order that we can learn why we are being asked to vote in the affirmative on them.

Mr ROGER JOHNSTON:
Hotham

-I will seek to explain the amendments in three brief sentences. Amendments 1 and 2 will substitute for the borrowing powers of the Pipeline Authority, which are set out in clause 18 of the Pipeline Authority Amendment Bill, new provisions to enable the Authority to raise funds by infrastructure borrowings. These new borrowing provisions are similar to corresponding provisions in the Australian National Railways Amendment Bill 1 980 and the Australian Shipping Commission Amendment Bill 1980 which have passed through this chamber and through the Senate.

Amendment 3 amends section 33 of the principal Act. It-deals with the liability of the authority to taxation to enable the Treasurer (Mr Howard) to exempt certain loans, dealings and securities from stamp duties and similar taxes. These are similar provisions to those contained in the Australian National Railways Amendment Bill and the Australian Shipping Commission Amendment Bill. The provisions have the effect of making this legislation more compatible with the provisions of other statutory legislations. I hope that that explains it adequately to the Opposition. This is information which is freely available in the Bill.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-I wish to clarify the position I adopted when I first spoke. I make it clear that I was talking about the amendments. I was referring to the proposed new section 25 which reads:

The Minister for Finance may, on behalf of the Commonwealth, out of moneys appropriated by the Parliament for the purpose, lend moneys to the Authority on such terms and conditions as the Minister for Finance determines.

The point I was making was that this is not what one would call commercial principles. The money appropriated by the Commonwealth in this case almost invariably comes from Consolidated Revenue. Therefore, it will not be repaid to the people who originally supplied it. It is equity capital invested in the Authority which belongs to the people. If it makes a 100 per cent profit, it can declare a dividend. If it makes no profit, it does not need to declare a dividend. If interest is charged, that commitment must be met whether or not a profit has been made. This is one of the greatest burdens imposed on public enterprise in this country.

The reason why I am raising this general question is that it happened some 20 years ago when there was an inquiry into the operations of the Post Office. It was recommended then that commercial principles or practices be adopted. It was capitalised for the period of its existence- at that time it was about 60 years- at about the $ 1 ,000m mark or perhaps a bit more. At that stage a notional interest was imposed upon it. This money was not borrowed and was never required to be paid back to anyone. The money was obtained from profits or out of revenue appropriated to the Post Office. If it was the General Motors Holden ‘s Ltd company- which has been built out of money appropriated from the customers, upon which that company pays no interest and in respect of which nobody has any equity or say at shareholders meetings- this continuing burden of interest would not have to be met. The great burden upon public authorities in this country is the notional interest imposed by what this Government chooses to call commercial principles. Nobody in private enterprise would call them commercial principles and so the public authorities end up in continual financial trouble.

Mr Bourchier:

– I think private enterprise pays that interest when it borrows moneys.

Mr BRYANT:

-No, it is equity capital.

Mr Bourchier:

– Private enterprise borrows most of it in the first place.

Mr BRYANT:

– No, it is appropriated in the Parliament.

Mr Bourchier:

– I am talking about private enterprise.

Mr BRYANT:

-I am talking about parliamentary appropriations. Loan moneys are not approved in here and appropriated to something. Moneys may be borrowed and applied in the general system. If honourable members look back through the history of the matter they will find that most of the appropriations that we have talked about in these instances are from Consolidated Revenue. In fact, in 1951 or thereabouts, the situation reached the stage that there was much more money in Consolidated Revenue than could be borrowed. The Commonwealth started lending this money to the States and set up a loan consolidation and investment reserve. The Commonwealth was paying to the States funds which had been appropriated through the taxation system. Then the Commonwealth loaded the funds with interest. This became a burden on the States tramways, riverways, sewerage systems and so on. That situation existed until some time in the late 1960s. There has been a gradual change in this general flow of funds. At various times in the last 10 years a larger percentage of funds- sometimes from borrowings- has gone to capital works. I do not have the figures to hand, but I would say that over the last six or seven years the great proportion of the money put into capital works has come from Consolidated Revenue, taxation and soon.

Mr Roger Johnston:

– Your idea of economics is to print money, that’s all, isn’t it?

Mr BRYANT:

-No, it is not. Mr Chairman, is it appropriate at this point to give an example from the field in which the honourable member is familiar?

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

-If the honourable member is developing his point he may proceed.

Dr Everingham:

– General Motors-Holden’s.

Mr BRYANT:

– Let us consider General Motors-Holden’s. It brought no money to this country at all. It borrowed ?2m from the Commonwealth Banking Corporation and ?500,000 from the Bank of Adelaide. The company paid that back, but it is now capitalised to the tune of around $2,000m. Where did that money come from? It came from -

Mr Roger Johnston:

– Profits.

Mr BRYANT:

-Profits. Where did the company get those profits? It has appropriated them from the customers.

Mr Roger Johnston:

– It is not appropriated from the customer.

Mr BRYANT:

– It was not appropriated from the customers who run around in Mercedes. It was appropriated from the ordinary Australians who buy Holdens. I will speak to the Chairman who is a much more intelligent person. In the last 30 or 40 years there has been a shift from equity capital raised through going onto the sharemarket in the issuing of shares to customer created capital; that is, it is money appropriated from the customer by excess profits. That company does not pay dividends and does not allow anybody to have a say in the matter. It does not pay interest. The honourable member talks about printing money. His friends, such as General Motors-Holden’s, the BHP company and all the rest of them are doing this all the time. The Government has invested a huge amount of public money, through the benefit of the levy on fuel, in BHP-Esso and so on.

Mr Roger Johnston:

– You don’t understand.

Mr BRYANT:

– I am sorry if I cannot explain the matter in simple enough terms to the honourable member for Hotham. Nobody will have the chance to do so next year because the citizens down there will wake up to him. I understand that he is a computer expert. I can understand that. If he has a decent sort of computer he does not need to think himself; he has never got into the habit of doing so.

I recommend to honourable members that they have a good look at the financing of public authorities in this way. I suggest that, not in any sense of criticism of honourable members opposite- they have to learn- but because they have to study the financing of public authorities and consider that matter against the financing of private business. The principles are totally different. In this instance we will load the Pipeline Authority with whatever the Treasurer (Mr Howard) chooses to be the notional rate of interest. It will either make a profit or it will not. The next thing to occur will be the Government’s gradually edging the interest rate upwards. The Pipeline Authority will be running at a loss and the Government will sell it, just as it did its friend, the Commonwealth Brickworks.

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 3122

WAR GRAVES BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 15 May, on motion by Mr Adermann:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs · Fisher · NCP/NP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and the Australian War Memorial Bill 1980 as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-(Hon. Ian Robinson)- Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering these two measures?

There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

– Referring to the War Graves Bill 1980, which was read for the first time on 15 May, let me outline the background of the legislation. The war graves referred to include those of the Commonwealth of nations’ service personnel who died in action in the 1914 War or since, Victoria Cross winners, and those whose death has been accepted as due to war service or who died while they were in receipt of totally and permanently incapacitated pensions. The graves for which Australia is responsible to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission are those in Australia, Papua New Guinea, the Solomons, at Guadalcanal, Norfolk Island and at Ambon, Indonesia. In Papua New Guinea, German, Dutch and French war graves are also cared for. In Australia the Japanese War Cemetery at Cowra is cared for. Under the term ‘graves’ we treat similarly cemeteries and memorials .

The type of care that is involved for the Office of War Graves under the Department of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann) involves providing kerbing and filling for graves, headstones, plaques for the graves and niches for ashes in memorial walls. None of this work is provided where private monumental work has been undertaken. The Office has also set up gardens of remembrance in each State capital and at Launceston. The aim of the Bill as set out is for the Governor-General to appoint a Director of War Graves to carry out these functions, but the functions will still remain under the charge of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs Office of Australian War Graves. If the appointee is a member . of the Public Service he will retain his rights under the Officers’ Rights Declaration Act. As would apply if the Bill had not been introduced, the secretary to the Department will report annually to the Parliament; so the Director remains under the administration of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. The effect in essence is to have an officer appointed by the Government.

When the Act speaks of the Governor-General it means the Governor-General-in-Council which in effect means the Governor as advised by his Ministers. It is a government appointment. The Opposition has never shrunk from the prospect of taking responsibility for making major appointments to responsible positions. After all, it is closer to the grass roots and to the people who elect us to this Parliament, to the people who give authority to the Government and to the Public Service. Therefore an elected representative and a Minister chosen by the elected representatives should make an appointment. If one wanted to extend this to an absurd degree one could say that Ministers could appoint the whole Public Service all the way down the line.

The Opposition is not opposed to the principle, but let us not kid outselves that in some way we are upgrading the functions of the Office or changing its obligations or its responsibilities to the Parliament by the appointment of a Director of War Graves. Obviously the Office of Australian War Graves already has somebody who is responsible to the head of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs for the administration of Australian war graves. I venture to say that if such a provision had been brought in by the Labor Government the first thing that would have been said by most honourable members opposite and, I dare say, by a fair slice of the media, would have been that it was jobs for the boys. In other words, instead of the Government appointing an impartial career public servant to carry out a responsible Public Service job it would have been alleged that the Labor Party was taking it upon itself to make it a political appointment. I will not indulge in that sort of carping criticism. I just point out that when the Labor Government found it necessary to change the ingrained conservative thinking of certain senior public servants who had grown up doing things in an antiLabor way, in a politicised way- they did not realise it because they knew no other method of thinking- it was accused of providing jobs for the boys.

Mr Neil:

– You did, too.

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– That is a shining example of the sort of prejudice to which I am referring.

Mr Neil:

– All Whitlam ‘s staff were appointed to the Public Service.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– (Hon. Ian Robinson)- Order! Interjections are out of order.

Mr Neil:

– He is attacking the Public Service. It is independent.

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– The prejudice displayed by the honourable member for St George is typical of the prejudice which I am trying to draw to the notice of the House. The honourable member for St George is quite convinced of the justice of his theme. The Labor Government appointed people who were competent, aware and able to cany out the philosophy of a different government. The Whitlam Government wanted to change things and wanted to make something happen. It found that certain heads of certain departments could not comprehend its policies and could not or would not carry out those policies. The heads of departments who could not carry out the wishes of the Labor Government were replaced by people who did carry them out. One of the major criticisms that people such as the honourable member for St George made of the Labor Government was that it did too much too quickly and changed too many things. Had the Labor Government appointed people who were incompetent and who were incapable of change that criticism could never have been made because the changes would never have occurred and honourable members opposite would have no grouch. The people appointed by the Labor Government showed their competence by making those changes. Some of those appointments have gone down in history as remarkable appointments. To emphasise this point I need go no further than to refer to the appointment of our Ambassador to China. He has transformed the relationship between Australia and-

Mr Neil:

– What about your Ambassador to Ireland?

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– That was an inspired remark, was it not? The Labor Government’s appointment was as good as this Government’s appointment of an Australian Ambassador to New Zealand from the Senate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Capricornia come back to the Bill.

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– I do not need to labour the point that it is likely that there will be an appointment not from the ranks of the Public Service. If there is such a thing as jobs for the boys it will be very interesting to see whether the honourable member for St George declares when this appointment is made that it is a nonpolitical appointment.

I should like to refer now to the Australian War Memorial Bill 1980. As in the Australian War Graves Bill, there is no commitment in this Bill to increased expenditure by the Government. The Government is not giving away anything to improve services. One of the biggest concerns of the Australian War Memorial authorities is the deterioration of fine arts and textiles- things that badly need curator services. There is a world shortage of museum curators. In Australia a need exists for conservation laboratories. The storage problem has been eased recently because of additional storage facilities being provided at Mitchell. There is a need for much more training in museum curatorship for

Australia, South East Asia and the Pacific region. It is still very difficult to get the services of curators.

A shortage of curators is not the only obstacle facing Australia. Australia offers very low salaries for any jobs for curators below the position of director. Because Australia is isolated from the centres of training and expertise in highly specialised professions for which Australia does not offer great numbers of vacancies I believe that we ought to be offering far more than the world salary rates so that people will bring their scarce skills to this country and train people in Australia for positions here and in adjoining countries. Australia even might have to subsidise training for other countries. In the long run the preservation of museum exhibits in South East Asia and in the Pacific region will be an asset to Australia.

One of the biggest growth industries not only in Canberra and Australia but also in general areas of the South Pacific is tourism. The tourist industry will not get smaller, despite the increasing cost of motor fuel and the need to develop alternative fuels. We have to attract people to this part of the world with a package deal. Tourists not only visit the Australian War Memorial in Canberra, but also visit Fiji, Papua New Guinea and New Zealand. Countries in the whole area need to work together in a project of this kind to attract people with adequate skills to work as curators. We need to attract people with various skills which are needed to preserve exhibits which are deteriorating.

I am told that 700,000 people visit the Australian War Memorial each year. That is not an insignificant number. The Australian War Memorial is one of the biggest tourist attractions in the Australian Capital Territory. There is a need for more background and educational material to enhance not only the attraction of the memorial but also the educational value of it. It should be equipped with a theatrette, more gallery space, a classroom and more active educational facilities. I believe that this month the Cabinet has been considering a submission for extension of the War Memorial.

By and large the Opposition has no objection to either Bill. Whilst the Opposition believes there is considerable virtue in the Australian War Memorial Bill because it rationalises administration to some extent, I urge the Government to do more than simply tidy up the administration. More resources should be allocated. I know that it is a time of contraint. We are always told by Treasurers: ‘There is a need to tighten your belt, so do not spend any more, particularly in the public sector’. If I may take a phrase from the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant), private enterprise does not work this way. If private enterprise operators can see that there will be a return on an investment they invest. If they could see the tourist industry in Australia, particularly the Australian Capital Territory, benefiting far beyond the cost of preserving the exhibits, presenting them attractively and by making the educational aspect of them more accessible and more entertaining, I am sure they would spend the money required to do these things. We do not even have to go beyond the tourist industry to see this.

Adjoining my electorate is a nice big slice of freehold land on the coast of Queensland which was brought by the Iwasaki Sangyo Company (Australia) Pty Ltd. That company has a record of building some of the biggest tourist resorts in the world in Hawaii and Japan. It is preparing, according to the head of the firm Mr Iwasaki, to build in that central Queensland site something larger than Disneyland. He is going ahead with the project and claiming that there will be no return for 10 years. That is long term investment by private enterprise in the tourist industry. The Australian War Memorial- although it has higher objectives than attracting tourists- if one reduces this to hard, cold cash terms, nevertheless is a good investment in the tourist industry. I believe it is comparable to the investment of Mr Iwasaki. I think that the rate of return will be comparable as well.

The Board of Trustees will be replaced by a council which will have transferred to it the ownership of exhibits that is now partly vested in the trustees and partly in the Commonwealth. The council members will be appointed for specified terms instead of being appointed, as the trustees are, at the Governor-General’s pleasure. I believe that is the opposite sort of movement to the movement in administration for war graves where the fixed term public servant will be replaced by someone appointed at the Governor-General’s pleasure. However, the important thing is that the council will have more direct control, it will be able to set up its own staff and dispose of its own funds and it will have far more administative cohesion and autonomy. I consider this to be the right move. I would like to see the council appointed in a more democratic way but that is not a major issue.

No doubt there will be ex-service organisations which will, from time to time, be represented on some of these councils. More urgent matters are exercising their minds at the moment, matters of more immediate urgency for disabled and deprived veterans. They are going as hard as they can to get a hearing and a voice with the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. So these more abstruse and long term administrative arrangements are left to the Department. By and large the Department and the civil servants have done very well with the resources available to them. We cannot be proud of the way we have preserved the Australian War Memorial in view of the lack of skilled personnel- they are not attracted because of the lack of money offered- the lack of resources devoted to preserving exhibits which are fast decaying and the lack of resources devoted to extending the educational concept and the information resources. The Opposition does not oppose either Bill.

Mr NEIL:
St George

-I commend the Government for bringing forward the War Graves Bill and the Australian War Memorial Bill. I will deal firstly with the Australian War Memorial Bill as the Government’s representative on the Board of Trustees. I congratulate the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) for the very close interest he has taken in the activities of the Memorial during his term of office. I also pay tribute to the Chairman of the Board, Sir Thomas Daly, a former Chief of the General Staff, who exhibits interest in the most detailed activities of the memorial as do all the trustees. The Director, Mr Flanagan, and his staff work with extreme dedication and provide, with limited resources, an extraordinarily worthwhile service to the Australian people and to our heritage.

The Memorial was the dream of the great Australian historian Dr C. E. W. Bean. Its primary function, as a memorial, will be retained under the Bill. There had been some suggestions that the name should be changed to the Australian War Memorial and Museum. I am pleased to say that the trustees took the view that the proper title should be the Australian War Memorial; the present title should be retained. I was pleased to be part of that decision. The memorial is unique; there is no other comparable institution in the world. It is, indeed, a source of admiration for visitors who come from many parts of the world. Almost every visiting head of state and almost every visitor of any distinction visits the Australian War Memorial, as do 750,000 other persons a year. The tributes that have been made to the Memorial from persons overseas are very high indeed. Its essential character will be retained under this Bill.

A council will be established to take over from the Board of Trustees. Except for those items deposited on conditions with the memorial, all deposited property will be vested in the Memorial council. Over the past few years the trustees have attempted to grapple with the financial difficulties that have been mentioned. I certainly agree that increased expenditure is warranted. I have had considerable discussions with the Minister and I hope he will be able to give favourable consideration, and approval, to additional funds being made available in this year’s Budget. Prior to the making available of funds it is, of course, necessary that detailed proposals be presented. There have been increases in the level of staff for the Memorial in the past year. That, again, is a tribute to the Minister in the present stringent financial circumstances. There are more curators and persons skilled in fine arts that we would like to have made available and we hope funds will become available for those purposes.

In the last few years, in order to go to the Government to make out a case for more funds, it has been necessary for the Memorial to take steps to prepare feasibility studies on the types of new works required and to obtain the assistance of government departments and the National Capital Development Commission to prepare appropriate plans. As I have said, I am concerned that the Memorial should have updated facilities. It was erected in the depression years. Despite that, it has 750,000 visitors a year including 100,000 international visitors and 70,000 school children, exceeding the visits of any gallery or museum in Australia. It is the largest tourist attraction in the Australian Capital Territory. It also contains a very significant part of our national heritage and, for those persons who are not fully aware, as well as having the memorabilia of warfare it contains a very wide range of high quality paintings that are world renowned- a number of Dobells and paintings of other very well known painters.

The trustees wish to see a number of innovations. The estimated cost would be about $2m over three years. That is a significant sum but not a relatively large sum when we are considering the totality of a federal Budget involving more than $20 billion. We would like to see a theatrette and classrooms so that the 70,000 schoolchildren who visit the Memorial each year will be able to obtain a clear picture of the sacrifices by Australians, the devastation of war and the message of peace that must be the aim of all generations. The schoolchildren would be able to come into the Memorial and, at the outset, have a briefing in the theatrette and the classrooms. Of course, other members of the public would be able to join in. To enable this to be done, we would also need a new entrance foyer and a concourse which would include space for a sales area and, we hope, a creche and assembly areas for guided tours and amenities.

But I assure the House that we will not be changing the essential character of the building. It will look substantially the same. It will have the same atmosphere and the dedicated, even awesome, quality about it that it has already. I am sure that all who enter the main entrance of the Memorial and see the Pool of Remembrance and the hall at the end of it are extremely moved by the atmosphere. We will not be changing the basic feel, the basic atmosphere or the basic meaning of the building. The amendments to the building’s structure will be done in such a way as not to be apparent to any great degree. But they will be very significant.

We need to have an introductory gallery because 70 per cent of the visitors are under the age of 40 years and they have had no personal experience of war, even on the home front. International visitors and the large number of Australians who have come to this country since the Second World War and who visit the Memorial do not have a detailed experience of Australia’s efforts in the War. I appreciate, however, that many migrants have come to Australia often after having had very horrendous experiences in two world wars, particularly the Second World War. But it is essential that we have the opportunity to inform the public at large of the wars in which Australia has played a part and it is proposed that this be done in the introductory gallery.

There will also be a temporary exhibition gallery because the Memorial is not a mausoleum: It regularly mounts special displays. There were very successful displays recently. I remember particularly the favourable comment about the bamboo and barbed wire display which paid tribute to our prisoners of war. We have had other types of displays such as those for anniversaries of the opening of the Memorial. Unfortunately, there have been some criticisms of those displays because they have had to be mounted in relatively inadequate areas.

We want to ensure that some of the significant dioramas can be more adequately displayed for these puposes and for general purposes. The dioramas are world famous; they are extraordinary. In particular, some of the scenes of the First

World War are so lifelike that one imagines at first sight that they are wide angle colour photographs and that one is looking at them through some third dimensional process. Fewer than 10 per cent of these are on display at present. It is hoped that we will be able to have further public amenities because the private facilities as such are not what would ordinarily be required by municipal codes. It is hoped that there will be upgraded displays. For example, the Memorial has more Victoria Crosses- it has 23- than any other institution in the world, but the display at present is unsatisfactory. It does not compare, for example, with the Air Force museum display at Hendon which gives prominence to various persons who won the Victoria Cross.

We need, in particular, further facilities for scholars. There are 2,000 serious research workers who require access to primary historical documentation. It is amazing the number of people who, in the course of research for books, articles or historical matter, come to the Australian War Memorial because it covers a wide spectrum of our activities. Recently, for example, we authorised the publication of a book on the role of the churches in the First World War, a subject which covers a much wider field than one normally imagines. But the conscription debates and the like were very important issues at the time. I know, of course, that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, would have a particular interest in the role of the churches.

We need to increase the eating facilities at the Memorial. I am reminded that on occasions we have been criticised apparently for not have private enterprise conduct some of the catering facilities. Well, private enterprise has conducted various catering facilities but we need to upgrade the areas and the provisions there to give private enterprise a better opportunity to provide more facilities.

Staff accommodation is another necessity. Additional professional appointments have recently been made and we want to make more, but accommodation for curators and the like is unsatisfactory. I make the point that in other institutions such as the Australian National Gallery such provisions have been made. It is my information that the Department of Finance is of the view that it is not satisfied that all accommodation at the Memorial is being fully utilised. If it does have that view I think it is quite in error. I am sure the Minister will approach his colleague the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) to ensure that if there is such a view it is changed immediately. Indeed, one hopes that the officers of the Department of Finance will take themselves over to the Memorial as soon as possible.

We have an outstation building at Mitchell but that is for specific purposes. It was opened recently. It is a good outstation for its own purposes but we need to ensure that the Memorial, as constituted, carries out its proper functions. The trustees, the National Capital Development Commission, the Department of Housing and Construction, the Returned Services League and two international consultants have all agreed that extensions are urgently required. I again support strongly the need for further extensions and the finance for those extensions.

There is one other matter I wish to raise with regard to the Memorial and that concerns the position of persons who were not members of actual Australian forces. The Memorial provides plaques with the names of every Australian serviceman known to have served and died in war or warlike operations between the Sudan operation and the Vietnam war. There are 102,000 names on the plaques. It is indeed a moving experience to walk around and to see those names and, in my own case, to see the names of friends with whom I served in Vietnam. However, there are a number of persons who died in warlike circumstances whose names are not commemorated because they were not members of the actual Services. These include persons in the Merchant Marine.

I am pleased to say that the trustees have recently taken the view that a general plaque should be erected to the memory of the Merchant Marine and that the trustees should embark on a public program of obtaining the names of as many members as possible of the Merchant Marine who are known to have died in warlike operations. At the end of an appropriate period of inquiry consideration will be given to setting up plaques carrying the names. In the meantime a memorial book will be made available which will have names in loose-leaf form so that relatives and friends can come and observe the book and turn the pages to look up the names of departed relatives and friends. We hope to mount similar exercises with regard to Australians who served in Commonwealth forces. Exercises will also be mounted with regard to photographers, war correspondents and members of philanthropic organisations who lost their lives in war or warlike operations. The actual details of those projects are being worked out. I commend that proposal most warmly to the House and assure the Minister of my support in attempting to obtain Cabinet approval for the necessary finance.

I believe that the House is indebted to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann) for bringing forward the important War Graves Bill 1980, which should not be the subject of political party attack. Therefore, I make no comment on the unfortunate statements of a political nature that have been uttered in this chamber tonight on the Bill or the proposed position of Director of War Graves. I am certain that whoever is appointed will discharge his duties in an exemplary and proper fashion. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which was created by royal charter in 1917, has for many years fulfilled an extraordinarily valuable function. The Minister was good enough some time ago to make arrangements for me to visit the graves of Australian war dead in the Ypres area. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission tends those graves. It is an extraordinarily moving experience to see the ground upon which so many Australians gave their lives for a cause in which they believed. Some of the graves are tended in a very neat manner, but an area is set aside where the ground has not been changed since the battles of World War I. Portions of the original trenches are preserved, as are portions of craters which resulted from shell fire or mines. Thus one gets an understanding of the horror of that particular campaign, with the mud, cold and shocking conditions of new weaponry, including gas, that our Australian soldiers had to endure.

Of course other graves also, in Australia, New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Norfolk Island and Ambon, will be the responsibility of the Director of War Graves. It is also of interest to note that the Japanese war cemetery at Cowra in New South Wales is maintained by the Office of Australian War Graves by arrangement with the Government of Japan. That is testimony to the fact that we pay tribute to all who have died in the terrible circumstances of wars that have beset Australia and its people since this country was discovered.

The Government’s policy is that all exservicemen and servicewomen who died as a result of their service for Australia shall equally be remembered. Where it has not been possible to provide particular graves, gardens of remembrance, with suitably inscribed plaques bearing details of the deceased, have been provided. I commend the Bill to the House.

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

Debate (on motion by Mr Bryant) adjourned.

page 3128

AUSTRALIA COUNCIL AMENDMENT BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to decisions taken by the Government following a review of the structure of the Australia Council. The amendments that are proposed in the Bill reflect the Government’s wish to see that the Council operates with increased efficiency and effectiveness, whilst continuing to provide the Government and Parliament with the best possible advice on arts policy matters. The opportunity will also be taken to make some minor amendments to the Act that are of a machinery nature.

The principal Act provides that the Council shall comprise between 15 and 19 members, including the Chairman and the Council’s General Manager, who is an ex-officio member of the Council. At present the Council has its full complement of 1 9 members. We now believe that such a large number of members is unnecessary and that the functions of the Council can be more effectively carried out by between 10 and 14 members.

The existing structure of Council is that the Chairman of each of the specialised boards established to administer a particular area of the arts is ex-officio a member of the Council. There are at present seven such Boards, covering the areas of music, theatre, literature, visual arts, aboriginal arts, community arts and craft.

The Bill contains provision to amend the existing structure of the Council. Firstly, it removes from the principal Act the requirement that all board chairmen are ex-officio members of the Council, replacing it with a provision that at least two board chairmen be appointed to the Council by the Governor-General. This amendment will leave the majority of board chairmen free to concentrate on their particular art area. More importantly, these and other amendments are designed to ensure that the Council will have oversight of, and control over, the activities of the various boards and their expenditure. It is important that the Australia Council be able to lay down, implement and from time to time change policy in relation to the arts within the limits of its budget. These amendments will, the

Government believes, enable the Council to exercise this control over policy more effectively.

In addition, it is proposed to amend the membership provisions in the principal Act so that all the persons appointed in future under section 9 (2) (e) will be persons who practise the arts or are otherwise associated with the arts, and specifically that among them are persons who have practised or who practise the arts in literature, the crafts, the performing arts and the visual arts. This amendment will provide the Minister with flexibility when considering future appointments whilst at the same time emphasising the importance we attach to these particular art forms. Current members of the Council will not be disadvantaged by the proposed amendment, since it will be effected progressively as their terms of office expire.

The Act provides at present that the Chairman and members of the Council are part time. The role of the Chairman of the Council is of great importance and the tasks he has to perform are increasing, particularly in relation to the development of policy. Furthermore, with a reduction in the number of members, as set out in the amendment Bill, there is the likelihood of greater demands being thus placed on the Chairman. In these circumstances, the Government wishes to have the flexibility of appointing the Chairman on a full time basis should this be considered necessary. The amendment will allow the Government to review the situation when the term of office of the current Chairman, Professor Geoffrey Blainey, ends on 30 June 1981. If a full time Chairman is appointed, the amending Bill provides that the General Manager of the Council will not continue as an ex-officio member of Council, thus being free to concentrate on the administration of the Council’s policies and programs.

Currently included in the responsibilities of the Australia Council is the administration of the Public Lending Right Scheme. This Scheme was included in the responsibilities of the Australia Council by the 1976 amendment to the Act, following a recommendation to that effect by the Administrative Review Committee. It has been decided that it would be more appropriate for responsibility for the Scheme to be with the Department of Home Affairs. Public Lending Right is a scheme designed to compensate authors for loss of sales through readers borrowing books from libraries, rather than buying their own copies. As such, whilst it certainly does promote the interests of authors and publishers of creative literature, its application is not confined to books of an artistic character. Accordingly, it does not fit well within the Australia Council framework. This transfer of responsibility is being made with the agreement of the Public Lending Right Committee and also the Australia Council. The importance that the Government attaches to the Scheme will not be diminished in any way by the transfer.

There are a number of other amendments of a machinery nature included in the Bill. The principal amendments, however, are designed to ensure that the Council is as streamlined as possible, consistent with its responsibilities within the Government’s overall policies for the arts. I believe the proposed new Council structure achieves this end.

Finally, I should like to take this opportunity of reminding honourable members of the very real achievements of the Australia Council over the past four or five years. For example, in 1977 the Government recognised the need to stimulate a broader involvement in the arts by the community at large and created a specific Community Arts Board within the Council to this end. This Board is now responsible for assisting arts centres and festivals and assisting activities initiated by community groups or local organisations. This provides for wider participation in the arts and the Board has become a link between central government and local government, to the extent that during 1978-79 the Board, in partnership with local government, subsidised community arts officers serving some 60 local government areas. This is only one instance of the work which the Australia Council has done and the achievements that it has been making in recent years.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government remains committed to its policy of the promotion of excellence in the arts, and the amendments contained in the Bill should in no way be seen to reduce that commitment. By contrast, the Government considers that by providing greater flexibility to the Council, the Council will be able to respond more effectively to the challenges faced in the 1980s in this important area of the lives of all Australians. Might I also say that the amendments that the Government proposes to make to the Council in no way imply any criticism of the existing members of the Council. I have every confidence in them and in the capacity of the Chairman.

The purpose of these amendments, quite simply, as I have already stated, is to strengthen the capacity of the Council to operate in terms of the development of policy and the administration of policy in the arts in Australia. It is very important that, in this very volatile period in Australia’s history and in the development of Australia’s culture, the Australia Council be equipped to deal with these matters in a flexible and progressive way. The Government believes these amendments will achieve that objective. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Dr Everingham) adjourned.

page 3130

WAR GRAVES BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-The two Bills before the House-the War Graves Bill and the Australian War Memorial Bill- are complementary to one another. It is not often that two Bills can be more appropriately dealt with in a cognate fashion. I wish to deal first of all with the War Graves Bill. Since the very beginning Australia, in association with other countries which have also performed acts of grace and have done their duty as efficiently as we have, has done well in the war graves system that has been developed since the First World War. The whole system over the last 60-odd years has protected the memory of the people who have fallen in battle and have died as a result of war wounds, et cetera. Australia has established, in many parts of the world, war cemeteries which are a credit to the people who designed them and the people who maintain them. The cemeteries serve as a constant reminder to people of what war is about- the sacrifice, the hardship and the sorrow of it all- and, one hopes, perpetuate the idea in people’s minds whenever they visit the graves that war is one of man’s greatest follies and that they should dedicate themselves to peace.

Australians lie on every battlefield in the world, I should think. We find the graves of Australians in Africa, Asia, Europe and North America. I do not know that there would be many in South America, but I imagine that some Australian servicemen are buried in graves there. Certainly, they are buried in graves throughout South East Asia. I have visited such graves in many parts of the world- in Thailand, Burma, France, Belgium, Israel, Greece, Papua New Guinea and Singapore, for example. In every case they are beautifully maintained. They are a credit to the people who maintain them. I hope that all those thousands of Australians who have suffered the sorrow and loss of war, if they are unable to visit the graves, at least take comfort from the fact that there is dedicated service in the maintenance of those graves.

I wish to say several things about this Bill. I notice that a Schedule is attached to the Bill. It sets out the categories of former servicemen and women for whom we will maintain war graves. Of course, these graves have been provided principally for people who died in battle or as a result of their war wounds, but they are also provided for people who have had their deaths attributed to war service and people who have won the Victoria Cross. I think it may well be time that we gave some consideration to extending that function to apply to people who actually served on battlefields or who qualified for some of the service medals which indicate service of some sufficient length to show that they were in the business of war on behalf of the nation, no matter what the cause of their deaths might be.

The point that has been made both in the second reading speech of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann) and by my two colleagues, one from each side of the House, is that people must be constantly reminded of what war is all about. They must be constantly reminded of the enormous sacrifices that Australians have made and that Australia itself has made. A couple of years ago I met a distinguished foreign diplomat in New York who had paid a recent visit to Australia and had gone to the War Memorial. He was struck by the poignancy and the sorrow of all the 100,000-odd names- 102,000 names, I think the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) said- on the wall at the War Memorial. Such a sacrifice by a country that had a population of only five million people in 1914 or thereabouts and only about seven million people in 1939 is something that most people in Australia and most people around the world are unaware of. I think the War Memorial should serve as a constant reminder. I hope that we will expand the war graves service to include all those who served. Perhaps a corner should be maintained in most of the cemeteries in localities throughout Australia where former servicemen and women pass on. It is very difficult, of course, to maintain the general structure of war memorials around the country, but I think in considering this Bill and the Australia War Memorial Bill it may well be time that we took the opportunity to pass the general maintenance responsibility for the system we have developed to those who maintain the war graves and those who maintain the War Memorial. They are all part of the same system.

That brings me to the War Memorial itself. I should think it is one of the most significant war memorials in the world! It is something that all Australians should visit if they possibly can. We should make sure that Australians understand what it is about. It is a great credit to the people who have designed the War Memorial that it is not a glorification of war but a presentation of war in all its horror, all its sorrow and all its tragedy. It is an artistic and historical achievement of the first magnitude. I hope that we will expand the work of the people who maintain the War Memorial in conjunction with the War Graves Commission to have some publications readily available which give better explanations of what is happening and what has happened in relation to the war cemeteries in which Australians lie. For instance, a small handbook should be readily available to people who visit Gallipoli for the first time and who have not read the appropriate history. They could see what happened in the place where Australians fell. I recognise that there are some difficulties about that, but the War Graves Commission has people everywhere. I think such a publication would make a very important contribution to an understanding of the war.

Last year I visited some of the battlefields in northern France and Belgium, around Ypres. I think there are something like 15,000 Australian graves there. If one visited the battlefields of Messines or somewhere like that it would be useful, and I think almost essential, to have some simple brochure with some description of where people stood, where the battles were fought, and who was here and who was there. It would bring the scene to life. I am one of those who do not believe, of course, that we should glorify all this, but we want to show that ordinary Australian people were battling for the causes which we believed were just at the time, and which I think history has confirmed were just, against people who were defending other sorts of causes and other sorts of values. We have given a little consideration to the question of Anzac Day, its general presentation to the community and how we can make people understand its significance. The War Memorial will have to play a very great part in the presentation and preparation of material. I pay a tribute to the people who manage that- to the administration and their staff. The War Memorial is an institution of great significance. I would hope that the requests that the honourable member for St George promulgated here tonight on behalf of the trustees are taken up by the Government.

This is not the time or the subject for political points. But it is strange- and we all have to accept the responsibility- that although we were prepared to exert enormous effort for the war, to make all sorts of sacrifices and dedicate everything we had to win it, we become not mean perhaps but austere in the supply of funds to the people who commemorate and pay the necessary respect to those who made the sacrifice. So it is a question of how we get through to the public. The War Memorial is one of the message centres. How this institution maintains its proper status in the community is a question for the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) to take up with his colleagues. I hope he will do so.

I was interested to see the other day an advertisement in a newspaper- I think this is correctfor people to take up fellowships in various areas of study. I hope that suitable applicants come forward. I guess the quality of the material that can be made available to them will ensure their work will be of adequate quality. So I wish the people who are handling the War Memorial well. I hope it continues to draw Australians to it. But it will do that most successfully if we take up the remarks of the honourable member for St George, who as I understand it is on the governing body, not as a member of parliament but as a person who served his country well even in a cause which at the time I did not agree with. The War Memorial should be made more adequate in terms of services that it offers.

I think the War Memorial is another of those institutions which would be advantaged if members of parliament were appointed directly by the Parliament to the proposed Council. This is done with the Australian National University, the Institute for Aboriginal Studies and the National Library. I think that instruments of policy such as the War Memorial would be greatly advantaged if members of parliament were appointed to the Council. After all, they are the representatives of the people in a more direct sense than most people can be. I hope the Minister will take up that suggestion and examine it.

Mr FRY:
Fraser

– I support the Bill. First, I would compliment the present staff and trustees of the Australian War Memorial for the very dedicated way in which they have been able to run this institution under great difficulties for many years. I spoke on this subject during a grievance debate in 1976 and the same sorts of problems that I spoke about then exist today. They are problems of extreme staff shortage and space to meet the demands that are made on the War Memorial. I pay a very warm tribute to those members of the staff and the directorship for the way in whcih they have carried out their duties under very difficult conditions. I am hopeful that this Bill will overcome some of those problems and that the War Memorial will be in a position to fulfil its full potential. I believe it certainly has not done so at this stage.

I remember that I was inspired to speak about this matter in 1976 because at that time we had just had a visit from a Canadian parliamentary delegation. That delegation had been all around the world and had seen a large number of war memorials. The members of the delegation said that no other war memorial anywhere in the world had had the same impact on them as the Australian War Memorial. I have always remembered that. I feel that emotional impact when I visit the War Memorial particularly for the dawn service on Anzac Day. I might say it is a sort of feeling that one gets when one visits some of the very large memorials overseas. I particularly recall the memorial in the fine Russian city of Leningrad, where no fewer than one million people are buried in one grave. People wonder why the Russians have some obsession and concern about security. War memorials have a very emotional impact. The impact at the Australian War Memorial is greater than that at many others. I pay a tribute to the way in which it has been run for many years.

Many people may not be aware of the full ramifications of the functions of the War Memorial. It is not just a place which collects relics of war. It has a very fine display of art works it has acquired. Unfortunately, it does not have the space to display them all. It prints publications from time to time although because of staff and financial shortages it is not able to do as much as it would like. It is concerned with international conferences. It is concerned with the conservation of very valuable material. It has an excellent and very extensive library, and I will say a little more about that later. It is, of course, the centre point of our Anzac Day commemorations and other remembrance day commemorations. It has very excellent exhibitions. It awards research grants, to which my colleague the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) referred, and of course it plays a very important educational role, particularly among our young people. But here again it has not been able to meet the demands that are made on it in that respect in terms of space and staff. The War Memorial provides a tremendous amount of information particularly for research scholars. I understand that something like 2,000 research scholars called on the services of the War Memorial last year.

Another important spin-off of the information that has been collected at the War Memorial, particularly in its reference library, is the large number of very fine publications which have been published in recent years particularly concerning the Anzacs. I refer to books such as Patsy Adam Smith’s book The. Anzacs, which is a very scholarly historical work based mainly on information supplied from the diaries and letters of diggers, many of which are held in the War Memorial. Another very fine publication is the historical work written by Bill Gammage of the Australian National University called The ^Broken Years, which is also about Anzac. Another publication is a piece of fictional work by a young author, named McDonald, called/0/J. These are all excellent works in a new crop of works about Anzac. They tend to play down the glamour of war and to talk about the ugly side of war. They do not overemphasise war; they just try to state it as it was. They have gathered their information from original sources- from the soldiers themselves and from the letters and diaries that they wrote. I think that these authors have done a very fine public service in pointing out what war is like and not what many people would like to think it is like.

I also mention a book called Not as a Duty Only written by Henry Gullett, more commonly known as Joe Gullett, a Canberra resident and a former member of this chamber. This is also a very fine publication. None of these works could have been written with the same integrity without the resources of the Australian War Memorial. I think this is a very important aspect of the function that it performs in our society.

As I say, the Memorial still has the same staff problems. There are many unfilled staff vacancies. On some occasions we have advertised for staff but because we are not able to offer sufficient salaries we are not able to attract the right sort of people. I hope that under this new administrative arrangement the Council will have a little more flexibility and will be able to attract the right sort of staff to carry out some of the very skilled functions that are required. I hope that some of the space difficulties can be overcome so that more displays can be mounted.

I hope, too, that at some stage the War Memorial will be able to mount a display of a very famous war time vessel called the Krait from which Australian commandoes carried out some very daring raids on Japanese shipping in Singapore harbour. That vessel is at present in the water in Sydney, where the trustees are maintaining it as best they can, but the vessel does need major work. I think at some stage the vessel should be brought to Canberra and should be kept at the Australian War Memorial. I hope we will be able to plan for that some time in the future. However, as I pointed out, the vessel is being well looked after in terms of day to day maintenance by the trustees in Sydney.

Another aspect I want to speak about briefly is the type of display which the War Memorial puts on. I think one of the main functions of the new Council should be to continue to present a balanced picture of Australia’s involvement in war. I know that on occasions some individuals and some organisations tend to over-emphasise the romantic, colourful and glamorous aspects of war. We sometimes play on patriotic and nationalistic emotions for this purpose. I think it reflects great credit on the Board of Trustees of the war Memorial that it has endeavoured to present the ugly, tragic and unglamorous side of war. I refer particularly to its exhibition called Barbed Wire and Bamboo’ which depicts a Japanese prisoner-of-war camp. It is a very fine display. I refer also to Nolan’s Gallipoli series. That is a brilliant series of paintings which I think tend to strip away the trappings of war and to display the human, mortal soldier and his inner spirit. I think those are very fine paintings which all people should see, if they can.

The sacrifices of our young men and women were heroic and tragic but they were certainly not glamorous or glorious and I believe they should not be depicted as such. War is not just about the stirring music of the military band, the colourful uniforms, the badges of office and the service medals. It is about the brutality of man against man. It is about lonely deaths in distant lands far from homes and loved ones. It is about broken health, broken families, fatherless children, grief and suffering and, quite often, the futile sacrifice of young Australians in the very flower of their vitality and their youth. There is nothing glamorous about war and we should all be aware of that before we join the chorus of cold war sabre rattling which is usually led by people who have not made and will not be called upon to make the supreme sacrifice. I support the Australian War Memorial Bill in the hope that the new arrangements will allow the Australian War Memorial to fulfil its true potential as a memorial not only to the heroism of our fallen comrades but also to the obscenity, ugliness and futility of war.

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs · Fisher · NCP/NP

– in reply- I thank honourable members from both sides of the House for the bipartisan debate tonight. I thank them for their co-operation. I thought the addresses were particularly constructive. I feel that the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) made a very constructive contribution, as did the honourable member for Wills (Mr

Bryant), who made some suggestions which I think we could all think about and look at, the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Fry) and the honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham) who led for the Opposition in the debate. I thank honourable members for the spirit in which the debate was conducted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3133

AUSTRALIAN WAR MEMORIAL BILL 1980

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 17 April, on motion by Mr Ellicott:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3133

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Mr GILLARD:
Macquarie

– I present the sixteenth report from the House of Representatives Publications Committee.

Report- by leave- adopted.

page 3133

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1 980.

Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980.

page 3133

RELEASE OF EVIDENCE AND RECORDS OF COMMITTEES

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

Speaker has received the following message from the Senate:

The Senate transmits to the House of Representatives the following Resolutions agreed to this day by the Senate: 1. (a) That the Senate authorises the President of the Senate to permit any person to examine and take extracts from evidence submitted to, or records of, Committees which are in the custody of the Senate and which have been in its custody for at least ten years, provided that such evidence was not taken in camera or submitted on a confidential or restricted basis and provided further that the

President reports to the Senate the nature of the documents made available and the person or persons to whom they have been made available; and

that the release of evidence and records of Joint Committees be authorised on the joint authority of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives under the same conditions as provided in paragraph (a).

That the foregoing resolutions have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.

The Senate desires the concurrence of the House of Representatives in that pan of the Resolutions relating to the authority to release the evidence and records of Joint Committees.

Motion (by Mr Viner) agreed to:

That the message be considered forthwith.

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

  1. That the House of Representatives authorises the Speaker of the House of Representatives to permit any person to examine and take extracts from evidence submitted to, or records of, committees which are in the custody of the House of Representatives and which have been in its custody for at least 10 years, provided that such evidence was not taken in camera or submitted on a confidential or restricted basis and, provided further that the Speaker reports to the House of Representatives the nature of the documents made available and the person or persons to whom they have been made available;
  2. That the House of Representatives authorises the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives to jointly authorise the release of evidence and records of joint committees which are in the custody of the Parliament and which have been in its custody for at least 10 years, provided that such evidence was not taken in camera or submitted on a confidential or restricted basis, and provided further that the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives report to the Senate and the House respectively the nature of the documents made available and the person or persons to whom they have been made available;
  3. That the foregoing resolutions have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, and
  4. That a message be sent to the Senate transmitting the following resolution:

The House of Representatives having considered Message No. 488 of the Senate has agreed to the following resolution in relation thereto:

That the release of records and evidence of joint committees be authorised on the joint authority of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives on the following conditions:

  1. the copies of evidence or records have been in the custody of the Parliament for at least 10 years;
  2. b) the evidence was not taken in camera or submitted on a confidential or restricted basis, and
  3. the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives report to the Senate and the House of Representatives respectively the nature of the documents made available and the person or persons to whom they have been made available.
Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

– I suppose that it is a little irregular for this matter to be brought forward at such short notice, but it is certainly within the spirit of open government which the Opposition has always espoused. If my interpretation of the legal language is correct, this motion will correct an injustice which we had earlier today because it will allow people access to the records of committees which were denied to the Parliament.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I am trying to determine exactly what the significance of this motion is, apart from opening up the records. Will the Leader of the House (Mr Viner) take a moment to explain exactly what it means so that I may know whether I should give my concurrence?

Mr VINER:
Leader of the House · Stirling · LP

-in reply- With the indulgence of the House perhaps I can shortly explain the purpose of this motion. It has been passed by the Senate, as indicated by the message received by this House. At present the only committee records able to be released to public access are those that a committee has published under its resolution of appointment; the report which is presented to the House, the minutes of proceedings- if they are tabled with the report- and any other documents which are reported to the House. All other records are covered by Standing Order 340, or by Senate Standing Order 308 in the case of joint committees, and are not to be disclosed or published without the authority of the House.

The purpose of the motion is to delegate to Mr Speaker the authority which the House has under Standing Order 340 to release for public scrutiny such other committee records to which confidentiality should not attach. Examples of those types of records are submissions received by committees which for various reasons were not thought sufficiently important to be incorporated in the committee’s evidence but which are relevant to the inquiry, exhibits and other publications such as brochures, pamphlets and books presented to a committee. Under the authority proposed by this motion Mr Speaker will be in a position to exercise his descretion to ensure that conditions of confidentiality given by a committee are not breached. It will facilitate the release of documents in a way which does not breach the confidentiality given to them by a committee.

Mr Bryant:

– They still have to have had them for 10 years? It is a start I suppose.

Mr VINER:

-Yes, that is so.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3134

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 19 August 1980 at 2. IS 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.

Debate interrupted.

page 3135

ADJOURNMENT

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! It being 10.30 p.m. I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn

Question resolved in the negative.

page 3135

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Debate resumed.

Mr YATES:
Holt

-Before agreeing to the motion proposed by the Leader of the House (Mr Viner) I draw his attention to the fact that the last time he moved such a motion- in December last year- this House rose despite the incredible international incidents occurring at that time, including the invasion of Afghanistan. Despite repeated telegrams from me and other honourable members and despite comments in the Press, this national Parliament was not able to get out of the surf and back into session on what was described by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) as one of the most serious crises that faced this country. The Leader of the House has a duty, if he will permit me to say so, to the House and to the Executive. I hope that in the future he will consider carefully any representations made to him by honourable members who call for this House to be brought back into session in the case of an obvious great national crisis.

I am sure that the Leader of the House will be aware of the fact that there has been a substantial call by many honourable members, and now by the national Press and others, for serious parliamentary reform. I want an undertaking from him before I agree to this motion that during this recess he, as Leader of this House, with Mr Speaker will consult honourable members and all those interested in parliamentary reform so that we can be certain that when we return in August for the Budget session the matter has received serious consideration by him as Leader of the House.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I rise briefly to support the remarks of the honourable member for Holt (Mr Yates). I think it is time the Parliament gave consideration to some method of dealing with matters of general policy and of some moment. I recall that late in my first year as a member of this Parliament, the Parliament reconvened for one day to discuss a ministerial statement on foreign affairs. Today we have been presented with an important document entitled Guidelines for Education Commissions’. I see no reason why the Parliament should not reconvene to engage in general discussions of that nature.

The point which the honourable member for Holt makes is a valid and urgent one. Today’s sitting represents the 175th day since the 1977 election. That does not represent all that many days of sitting out of total of about 850 days which have passed since then. Somehow we have to recast the whole structure of Parliament so that we can deal in a more general way with the policies which concern the country. I wish that the people who run this place would sit down and do the arithmetic necessary. Perhaps we will have to hand this matter over to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Under guidance from this side of the House, we might make some progress.

Mr VINER:
Leader of the House · Stirling · LP

– in reply- I can assure my good friend and colleague, the honourable member for Holt (Mr Yates), and my old friend and doughty opponent, the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant), that any approaches made to me during the winter recess of the magnitude indicated by the honourable member for Holt will, of course, be given the most serious consideration. I add that, not unnaturally, if I were to receive any such request from honourable members I would consult with the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) for his advice as to whether it was of such moment as to warrant the recall of the Parliament before the allotted date, which is August 19, when the Government will present its Budget for the 1980-81 financial year.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3135

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

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.

page 3135

ADJOURNMENT

Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation- Assistance to Industry- Overseas Borrowing- The Parliament- Roads

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr HOWE:
Batman

– I do not want to delay the House for very long. I want to refer, briefly tq what I regard as a very serious situation which has developed within one of the committees of this House, namely, the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. The Standing Committee has been considering the question of the south-west of Tasmania. It visited the south-west of Tasmania in February at the invitation of the wilderness society of that area. Subsequently the Committee resolved on 1 7 April to report on the south-west of Tasmania. Honourable members will recognise that this area of Tasmania is one of the unique areas in terms of heritage and of the natural environment not only in Australia but also more broadly in the world, indeed, the previous Minister for Science and the Environment in speaking on the southwest of Tasmania said: . . South West Tasmania is one of the few remaining wilderness areas in the temperate regions of the world and together with Cape York shares the distinction of being the largest remaining wilderness area in the eastern coastal region of Australia. As such it is of national significance and in the opinion of some is a potential candidate for World Heritage status.

The Minister further stated that the Government is committed to assist the Tasmanian Government in establishing a national park of world significance. Not only the Minister but also the Australian Heritage Commission has advertised an intention to put the south-west of Tasmania on the Heritage Commission list.

A Committee of this House has unanimously agreed in relation to the status of the south-west of Tasmania to recommend to this House that a certain course of action be taken. As a result of the biased tactics of the Chairman of the Committee- tactics which were specifically designed to introduce a partisan element into the committee system of this Parliament- it has not been possible for the Committee to get to the situation where a report can be released at a time which is critical in terms of decisions which may be made by the Tasmanian Government with respect to this area. It is extremely unfortunate that, in a committee that is supposedly responsible to the Parliament rather than to parties, certain committee members have sought deliberately at three or four meetings of the Committee to act in the strongest and most partisan way. They have used obstructive tactics. They have sought meeting after meeting to delay any decision, to the point where the situation has become extremely difficult.

The Chairman, having been present at a meeting which by a majority decision decided to take a certain course of action in this Parliament, ratted on that Committee today. He came into the Parliament and did not have the guts to stand up against his party. He was not prepared to follow through in terms of concern for the national environment, for the national heritage or for the south-west of Tasmania. I want to place it on record that if anyone suggests that the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Cotter) or the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) have the slightest concern for any serious environmental situation in this country they are seriously misled. Certainly, if they ever go to Tasmania and suggest that they have the slightest concern for any wilderness or conservation areas in the south-west of Tasmania they ought to be rubbished. They would be lying; they would be deceitful; and they would be expressing views that they do not hold.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable member for Batman to moderate his language. There is no need to use terms such as ‘lying’ and deceitful’.

Mr HOWE:

– I regard this as a very serious situation. Mr Speaker, you have talked about the need for reform of this Parliament. You cannot seriously move in any direction in terms of reform until you have looked at how the committee system operates. It is not a representative committee system of this Parliament; it is a committee system of the Government. As far as honourable members on this side of the House are concerned, until we receive assurances that that Committee will not be run in a way which reflects only the interests of the Government, only the interests of the Liberal and National Country parties, we will not be part of the processes of that Committee. That Committee is being distorted in the interests of a particular party- a section of this Parliament- and no longer can be regarded in any serious way as representative of the institution as a whole.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr NEIL:
St George

-The Parliament will be adjourning shortly until the delivery of the Budget.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You will not be back.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for St George will resume his seat. The honourable member for Grayndler has not been here long. I ask him to conform with the dignity of the House and to cease interjecting.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I will be here longer than the honourable member for St George will be.

Mr SPEAKER:

-If the honourable member for Grayndler interjects again when I am addressing him, I will name him.

Mr NEIL:

– There is no doubt that the Government will retain the seat of St George in the next election.

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Be reasonable.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Be reasonable. You do not have to be heavy-handed.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Hughes will resume his seat.

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Of course I will, but you do not have to be heavy-handed.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I warn the honourable member for Hughes.

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– You are being very oppressive.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I warn the honourable member for Hughes that if he interjects again I will name him.

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Whatever you think is a fair thing.

Mr NEIL:

– There is no doubt that the Government will retain the seat of St George in the next election with a substantially increased majority. The House is about to adjourn until the Budget session. I remind honourable members that the Government has before it the final report of the Industries Assistance Commission in regard to the textiles, clothing and footwear industries. Those industries are of vital importance to Australia. There are many persons who reside in the electorate of St George who are employed within those industries. They have put forward a very strong case for this Government to consider their position, particularly their employment prospects, when making final decisions. In addition to the fact that those persons live in those electorates, there are strong and compelling reasons in the national interest why the types of recommendations made in the draft report should not be followed.

Labor members talk about the record of this Government. This Government has an excellent record in providing proper and appropriate levels of assistance to those industries. This, of course, contrasts significantly with the record of the Labor Party. Its 25 per cent tariff cuts, currency fluctuations and promotion of the wages explosion almost destroyed those industries in Australia and threw hundreds of thousands of people out of work. The Labor Party as good as killed off those industries. However, in past years under the Liberal Party and National Country Party Government policies we have seen a substantial turning of the corner, a substantial increase in employment in Australian industry generally, and an increase in those industries -

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– But you are going to wreck it.

Mr NEIL:

– They now employ 120,000 persons and about 200,000 persons indirectly.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for St George will resume his seat. The honourable member for Grayndler will remain silent.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. The position of the honourable member for St George is a well known free trade position and this is the most hypocritical speech that the House has heard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is not making a point of order. The honourable member is seeking now to enter the debate. I ask him to remain silent.

Mr NEIL:

– The honourable member for Grayndler simply -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for St George will ignore the interjection of the honourable member for Grayndler and continue with his speech.

Mr NEIL:

-I will ignore that interjection. I invite any honourable member to read the speeches I have made on this topic consistently over a number of years and, in particular, to read my speech in this House late last year on the Industries Assistance Committee draft report. I said that the IAC draft report should be stood over for a minimum of three years and that its recommendations should not be acted upon because they were unsound. No other Western country has the same form of quantitative restriction on imports. Australia allows a greater degree of imports in textiles, footwear and clothing from the Association of South East Asian Nations than does the United States. If the United States gave to those industries the same open access as we give to them, they would be able to sell $1,000 billion a year of additional textiles to the United States.

The other argument I wish to refer to the House is the plain argument of national strategic interest. We must have a clothing, textile and footwear industry in Australia. From information that I have received, at this time Australian industry is not able to provide the clothing necessary for the new 30,000 recruits to the

Army reserve this year. This is because our industry has run down. In the national interest, we must retain those industries.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The credibility of this Government, and of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) who leads it, has been torn to shreds over the past four years for many reasons. But nothing has done more to discredit the Prime Minister and his Government than their record in the management of the Australian economy. Nearly 18 months ago, in another adjournment debate in this House, I dealt with a particular aspect of this failure on the part of the Fraser Government- its disastrous and unprecedented program of foreign borrowing. I want to deal with that topic again tonight, because it has become even more important, yet more grossly mismanaged since that last occasion in October 1978.

The name Khemlani used to make the leading members of this Government bay to the moon like blood-crazed wolves. Yet, since this Government came to office, it has been responsible for foreign borrowings around $4,500m which is far beyond the figure attributed to Mr Khemlani ‘s fund-raising program. Two things have happened in these past 1 8 months to worsen the situation. Firstly, this Government has continued to borrow like an international spendthrift and, secondly, the gnomes of Canberra who administer the borrowing system have added enormously to its cost by their mismanagement. Since that mismanagement stems from directions issued by the Government there can be no question about where the responsibility lies.

This Government’s borrowing of around $4,500m means that it has placed every man, woman and child in Australia in hock to foreign finance houses to the extent of almost $400. If we look at the debt in terms of the average Australian household, it comes to around $1,270. In my case, because I have been a fairly prolific breeder, it is even more. Let me place those debt levels in contrast with those in 1974-75. At that time the average level of indebtedness was not $400 but about $88 for each person in the country. For the average Australian household, the figure was not $ 1,270 but a mere $296. What has happened since then has been entirely the responsibility of the present Prime Minister and Government.

In November 1976, after the Government had devalued the Australian dollar by a huge lVi per cent, the Prime Minister had this to say in justification of the action:

Is there anyone here who would say they would sooner put Australia into hock to the tune of $ 1,000m than devalue . . .

As we now know the Government has borrowed continuously despite that big devaluation. Australia is now in debt to the tune of $5,700m. At the end of April, our reserves stood at $5,043m. That simply means that we are running on overdraft. So much for the Prime Minister’s homilies on the virtues of good housekeeping and balancing the family budget! The Government is drawing Australia to the brink of international bankruptcy. Even worse, the gnomes of Canberra have put us much further into hock by the way in which they have selected currencies for these overseas loans. If a company treasurer in the corporate world had managed his affairs in the way that these matters have been managed he would have been sacked. However, over the, past four years, currency fluctuations have added $ 1,000m to our international indebtedness on top of the actual borrowings. According to calculations published recently in the Australian Financial Review by Dominguez and Barry that figure is made up of about $740m in the three years to 1978-79 and about $380m in 1979-80. Like the Government the gnomes of Canberra receive regular up-to-date advice from Australia’s representatives posted at the international monetary- -

Mr Neil:

- Mr Speaker, I take a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Neil:

-I understand the word ‘gnomes’ to connote a person who manipulates against the national interest. This phrase has been used against public servants who are dedicated people. They cannot defend themselves publicly. I submit that the honourable member should have given notice that he wanted to say this.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Like the Government, the gnomes of Canberra receive regular uptodate advice from Australian representatives who are posted to the International Monetary Fund in Washington and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris on the relative strength of different currencies. Why was this advice not heeded? This Government claims as one of its special virtues an expertise in economic management. Yet here was a case where the Government received expert uptodate advice on the international financial situation but took decisions which increased the indebtedness of every Australian household by $250 over and above the initial face value of the loans. At this stage I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard two tables which illustrate Australia’s overseas reserves and debts and the change in overseas debt obligations resulting from movements in exchange rates.

Leave granted.

The tables read as follows-

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I thank the House. The Treasurer (Mr Howard) repeatedly stressed how favourable were the terms of these loans as he announced them one after the other. His claim was based entirely on the fact that the interest rate on the foreign loans was below the going interest rate in Australia. This approach was entirely unrealistic.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

-Tonight I would like to refer to a debating style which, I suggest, has marred the session which is now drawing to a close. It is a style of personal abuse and personal denigration which has punctuated so many of the debates in this chamber. That personal abuse has not come from this side of the House. I want to put the point very strongly that it seems to me to be a shame when there are so many matters of major importance before this House that the only effective response from so many members of the Opposition is simply personal abuse. I draw attention to last night’s debate on the Roads Grants Bill 1980 where interjections -

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That was an interesting debate, that one.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Graylander persists in interjecting. I ask him to cease. If he refuses to do so, despite the lateness of the hour, I will deal with him.

Mr BAUME:

– The personal abuse in the debate last night on the Roads Grants Bill is simply typical of what has become a style of debate in this chamber from some members of the Opposition. I do not say all members of the Opposition because there are many members of the Opposition for whom I have the greatest respect and for whose arugments I have a certain deal of respect, even though in many areas I must say I disagree with them. However, there is an element on the Opposition benches which, regrettably, finds it much more convenient to abuse personally members on this side of the House than to discuss the issues which are being raised. I refer particularly, as I said earlier, to the debate on the Roads Grants Bill last night. The honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes), having been offended by some statistics which I produced to demonstrate the significant increase in Federal funding of rural roads under the present Government, could only respond: ‘You could not lie straight in bed’. A response from the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) suggested that I was a ‘log’ for daring to present figures which demonstrated that the proposition the Opposition was maintaining was a totally incorrect one. The continual interjections, which were not recorded in Hansard, while I was making that speech reflected on me. At the end of my speech, when the honourable member for Newcastle did speak, there was an exchange of unpleasantries which involved the honourable member’s being obliged to withdraw remarks of personal denigration.

I simply put this point to the House: If we are to have vigorous debate, is it not possible for honourable members opposite to participate with vigorous argument rather than vigorous personal denigration? Is it possible to have active, lively and invigorating debates without swinishness? That is a word at which some honourable members may take offence. I would suggest that the behaviour of some members of this House during debates not only has been disgraceful to this House but has also reduced the esteem in which they are seen by the community as a whole and other members in particular. I would like to conclude by saying that the statistics which I presented last night dramatised the significant increase in Federal road funding in relation to the State of New South Wales for rural, national and developmental roads. That significant increase was discounted by members opposite who chose to denigrate me for daring to present those figures. Those figures were confirmed by the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt) who pointed out very strongly indeed -

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I raise a point of order. I find the honourable member’s remarks a gross reflection on people on this side of the House. He is saying that we were deliberately misinterpreting the figures on road grants.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

Mr BAUME:

-The Minister had said that he had referred those statistics to the Department of Transport which found them entirely accurate and correctly reflected the trend of road funding in the State of New South Wales by the Federal Government since this Government came into office. There was no basis for the personal attack and for the accusations that the figures were incorrect.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr FitzPATRICK (Riverina) ( 10.56)- I would like to raise two matters tonight which are causing great concern to the people in my electorate. I ask the Government to give some consideration to them. A couple of weeks ago I attended the opening of an extension to a public school at Lake Cargelligo. I want to pay some credit to the school and to the pupils for the way in which they performed on that day. What surprised me was the number of people who came to me, not to speak about education, but about the state of the main road between Lake Cargelligo and Rankins Springs. Just as I was about to leave the school a lady, whom I was told was a member of the council of the shire, handed me a letter. Because so many people had interviewed me on that day, she told me not to read the letter until I got home. This letter pointed out the amount of wealth in the area, the amount of wheat that goes into the silos, the amount of cattle and stock, how the people of that area have to travel over this very rough road and the extra expense which is involved. The letter also made a good point, I think, that Lake Cargelligo is one of the most beautiful lakes in Australia. It has a very attractive foreshore. It is one of the largest tourist attractions in Australia, but very few people visit it because of the state of the road. The people of that area have asked me to bring this matter up and draw it to the Government’s attention.

The other matter which I raise relates to drought and to the problem that many graziers are having in getting spare parts for their machinery. I ask the Government to look at this matter. In isolated areas graziers are forced to cut feed for the starving cattle. They are finding it hard to get spare parts for their chainsaws. That is because businessmen in country towns find it very expensive to carry a full range of spare parts. I ask the Government to inquire whether some scheme could be introduced whereby these parts could be indexed and, if they have to be sent from the city to the country towns where they are to be used, they arrive quicker. This could mean a big saving in the stock losses.

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

– I would like to respond briefly to the remarks of the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume). The French, we are told, do not mind very much what we do as long as we pronounce words properly. I am afraid the sort of objections which the honourable member raised in relation to what he called swinishness on our side of the House was against some very trivial remarks which should not have penetrated the hide of any politician. The things which are most objectionable, which I believe have come at least equally from his side of the House, include the selective use of information. One of the favourite phrases of the honourable member for Macarthur is that the Opposition is selective in its use of facts. Nothing is more selective than the very speech to which he referred. For instance, he left out entirely the Minor Traffic Engineering and Road Safety Improvements Program grants when he said funding had risen in other -

Mr SPEAKER:

-I interrupt the honourable gentleman. It is 11 p.m. I understand that the Treasurer wishes to extend the debate.

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

– I would like to reply very briefly to the speech of the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown), a member of the Opposition who, if I may say so, always makes thoughtful and intelligent contributions to debates in this House. When he dealt with foreign borrowings tonight he rather spoilt his record a little. He did a bit of a Rip Van Winkle. He said that he made a speech on foreign borrowings 18 months ago. I can only conclude from what I heard tonight that he has been asleep on the issue for the past 18 months because he said that the position has worsened over the past 18 months. He could not have been paying any attention at all to what has happened to our external account if he really believes that it has worsened over the last 18 months. In the financial year 1979-80 the total official borrowings of Australia to supplement our international reserves were about $ 1,650m. This year, with only six weeks of the financial year to run, the total borrowings by the Government for the same purposes are less than $500m.

As a result of two things- firstly, a strengthening in export performance and, secondly, an improvement in private capital inflow into Australia- our external account has improved enormously. As a percentage of gross domestic product the external debt of Austrafia now is less than what it was 10 or 1 1 years ago. As one of the gnomes- perhaps the principal gnome in the exercise- I should like to say to the honourable member that we do spend a great deal of time trying to make sensible judgments about what are appropriate currencies in which to borrow. Our overseas debt is in a mixture of currencies which most people believe is a sensible hedge against violent fluctuations in one particular area. We have, of course, endeavoured to mix exchange risks and low interest rates to achieve the best possible overall situation.

On any fair analysis of the situation there might be other areas of economic debate where strong arguments could be put by both sides. But I do not believe, when it comes to the external account, that anybody can deny that there has been a tremendous strengthening of this country’s position over the last 18 months. Nowhere is it better illustrated than in an examination of our overseas borrowings and the borrowing program that was announced by my predecessor in September 1977 when, on behalf of the Government, he said in effect that we would go on borrowing overseas until capital flows resumed their traditionally higher levels. This has been 100 per cent vindicated by what has happened over the last 1 8 months. We have returned to our traditional position where the current account deficit is very significantly financed and compensated for by large private capital inflow. That results from the heightened preception of the strength of the Australian economy and, of course, from the enormous potential project development in our resource industries.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Do you deny those figures?

Mr HOWARD:

– Of course I do not deny those figures. They are correct. They are figures that have been used in earlier debates in this House but there is nothing per se wrong with oveseas borrowings through orthodox channels on official account. That was said by a very respected Treasurer in the Labor Government, the former honourable member for Melbourne Ports, late in 1974. He said that the Australian Government ought to remain a cautious official overseas borrower on orthodox account. He, of course, was drawing attention then not to the concept of overseas borrowings by the Labor Government but to the unorthodox methods that were then in contemplation by some of his colleagues.

Mr SPEAKER:

-It being after11 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Tuesday, 19 August 1980, at 2. 1 5 p.m., unless I or, in my incapacity or absence from Australia, the Chairman of Committees shall by telegram or letter addressed to each member of the House fix an alternative day or hour of meeting.

House adjourned at 11.5 p.m.

page 3141

NOTICES

The following notices were given:

Mr Burns to move

That this House, noting with pleasure that the response from sporting clubs, service organisations and schools for our national flag has been so enthusiastic, recommends to the Government that our national flag be made available to Members of Parliament so that they may display it in their offices in order to set an example to others and further promote the spirit of patriotism amongst their constituents.

Mr Hayden to move;

That a Joint Committee of the Parliament be established to inquire into and report on:

Mr Hayden to move;

That it is the view of this Parliament that a Joint Committee consisting of the Library Committees appointed by each House shall:

page 3142

NOTICE OF QUESTION

Mr Holding to ask the Prime Minister:

1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the article in the San Antonio Light (published in Texas, U.S.A.), dated 26 February 1980, and headlined ‘Australia Pledges “Absolute” Support for U.S. ‘.

Is he able to state whether this report was the result of an exclusive interview he gave to Mr William Randolph Hearst, Jr, and Mr Kingsbury Smith, of Hearst Newspapers as alleged in the article.

If so, did he state, during that interview that (a) Australian defence forces in the Indian Ocean already (i) maintain close liaison with United States of America naval forces and (ti) exchange surveillance information with them, (b) the communications base at North West Cape, W.A., relays VHF signals to U.S. nuclear submarines in the Indian Ocean and (c) the most important contribution made by Australia to the defence of the United States and itself is made by the top secret, chiefly American manned satellite communications base at Pine Gap, N.T.

Is there any substance in indications in the article that (a) Pine Gap has the world’s largest radar installation for tracking, and receiving information from, America’s spy satellites which maintain constant surveillance of the Soviet Union, (b) Pine Gap could receive the first indication of a Soviet inter-continental ballistic missile nuclear attack on the United States, (c) the base is operated mainly by about 22S Americans including the largest concentration of Central Intelligence Agency experts outside CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, U.S.A., (d) other Americans operating the base include a few National Security Agency and U.S. Air Force specialists and (e) Pine Gap would undoubtedly be one of the first targets of Soviet nuclear missiles in the event of war between Russia and the U.S.A.

page 3142

REPLY TO REQUEST FOR DETAILED INFORMATION

Joint House Department

  1. 1 ) What was the cost of installing the air conditioning system in Parliament House.
  2. Since its installation, how much has been spent on (a) maintenance; (b) repairs.
  3. What technical problems or design faults have contributed to additional costs of installation, maintenance or repair.
  4. What has been the running cost of the system to date.

The honourable member seeks information about airconditioning costs in Parliament House which covers a period of fifty-three years. It is not possible to obtain all this information, however, it is understood that the honourable member is concerned with more recent air-conditioning installations and that information relating to plant installed from 1 January 1978 to date will meet his requirements. The following details covering this period are provided.

The cost of air-conditioning systems installed since 1 January 1978 are-

Air conditioning of 1947 Senate wing-$124,610.

Stage 1 of air-conditioning and fire protection installations covering the 1947 House of Representatives wing and main floor offices, House of Representatives side-$226,197.

Stage 2 of air-conditioning and fire protection installations covering Senate main floor offices- $ 1 89,930.

(a) and (b) The installation referred to under (i) (a) above has operated with only minor expenditure on maintenance items. The systems referred to in (i) (b and c) above are still in the warranty period and, in accordance with standard contract conditions, maintenance costs are the responsibility of the installing contractor.

It is understood that there have been no major technical problems or design faults associated with the abovementioned installations, and therefore no additional costs of installation, maintenance or repair have been incurred.

Servicing of all air conditioning systems in Parliament House is carried out by Joint House technical staff and the provision of heating and cooling water for these installations is made from a central plant room. These services are common to many refrigeration and heating services in the building including the Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms. In the absence of separate costing of these common services, it is not possible to provide running costs for any individual airconditioning plant. To obtain this information would require the installation of separate metering systems for the plant concerned and the introduction of job costing records for the technical staff employed.

page 3143

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Minister for Trade and Resources: Overseas Visits (Question No. 4118)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 3 1 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) What was the purpose of his visits to the United States of America, Canada, Japan and New Zealand between 27 March and 12 April 1979.
  2. What was the name, classification and salary of each person who accompanied him.
  3. What was the (a) cost of travel, (b) cost of accommodation, (c) other expenditure and (d) total costs incurred, in respect of himself and each person who travelled with him on each journey overseas.
  4. Which airlines and/or other means of transport were utilised during each journey overseas.
  5. In the course of his duties, (a) which places were visited and (b) with whom were consultations held.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

I refer the honourable member to documents tabled by Senator Carrick on 23 April 1980 (pages 1704-1712 of Senate Hansard). These documents provide full details of all Ministerial travel undertaken in the years 1 973- 1 979.

Schools Commission: Disadvantaged Schools Program (Question No. 5153)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 21 November 1979:

What sums were paid by the Schools Commission in the Electoral Divisions of ( 1) the Northern Territory, (2) Canberra, (3) Kalgoorlie, (4) Perth, (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) St George, (37) Phillip and (38) Macarthur under the disadvantaged schools program during (a) 1975-76, (b) 1976-77, (c) 1977-78, (d) 1978-79 and (e) 1 July 1979 to date.

Mr Fife:
LP

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

Information requested by the honourable member is not held in a form that would enable this question to be answered without considerable effort. I am not prepared to direct that the staff resources which would be required be diverted from other essential duties. *

I am however able to direct the honourable member to reports of the Schools Commission which list payments for the years 1974-77 to non-government schools. 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 Schools Commission. The Commonwealth Government provides bulk funding to State Governments for government schools programs to disburse on a needs basis as is seen fit.

Innovations Program funds are made available to schools, teachers, parents and community groups who wish to foster innovation and improvement in education. No distinction is therefore made between applications originating in government, and non-government schools and other areas.

All applications are fully appraised through the procedures of consultation and assessment established by the Schools Commission and recommendations with respect to all applications are made by the Innovations Committee of the State or Territory concerned. In the case of larger projects final recommendations to the Commission are made by the National Innovations Committee of the Commission.

In appraising applications a large number of factors are taken into account. As explained in the document Guidelines for Applicants’, the Commission considers not only the general quality and innovativeness of the project but also such factors as its relationship to the values and priorities of the Commission, the number of grants already made to projects of a similar kind and the size of grant sought in relation to the likely benefits of the project.

Payments to non-government schools for the years 1975-1978 are set out in the reports which were tabled in the House of Representatives on the dates listed below:

Report-States Grants (Schools) Act 1972-Financial Assistance granted to each State in 1974-75-25 May 1976.

Report-States Grants (Schools) Act 1972-Financial Assistance granted to each State in 1 975-76-2 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 1975-1 December 1976.

Report-States Grants (Schools) Act 1973 -Financial Assistance granted to each State in 1976-6 September. 1977.

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.

Report- States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1977- 21 August 1979.

Information on several electorates in the honourable member’s question is contained in answers to earlier questions which appeared in Hansard on the following dates:

Schools Commission: Special Projects Program (Question No. 51 54)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 2 1 November 1 979:

What sums were paid by the Schools Commission in the Electoral Divisions of ( 1) the Northern Territory, (2) Canberra, (3) Kalgoorlie, (4) Perth, (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, ( 1 9) 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 for special projects program during (a) 1975-76, (b) 1976-77, (c) 1977-78, (d) 1978-79 and (e) 1 July 1979 to date.

Mr Fife:
LP

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

I draw the honourable member’s attention to my reply to Question No. 5153.

Schools Commission: Capital and Recurrent Funding (Question No. 5155)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 2 1 November 1 979:

What sums were paid by the Schools Commission in the Electoral Divisions of ( 1) the Northern Territory, (2) Canberra, (3) Kalgoorlie, (4) Perth, (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) St George, (37) Phillip and (38) Macarthur for (a) capital funding and (b) recurrent funding to each (i) government and (ii) non-government school during (A) 1975-76, (B) 1976-77, (C) 1977-78, (D) 1978-79 and (E) 1 July 1979 to date.

Mr Fife:
LP

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

I draw the honourable member’s attention to my reply to Question No. 5153.

Household Insurance: Flood Damage (Question No. 5406)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 30 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) What proportion of houses and buildings in each of Australia’s major cities are covered by household insurance policies.
  2. It is a fact that while most homes are covered against earthquakes, storm or fire by conventional insurance policies, very few homes are covered against flood.
  3. Have studies of the River Torrens, which flows through metropolitan Adelaide, shown that the River Torrens is subject to once-in-20 year, once-in-50 year and once-in-100 year floods, thus that Adelaide is now overdue for a major flood, which could subject more than 100,000 houses to flooding in the Adelaide residential area.
  4. Has the Government rejected proposals for a natural disaster insurance scheme; if so, what financial guarantees will it give to the people of Adelaide in the event of a major flood.
  5. In view of problems which arose after the Brisbane flood of 1974 concerning the extent of coverage of household policies, will the Government take action to clarify the definition of what constitutes a flood, and will he take action to ensure that residents of Adelaide are fully informed of their position, should a major flood occur.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) I am advised that official statistics do not reveal the degree of insurance coverage of houses and buildings in Australia.
  2. The various property owners’ insurance policies offered by private insurers in Australia provide cover against damage from most causes including fire, theft, storm and tempest, earthquake, and numerous other natural and nonnatural events; flooding is not normally automatically included among the risks covered. However, I understand that most insurance companies will provide flood cover if specifically requested, although premiums are high in floodprone areas. It appears that there is not a strong demand for flood cover in most areas where the risk of flooding is low.
  3. I understand that some preliminary investigation of the flood risk of the Torrens River has been undertaken in recent years and that a comprehensive investigation has recently been commissioned. However, the matter is a State responsibility and I suggest that for more precise details the question be directed to the relevant State authorities.
  4. In a press statement of 1 7 January 1 979 1 announced that the Government had decided not to introduce a natural disaster insurance scheme of the kind that had previously been mooted; on 4 June 1979 1 tabled in Parliament a policy information paper outlining the reasons for this decision in some detail. It should be borne in mind that primary responsibility for natural disaster relief rests with the States, although in recognition of the difficulty for the States of meeting from their own resources all expenditure incurred on natural disaster relief, the Commonwealth has entered into arrangements with the States to assist them in meeting the costs involved; these arrangements apply to South Australia, as well as to the other States and the Northern Territory. Under current arrangements in this regard the Commonwealth shares with the States on a dollar for dollar basis expenditure on the immediate relief of personal hardship and distress caused by floods and other natural disasters. Eligible assistance includes the provision of food, clothing and accommodation and essential repairs to housing and furniture. As well, in respect of “major” disasters the Commonwealth assists with, on a $3 Commonwealth to $ 1 State basis, expenditures on agreed relief and restoration measures beyond the capacity of a State. In the case of South Australia, arrangements are that this assistance comes into effect once eligible expenditures in respect of all such disasters during the course of a year exceed $3 million. Eligible relief and restoration measures, as they relate to floods in urban areas, include restoration of public assets, loans to small business and to churches, sporting associations and other voluntary nonprofit organisations but do not, as a general rule, include repair and restoration of privately-owned housing; assistance in this area is generally excluded because of the availability of insurance for private houses. This approach is in keeping with the Commonwealth ‘s view that the natural disaster relief arrangements should not be seen as an alternative to reasonable measures for self-protection. It would not, therefore, be consistent with existing policy .on natural disaster relief for the Commonwealth to provide financial guarantees along the lines suggested by the honourable member.
  5. The question of the extent of coverage of particular insurance policies relates to the nature and terms of the insurance contract between the insurer and the insured. I would suggest that any person who is unsure of the extent of the cover available under a household insurance policy might contact the particular insurer concerned to clarify the position. It is relevant that in view of the responsibilities of the States for natural disaster relief, it would be a matter for the particular State concerned to inform residents of any disaster relief assistance that would be available in the event of a major flood.

Petroleum Product Freight Subsidy Scheme (Question No. 5411)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) How will the Government determine current freight costs for the purposes of the extended petroleum product freight subsidy scheme.
  2. What is the estimated cost of the new scheme in each State for (a) the remainder of 1979-80 and (b) a full year.
  3. As the cost to taxpayers of the subsidy scheme will increase substantially will the Government order a thorough review of petroleum transport costs, and will he examine the points raised in my question No. 940 to his predecessor (Hansard, 8 June 1978, page 3389).
  4. Has his attention been drawn to a claim by a correspondent to the Adelaide Advertiser on 1 S February 1 980, that consumers in the Riverland of South Australia are paying S cents a litre more for petrol than in Mildura and more than residents in Alice Springs.
  5. 5 ) If so, can he state why this is so.
Mr Garland:
LP

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

  1. The extended petroleum product freight subsidy scheme applies current freight differential costs found justified by the Prices Justification Tribunal.
  2. Estimated cost in each State:
  1. In my predecessor’s answer of 8 June 1 978 (to Question No. 940 of 13 April 1978) to the honourable member, details were given concerning the role of the Prices Justification Tribunal. Nothing new can be added to that information other than to emphasise the ongoing review role of the Tribunal in considering all submissions put to it in relation to costs associated with the transport of petroleum products to country areas. Freight differentials found justified by the Tribunal form the basis of freight subsidy calculations.
  2. Yes.
  3. Wholesale prices for petrol are subject to the Prices Justification Act and maximum justified prices are determined for each of the oil companies by the Prices Justification Tribunal. However, the companies may charge less than the maximum justified wholesale prices and in practice, prices to resellers vary depending on the state of competition in particular locations and on other factors.

Retail prices for petrol are outside the ambit of the Prices Justification Tribunal as the Tribunal is concerned only with prices charged by companies. Retail prices are to some extent a function of the competition which exists in a particular market and this often accounts for the disparity between retail prices charged in different localities.

Nuclear Waste Disposal (Question No. 5476)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Is he able to say whether the Japanese Government has decided to proceed on a trial basis with the dumping of low-level nuclear waste in the Pacific Ocean; if so, has it sought the Australian Government ‘s views on such action.
  2. Has the Australian Government expressed any attitude to the Japanese Government regarding nuclear waste dumping in the Pacific; if so, what attitude was expressed.
  3. 3 ) What are the Australian Government ‘s intentions concerning the dumping of nuclear waste in the Pacific Ocean.
  4. Is he able to say what is the estimated quantity and lifetime of any radioactive material Japan may propose to dump in the Pacific Ocean and where is it proposed that the waste be dumped.
  5. Is he able to say which countries (a) have previously dumped, (b) presently dumped or (c) propose to dump nuclear waste in the Pacific Ocean; if so, in each case, what is the estimated (i) quantity and (ii) lifetime of radioactive material contained in these wastes.
Mr Peacock:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. and (2) We have been in touch with Japan on this matter and have been informed that the Japanese Government proposes to proceed on a trial basis with the dumping of low-level nuclear waste in the Pacific Ocean in mid- 1981. Thereafter the Japanese authorities propose to spend approximately two and a half years on a safety assessment and evaluation of the trial dumping operation before further decisions are taken on sea dumping.

Japan has not yet formally consulted other Governments about these plans. This will await the completion of action already under way to permit Japan to ratify the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Waste and Other Matter and to participate in the OECD Council Decision of 22 July 1977 establishing a Multilateral Consultation and Surveillance Mechanism for Sea Dumping of Radioactive Waste. Japan is therefore taking steps to ensure that any future dumping operation would be carried out in accordance with internationally agreed standards.

Article 3 (b) of the OECD mechanism requires a participating country to notify the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency twelve months before it intends to execute a sea dumping operation, if a new site is proposed, of the characteristics and composition of the wastes, the dumping sites selected, reasons for the selection of the site and the operational procedures envisaged. The Nuclear Energy Agency circulates this information to Member countries for possible comment.

Australia, which is a member of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, will be in a position to give detailed examination to the proposed Japanese dumping operation following formal notification by Japan to the Nuclear Energy Agency of its proposal.

  1. The Australian Government has no plans to dump nuclear waste in the Pacific Ocean.
  2. It is understood that the wastes which Japan proposes to dump on a trial basis are in the form of 5,000 to 10,000 cement-solidified drums of 200 litre capacity containing a maximum of 500 curies of radioactivity. The composition of the wastes has not been specified. Four possible dumping sites are under consideration:

  1. (a) Between 1946 and 1970 the United States dumped about 14,500 curies of low level waste into its own offshore coastal waters outside San Francisco Bay. Between 1950 and 1964, Japan dumped about 400 curies of low level laboratory waste at the entrance to Tokyo Bay.

    1. None known.
    2. Japan. See answer to (4) above. The United States has no current plans for future dumping in the Pacific, but is evaluating the concept of ocean dumping.

Wastes dumped contain a mixture of radionuclides, with a wide range of half lives. In respect of the United States wastes, most included traces of plutonium isotopes which have a long half life.

Insurance Industry: Parliamentary Committee (Question No. 5487)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 21 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that the value of the combined assets of life and general insurance companies operating in Australia is approximately $19 billion; if so, do both sectors play an important role in Australia’s economic progress, stability and development.
  2. Was the lack of adequate legislation to protect the industry, and the Government’s failure to constantly update and implement protective legislation, instrumental in the failure of the VIP Insurance Company, the Dominion Insurance Company and the Palmdale-Associated General Contractors Insurance Co. Ltd.

  3. Will he move for the establishment of a Joint Parliamentary Committee to inquire into and report on:

    1. the viability of the life and general insurance industries in Australia;
    2. the need for additional supervisory legislation covering general insurers, including re-insurers and mortgage-guarantee insurers, providing in particular for-
    1. the necessity for each insurer to be authorised for each separate class of business, with attention to be given to the (A) insurer’s experience in each class of business, (B) degree of risk involved, and (C) insurer’s paid up capital and margin of solvency;
    2. the necessity for varying amounts of paid up capital between the classes of business undertaken, and
    3. the necessity for varying solvency margins between the classes of business undertaken.
  4. Will he take immediate steps to introduce legislation for the amendment of the Insurance Act 1973 to (a) provide the Insurance Commissioner with the same powers and to subject him to the same procedures in respect of authorisation as granted under the Life Insurance Act 1 945 to the Life Insurance Commissioner, and (b) to insert provisions similar to those contained in the United Kingdom Insurance Act which ensure the effective surveillance of all investments by authorised companies.
  5. Will he reconsider the implementation of provisions similar to those contained in the United Kingdom Insurance Act, relating to (a) fit and proper persons and (b) a Policy Holders’ Protection Board.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. The Australian assets of life and general insurance companies operating in Australia are in excess of $ 1 9 billion. These companies perform an important role within the Australian economy.
  2. ) The operation of the Insurance Act 1 973 has increased the protection afforded to policy owners. However, it would not be appropriate for me to offer comment on the reasons for the failure of the insurance companies mentioned by the honourable member. At the same time, I would draw the honourable member’s attention to the various comments published in the press following the entry of the companies mentioned into liquidation.
  3. I do not believe that an inquiry of the kind referred to by the honourable member is necessary. The existing provisions of the Life Insurance Act 1945 and the Insurance Act 1 973 establish the machinery for the financial supervision of life and general insurance companies. It is also relevant that companies conducting certain classes of general insurance business in Australia (e.g. employers’ liability) and subject to additional supervisory arrangements established by State and Territory legislation. The effectiveness of the existing Commonwealth supervisory arrangements is under continuous review and a number of proposals for strengthening the supervisory machinery of the Insurance Act are currently being developed in consultation with the Insurance Commissioner and industry representatives. The proposals, which have not yet been considered by the Government, include, inter alia, possible changes to the minimum financial standards to be observed by insurers.

  4. (a) In developing proposals for amendment of the Insurance Act as mentioned in (3) above, the various powers and procedures provided for under the Life Insurance Act will be taken into account. I should mention, however, that there are some differences as between life insurance and general insurance which give rise to a need for different supervisory processes.

    1. I do not believe that the wide form of controls over investments contained in the United Kingdom insurance legislation should be adopted in Australia. I should add that the proposals for amendment of the Insurance Act as mentioned in (3) above include a proposal to restrict the extent to which certain kinds of investments of general insurance companies can ‘count’ for purposes of the solvency provisions of the Act.
  5. As indicated in (3) above, a number of proposals for strengthening the supervisory machinery of the Insurance Act are receiving consideration. I do not have any intention at this stage to bring forward legislation along the lines of the United Kingdom provisions referred to by the honourable member. I note, however, that certain aspects of the United Kingdom provisions mentioned are being considered by the Law Reform Commission as part of its insurance contracts reference. When the results of the Commission’s inquiries become available they will be closely studied.

Insurance Broking Industry (Question No. 5488)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 21 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to recent press statements, particularly in the Adelaide Advertiser of 29 January 1980, that a number of insurance brokers in South Australia are currently the subject of investigation by the fraud squad, and that one large insurance broking company is involved.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to (a) press statements alleging that these companies are adopting unsatisfactory, misleading, unethical and fraudulent practices in pursuance of their business, and (b) concern expressed by officers of the Insurance Council of Australia and broker organisations who are seeking the urgent implementation of adequate supervisory and regulatory legislation to cover the activities of insurance brokers.
  3. When does the Government expect to receive the report and recommendations on insurance brokers from the Australian Law Reform Commission.
  4. Will appropriate legislation based on the commission’s findings be considered and implemented urgently.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. I am aware of press reports to the effect that complaints have been made about the practices of several insurance brokers in South Australia and that fraud squad detectives have initiated investigations into the operations of several brokers in that State.

  2. (a) See (1) above.

    1. The Insurance Council of Australia and a number of bodies representing insurance brokers and other insurance intermediaries have put forward various forms of proposals for the introduction of legislation for the regulation of insurance intermediaries. The Law Reform Commission has been considering the issues involved in this area and I understand that the Commission has received a number of submissions from industry bodies. As indicated in my press statement of 3 September 1 979 it would be difficult to justify the cost involved in drafting legislation in this area ahead of receiving the Commission ‘s advice.
  3. I understand that a report by the Law Reform Commission on the regulation of insurance intermediaries is expected to be available to the Government within the next month or so.
  4. The Government will make a close study of the Commission’s report as soon as it becomes available.

Palmdale-Associated General Contractors Insurance Co. Ltd (Question No. 5489)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 21 February 1980:

  1. 1) Is it a fact that, in relation to the Insurance Act 1973, one of the main aims of the Act is to ensure that persons wishing to carry out the business of insurance must comply with this Act and also the provisions of any applicable State legislation.
  2. Were certain provisions of Part III of the Act inserted to ensure that State legislation would not be rendered invalid through any inconsistency with this Act under section 109 of the Constitution.
  3. ) Was the general effectiveness and validity of these provisions upheld by the High Court in Palmdale-Associated General Contractors Insurance Co Ltd v. The Workers! Compensation Commission of NSW (1978) (52 ALJR: 203).
  4. Is the effect of section 99 ( 1 ) of this Act to indicate that the Commonwealth Parliament did not intend to exclude the operation of certain State insurance laws.
  5. Is this Act dependent on dual Commonwealth-State control, which makes it necessary to obtain licences from both Commonwealth and State authorities in certain cases, of which the Palmdale-AGCI Ltd case was one.
  6. Did Palmdale-AGCI Ltd obtain the necessary Commonwealth licence.
  7. Is he able to state if Palmdale-AGCI Ltd was not successful in obtaining a licence to become an approved insurer under the Workmen’s Compensation Act of New South Wales; if it was not successful, what were the reasons for the Company’s rejection in NSW.
  8. Did discussions take place between the Commonwealth and the respective State licensing authorities, with regard to the grant of Commonwealth authority, prior to the issue of authorisation to the company; if so, (a) what discussions took place, (b) with what (i) States and (ii) officers did they take place, and (c) what classes of insurance were discussed.
  9. Is he able to state if reservations were expressed by certain States; if so, (a) what States, (b) what was the nature of their reservations, and (c) what was their particular concern in relation to (i) the class of insurance, (ii) the solvency, and the investments of this Company, and (iii) the adequacy of the Commonwealth Act.
  10. 10) Does the collapse of Palmdale-AGCI Ltd suggest there was insufficient co-operation between Commonwealth and State licensing authorities in determining whether the company should have been given a Commonwealth licence.
  11. In the light of the collapses of the Dominion Insurance Company and Palmdale-AGCI Ltd subsequent to the collapse of the VIP Insurance Company, is there an urgent need to introduce legislation to strengthen the surveillance and control provisions as they relate to the solvency and investment sections of the Act.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) One of the main aims of the Insurance Act is to specify minimum financial standards which persons conducting insurance business are required to observe. The Act also includes certain provisions relating to the preservation of State insurance legislation; however, the Act does not contain any provisions aimed at oversighting an insurer’s compliance with State legislation.
  2. The provisions of Part VIII of the Act are designed to safeguard State and Territory legislation relating to certain aspects of insurance, including the licensing of companies engaged in third party motor vehicle and workers’ compensation business, the payment of stamp duties and fire brigade levies by insurers. I might add that section 38 of the Act provides that nothing in Part III authorises the carrying on by a body corporate of any business that it would not have been authorised to carry on if that Part had not been enacted.
  3. As far as I am aware the findings of the High Court in the case cited by the honourable member did not reveal any doubts about the effectiveness and validity of the provisions of Part VIII of the Insurance Act.
  4. Section 99 of the Insurance Act is designed to preserve for the States and Territories the ability to regulate certain aspects of insurance in the States and Territories while reserving for the Commonwealth the power to authorize companies generally to carry on insurance business in Australia.
  5. In respect of certain classes of business (e.g. employers liability business) some States have legislation that requires companies operating in those States to be licensed in accordance with that legislation. Palmdale-AGCI was a company that was obliged to meet the requirements of both Commonwealth and State legislation.
  6. Palmdale-AGCl Limited was granted an authority under the Insurance Act 1973 on 26 February 1976. The company subsequently changed its name to Palmdale Insurance Limited.
  7. I understand that Palmdale-AGCI Limited was not successful in obtaining a licence under the Workers ‘ Compensation Act of New South Wales. I am not aware of any reasons for the rejection of the company’s application.
  8. Discussions of a general nature have been held on occasions between representatives of Commonwealth and State Governments on insurance matters of mutual interest. However, it would not be appropriate for me to provide details of information received for purposes of considering an application for authorisation of a company under the Insurance Act. I might add that the Act prescribes the specific criteria to be taken into account in considering applications for authorisation and does not allow for refusal of an application on grounds extrinsic to those criteria.
  9. See (8) above.
  10. No. See (8) above.
  11. The Insurance Commissioner has submitted recommendations for a number of amendments to the Insurance Act to strengthen existing supervisory provisions. In the light of these recommendations a number of proposals for amendment of the Act have been developed including proposals for increases in solvency standards and restrictions on the extent to which certain kinds of investment are acceptable for purposes of solvency margin calculations. These proposals have been the subject of detailed comments by insurance industry bodies and individual insurers. Against the background of these comments, a report on possible proposals for amendment of the Act is expected to be available for my consideration shortly.

Nurse Education and Training (Question No. 5665)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 19 March 1980:

When will the Government make a decision regarding the recommended target figure of 2,200 student places for basic general nursing in Colleges of Advanced Education by 1985 referred to in the August 1978 Report of the Committee on Nurse Education and Training to the Tertiary Education Commission.

Mr Fife:
LP

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

The process of consultation and the co-ordination of advice to the Government following the release of the Report of this Committee has taken some time. An announcement of the Government’s decision on this matter can be expected in the near future.

Pensioner Dental Benefits (Question No. 5670)

Mr Sainsbury:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 19 March 1980:

What is the estimated cost of extending the scope of pensioner benefit entitlements made available under the existing means test, to cover all pensioner dental costs.

Mr MacKellar:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

There is no information available on which to base a firm estimate of the cost of extending the scope of the pensioner benefit entitlements (under the existing means test, or any other means test) to cover all pensioner dental costs. Persons covered by Pensioner Health Benefits entitlements include aged persons, widows, supporting parents, eligible service pensioners, and their dependants. The dental needs to be met under such a benefits scheme would vary widely, ranging from supervision of first teeth in children, extractions and fillings to fitting dentures and crowns. The costs of such a scheme would also be affected to the extent that benefits were payable on, for example, dentures and crowns. Further, it has been the experience with the introduction of various benefits schemes that there is high utilisation of the services available in the first years, which partly represents the initial use of the freer availability of services covered by the scheme.

From information obtained from a registered organisation under an ancillary benefits table, indications are that total dental fees could approximate $50 per person covered per annum. If this figure were applied to approximately 2 million persons with Pensioner Health Benefit entitlements, the annual costs would be of the order of $100 million. This figure could be subject to wide variation because utilisation rates that may be applicable to eligible pensioners and their dependants are likely to be at variance to those for the insured population. The ancillary benefits table in question is also subject to certain limitations in benefit cover. It is not known what would be the effect on total costs of removal of these limitations.

The benefits cost would depend upon the level of benefits set. If this was the same as is presently provided under the Medical Benefits Scheme for persons covered by Pensioner Health Benefits entitlements (i.e. 85 per cent of the Schedule fee, with a maximum difference of $5 between benefits and Schedule fees), the total benefits would be of the order of $85m to $87.5m

The actual utilisation and costs under the scheme for persons covered by Pensioner Health Benefits entitlements may be different to those given above (which are based on the experience of insured persons in an ancillary benefits table), because of the effect on the general dental health of the community and with changes in dental practice in recent years such as the greater emphasis on teeth retention than on extractions and fitting dentures.

Bliss Symbols (Question No. 5682)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 19 March 1980:

  1. Has he acknowledged to Mr C. K. Bliss, A.M., that a reply to question No. 4453 (Hansard, 16 October 1979, pages 208 1-2) in error attributed in part to others the system of interlingual written communication or pasigraphy known as Bliss Symbols, Blissymbolics or Semantography, which is in fact the copyrighted invention of Mr Bliss.
  2. Did the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority arrange with Mr Bliss for a seminar to be held on 17 March, 1980 at which Mr Bliss would explain (a) fundamentals of his system and (b) cases of unauthorised mutilations of his system in educational publications allegedly made in breach of copyright agreements.
  3. Has the ACT Schools Authority consistently refused to require attendance at a seminar of this kind by teachers responsible for communicating with children unable to speak or write effectively but capable of indicating meanings by use of a Bliss Symbols table.
  4. Is he able to state whether Mr Bliss has made a commitment to fight a legal challenge to his copyright which will take him out of Australia before a seminar can be arranged.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No. Mr Bliss has not raised this matter with me. I understand that he has received assurances from the Chairman and senior officers of the ACT Schools Authority that there had been no intention to attribute to anyone but Mr Bliss the development of his symbol system. My reply to the first pan of the question which the honourable member asked on 20 February indicated that the term ‘Bliss Symbols’ and ‘Blissymbolics’ both describe the symbol system devised by Mr Bliss.
  2. No. 17 March 1980 was a public holiday in Canberra. As my previous reply indicated a seminar was conducted on 24 March 1980. Mr Bliss had an opportunity to explain the fundamentals of his system and to discuss errors and distortions he believes exist in teaching materials based on his system, which have been developed by the Blissymbolics Communication Institute, Toronto, Canada.
  3. No. It would be inappropriate for the ACT Schools Authority to insist on teachers’ compulsory attendance at inservice training or teacher development activities. My previous reply indicated that officers of the Authority have made a considerable effort to arrange a seminar for Mr Bliss and that there had been little interest from teachers.
  4. I understand Mr Bliss planned to depart from Australia for Canada on 28 March 1980. The seminar to which I have previously referred was held before this date.

Pharmaceutical Benefits List (Question No. 5683)

Mr Lionel Bowen:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) Is one particular pharmaceutical company responsible for most of the important generic items on the pharmaceutical benefits list.
  2. If so, has this company been more successful than others in respect of the listing of generic pharmaceutical benefit items.
  3. If this company has been more successful in its pharmceutical benefit market listing, is this because its listings have been facilitated in time, whereas other companies have had to wait much longer.
  4. If this company has had its listings expedited, is this due to the fact that the company employs a former Member of Parliament to negotiate these arrangements.
Mr Mackellar:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. , (3) and (4) See (1).

Radiotherapy Services (Question No. 5685)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 March 1 980:

  1. 1 ) How many radiotherapy services (included in Part 8A of the Medical Benefits Schedule) were rendered in Australia in the period 1 January-31 March 1979.
  2. Were (a) 11 per cent of the services rendered by specialists in radiotherapy and ( b) 63 per cent of the services rendered by dermatologists.
  3. If so, what classification of medical practitioners rendered the remaining 26 per cent of radiotherapy services.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. My Department does not have information on the total radiotherapy services (included in Part 8A of the Medical Benefits Schedule) rendered in Australia in the period I January-31 March 1979. However, the statistics collected from computer compatible medical benefits organisations and my Department’s direct billing payment system indicate that claims for approximately 30,400 radiotherapy services were processed in Australia for medical benefit purposes during that period. It is estimated that these statistics represent about 80 per cent of radiotherapy services on which a medical benefit was paid and recorded as being processed in Australia in the period.
  2. The percentage figures quoted by the honourable member relate to New South Wales only.
  3. The remaining 26 per cent of radiotherapy services in New South Wales was rendered by medical practitioners recorded in the following speciality groups-

Bankruptcies in the Australian Capital Territory (Question No. 5695)

Mr Fry:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 25 March 1980:

How many (a) bankruptcies and (b) voluntary liquidations were there in respect of (i) business and (ii) individuals in the Australian Capital Territory in each of the last 3 years.

Mr Garland:
LP

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

  1. The State of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory constitute one Bankruptcy District for the purposes of the Bankruptcy Act. Prior to September 1979 separate statistics of the incidence of bankruptcies in the ACT were not maintained.

The incidence of bankruptcies in the ACT from September 1979 to April 1980 inclusive was as follows:.

Department of the Capital Territory: Agreements with Companies and Unions (Question No. 5741)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 26 March 1980:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Australian of 25 March 1980 that the Minister for Industrial Relations had said that if an agreement between a company and a union was proper and had been properly made, there was no reason why it should not be made public.
  2. Will he inform the citizens Of the Australian Capital Territory promptly of any agreements made secretly between his Department and companies or unions.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. I am informed by my Department that there have been no secret agreements made between my Department and companies or unions.

Creditors of Limited Liability Companies (Question No. 5760)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 31 March 1980:

Do Australian Company Laws give inadequate protection to creditors of limited liability companies from huge losses; if so, will remedial provisions be included as a matter of urgency in any proposed new Companies Bill, similar to those (a) contained in the United Kingdom Companies Act 1979 and (b) enforced throughout the European Economic Community.

Mr Garland:
LP

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

The Legislation referred to by the honourable member would appear to be the United Kingdom Companies Act 1980 which, I understand, received the Royal Assent on 1 May 1 980. The Bill was amended during its passage through the United Kingdom Parliament. It is understood that one of the purposes of the Bill was to give effect to the proposals put forward in the White Paper, the Conduct of Company Directors (Cmnd 7037) and to the Second European Economic Community Directive on Company Law (Directive 77/91 EEC). Copies of the Act, as assented, are not yet available from H.M. Stationery Office. When available the Act will be examined in the context of the draft Commonwealth Companies Bill 1980 and also for the purposes of any longer term reform of the Australian companies legislation.

Aid to Afghanistan (Question No. 5777)

Mr Willis:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 April 1980:

What (a) has been the value of Australian aid to Afghanistan in each year since 1 976-77 and (b) form has the aid taken.

Mr Peacock:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to my reply to Question No. 5361 which appeared in the House of Representatives Daily Hansard for 16 April 1980, page 1845.

Taxation Deductions for Mineral Exploration Expenditure (Question No. 5823)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 April 1980:

What taxation revenue was forgone as a result of special deductions for expenditure on exploration and development of mineral resources (excepting petroleum in (1) 1975-76, (2) 1976-77, (3) 1977-78 and (4) 1978-79.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

The income tax revenue forgone in the financial years 1975-76 to 1978-79 as a result of the special deductions for expenditure on exploration and development of mineral resources (excepting petroleum) under Division 10 of the Income Tax Assessment Act has been estimated as follows: 1975-76, $23m; 1976-77, $18m; 1977-78, $40m; 1978-79, $52m.

These amounts relate to the deduction of capital expenditure allowable under the special mining provisions, but not the ordinary provisions, of the income tax law. There was an additional, but unquantifiable, cost to revenue to the extent that certain deductions for expenditure on plant were allowed over shorter periods of time than would have been the case if the plant had been subject to depreciation at normal rates. As indicated in the parts of the statements attached to the Budget Speeches that relate to Industry Assistance through the Taxation System, concessions that accelerate tax allowances in this way, while conferring no greater total deduction over the life of plant than would otherwise be available, permit a deferment of tax which entails a cost to the Budget.

Foreign Policy Orientation (Question No. 5841)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 2 April 1 980:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to an article entitled Foreign Policy wrongly oriented’ contained in the January 1980 edition of Manufacturers’ Bulletin published by the Chamber of Manufacturers of New South Wales.
  2. Have other Government Ministers variously expressed the opinion that our economic recovery is export-oriented away from the West to South East Asia.
  3. If so, are Australian foreign policies disproportionately oriented towards western countries, particularly Europe and the United States of America.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. My attention has been drawn to the article entitled Foreign Policy wrongly oriented’ in the January 1980 edition of the Manufacturer’s Bulletin.
  2. Ministers, including myself, have noted that there will be increasing opportunities for Australian exports in South East Asian countries and have called on Australians to take full advantage of these opportunities. Without detracting from the importance of South East Asia the Government must also take account of the need to support exports to those countries which remain our major trading partners, as well as to explore new opportunities for export promotion. We should not neglect trading opportunities in any region, whether in Europe, the United States or South East Asia.
  3. It is not accurate to say that Australian foreign policy, and the resources of the Depanment of Foreign Affairs, are disproportionately oriented to Western countries, particularly Europe and the United States of America. Our foreign policy effort and the Government’s resources, are concentrated where Australia’s interests are most substantial. The substance of a relationship is gauged by the degree of political, economic, strategic, cultural, consular and social interests in it. The economic interests itself is not confined to trade, although in many of our relationships it is a major aspect.

Recent events in Iran and Afghanistan indicate the continuing importance of political and strategic considerations in our foreign relations and underline the need to maintain substantial representation in allied and like-minded countries.

Finally, South East Asia has been and remains an area at the centre of Australian foreign policy. The priority the Government attaches to South East Asia and the resources it devotes to consultation and co-operation with the countries of this region exceed the level which would be justified if exports were the sole determinant of foreign policy and the allocation of Australia’s overseas resources.

Cosmetics: Animal Ingredients (Question No. 5848)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 2 April 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Will he undertake an investigation of the cosmetics industry to determine the extent to which domestic cosmetic products and imports contain animal ingredients.
  2. Will he introduce legislation requiring cosmetic companies to include on their products ‘ labels precise details about the product’s composition and specifically whether animal ingredients have been used and whether animals were used in related research.
  3. Will he penalise those foreign companies producing cosmetic ranges which either include animal ingredients or use animals in their research and testing by applying an increased tariff on those products.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (3 ) My Department has already made inquiries in this area and has found that very few animals are used by

Australian cosmetic manufacturers either for test purposes or for cosmetic ingredients. This use of a small number of animals in the toxicity testing of cosmetics is considered to be essential in the interest of public health. My Department is not responsible for the legislative control of the importation of cosmetics beyond its quarantine responsibilities covering ingredients of animal origin and where the cosmetics would be classified as therapeutic substances due to therapeutic claims made. The allocation of tariffs to these products is the responsibility of my colleague the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs.

  1. I am not in a position to introduce legislation to control the labelling of cosmetics as this is primarily a State responsibility.

Sports Coaching (Question No. 5856)

Mr Cohen:

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 2 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) What sum has been spent on coaching as part of the Sports Assistance Program in each of the last five years.
  2. ) How is this money dispersed.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

  1. The following amounts have been allocated by the Government for coaching in the last five years:

1975-76-$90,092; 1976-77-564,935; 1977-78- $134,600; 1978-79-$277,349; 1979-80-$364,500.

  1. As Minister responsible for sport, I approve grants under the Sports Development Program on the basis of recommendations I receive from the Sports Advisory Council. Generally, grants are allocated only to National Sporting organisations. Coaching funds are allocated to selected national sporting associations for the employment of National Coaching Directors. In addition, funds are available to assist with the costs of visits of eminent coaches from overseas, the running of national coaching courses and seminars, the printing of publications and for other national coaching projects.

Butane Cigarette Lighters (Question No. 5858)

Dr Blewett:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 2 April 1980:

Is he aware of recent accidents, both in the United States of America and Australia, involving exploding butane cigarette lighters; if so (a) does the Government intend to cooperate in the investigations being carried out by the New South Wales Government into the safety of butane cigarette lighters and (b) does he consider that sufficient grounds exist for banning the sale of such lighters.

Mr Garland:
LP

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

I am aware of reports, both in the United States of America and Australia, of accidents which have allegedly involved exploding butane cigarette lighters.

These reports have been investigated by the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs and the Commonwealth/ State Consumer Products Advisory Committee (CSCPAC) which comprises Commonwealth, State and Territory consumer affairs officials. CSCPAC has received advice from NSW Government officials who have undertaken tests into the safety aspects of butane cigarette lighters. These tests have not indicated any product safety hazard for butane cigarette lighters except for some valve failures with one brand of lighter which has now been withdrawn from sale.

On the present evidence available, action to ban the supply of butane cigarette lighters would not appear to be justified. The Department of Business and Consumer Affairs will continue to investigate any complaints should they arise and if action to ban the supply of these goods appears necessary I will re-examine the matter.

Social Security Pensions and Benefits (Question No. 5859)

Dr Cass:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 2 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) How many persons who did not have the necessary residential qualifications were (a) successful and (b) unsuccessful in applying for (i) age pensions, (ii) widows pensions and (iii) invalid pensions special benefits in (A) 1977-78, (B) 1978-79 and (C) the period 1 July 1979 to 31 March 1980.
  2. What was the (a) country of citizenship and (b) country of birth of the recipients of benefits referred to in part (1)
  3. For each country, what sum was paid to persons granted special benefits in each of the categories in part ( 1 ).
  4. On average, how long did it take to (a) approve and (b) reject these applications.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) (a) A person who does not have the necessary residential qualifications for an age, invalid or widow’s pension is not entitled to such a pension.

    1. The number of claims for age, invalid and widow’s pensions refused because the claimant did not meet the residence requirements were as follows in the periods mentioned.

There are no statistics showing numbers of grants of special benefits over a time period by reason for grant. There are, however, some statistics showing numbers of special benefits being paid at a point in time by category of special benefit. The following shows numbers of special benefits being paid at 30 June 1978, 30 March 1979 and 31 December 1979 to persons in need but ineligible on residence grounds for age, invalid or widow ‘s pension.

(2), (3) and (4) Not available.

Insurance Companies (Question No. 5866)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 April 1980:

  1. Has neither (a) section 1 13 of the Insurance Act 1973, nor (b) the subsequent amendments to this section which were assented to on 1 8 May 1977 been proclaimed.
  2. If so, (a) has the non-proclamation of these provisions had an adverse effect on Australian insurance companies and (b) will he take steps immediately to have these provisions proclaimed.
  3. If he will not take steps to have these provisions proclaimed, will he give urgent consideration to modification of this section.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. None of the provisions of section 113 has yet been proclaimed. The section was amended in 1 977 as it was considered to be unduly restrictive, particularly in relation to reinsurance. In my press statement of 12 February 1979, I indicated that it was proposed to implement the provisions of the section in two stages- viz sub-section 113 (4) as soon as the necessary regulations were prepared, followed by subsections 1 13 ( 1 ) to (3). However, in the process of preparing regulations for purposes of sub-section 113(4), it became apparent that the provisions of that sub-section would require the collection of unnecessarily detailed information, would impose unreasonable burdens on those required to furnish that information, and could prove unworkable in practice. Urgent consideration is currently being given to resolving these problems.

  2. (a) As indicated in (1) above, both the original provisions of section 1 13 and the provisions as amended contain defects which would cause difficulties for the insurance industry. While I am aware that some sectors of the industry have sought early proclamation of these provisions, I am unable to provide any precise indication of the effects on the industry of non-proclamation of the provisions.

    1. It would not be appropriate to take steps to implement these provisions until sound and workable procedures have been developed.
  3. See (1) above.

Retail Motor Spirit Market (Question No. 5871)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 2 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Is his Department monitoring the penetration of 92 octane and 97 octane motor spirit into the retail motor spirit market.
  2. Is he able to indicate (a) what share of the motor spirit market is currently held by and (b) how many and what percentage of service stations currently sell (A) 89, (B) 92, (C) 97 and (D) 98 octane motor spirit.
Mr Garland:
LP

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

  1. and (2) No.

Nature Conservation (Question No. 5928)

Mr Cohen:

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 17 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Did payments to the States under the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act to assist States to acquire land of nature conservation significance for national park purposes amount to $195,246 out of $1,047,000 appropriated in 1977-78 and 1978-79.
  2. What land was purchased for these purposes in these periods.
  3. What land, committed for purchase, has not been acquired.
  4. Has a proposed expenditure of $404,000 been estimated for these purposes in 1980-81; if so, will this sum be sufficient to purchase land not yet acquired.
Mr Thomson:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1) In 1977-78 and 1978-79 the Commonwealth provided funds to the States totalling $ 1 95,242 out of a total appropriation of $1,047,000 primarily to assist in the acquisition of land for national park purposes.
  2. In 1977-78 and 1978-79, the Commonwealth provided financial assistance to the Government of Victoria to acquire land for the Yellingbo State Faunal Reserve, and has also assisted the Tasmanian Government to acquire land at Asbestos Range and Partridge Island. These funds were provided in accordance with prior specific agreement between the Commonwealth and the respective States.
  3. Negotiations are still underway regarding relatively small amounts of land at Yellingbo in Victoria and Asbestos Range in Tasmania.
  4. Sufficient funds will be made available to meet commitments that have been incurred in accordance with existing agreements.

Seminar on the Middle East (Question No. 5939)

Mr Lionel Bowen:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Did his Department suggest to the Australian Institute of International Affairs the names of persons whom the institute might invite to its recent seminar The Middle East in World Politics.
  2. ) Was he one of the speakers at the seminar.
  3. Were any names requested by the institute; if so, what was the precise nature of the request.
  4. Did his Department provide to the institute the name Mohammed Riad; if so was he described by the Department as Acting Secretary-General of the Arab League, or in any similar way.
  5. Did his Department provide to the institute the name of Shadli Ghelebi; if so, was he described by the Department as Secretary-General of the Arab League, or in any similar way.
  6. If the answer to either part (4) or (5) is in the negative, on what basis did his Department determine which of these 2 persons should be suggested to the institute.
  7. Does the Government recognise as the Arab League the body with head-quarters in (a) Cairo, Egypt, or (b) Tunis, Tunisia.
  8. Has his Department received representations from any country or countries concerning suggestions it made in respect of the seminar; if so, (a) what was the nature of these representations and (b) in what terms has the Department responded to them.
Mr Peacock:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s question are as follows:

  1. No. The Department of Foreign Affairs was approached by the Australian Institute of International Affairs (AIIA) to suggest people qualified by long experience in the Middle East and involvement with the Arab/Israeli dispute to deliver a paper as keynote speaker to the seminar. It was not approached to suggest who should or should not be invited to the seminar.
  2. Yes.
  3. 3 ) See answer to question 1 .
  4. Yes. The Institute was informed of the division which had developed between members of the Arab League, and Riad was described as the Acting Secretary-General of the Arab League (Cairo).
  5. Yes. Chadli Klibi was described as the SecretaryGeneral of the Arab League (Tunis) in the context of a description of the division between members of the League (see answer to previous question).
  6. Not applicable.
  7. The government regards the present split within the Arab League as a matter for the member states of the organisation and considers that it would be inappropriate for Australia to become involved.

  8. The Department received representations from the Heads of Mission of the Jordanian, Lebanese, Iraqi and Libyan Embassies in Canberra. The Australian Ambassador in Rome was also approached by the Sudanese Ambassador resident there.

    1. The Arab Heads of Mission and the Sudanese Ambassador in Rome suggested that the invitation to Riad to address the AIIA seminar was tantamount to official Australian recognition of claims to legitimacy of the Arab League (Cairo) over the claims of the Tunis based organisation.
    2. b ) The Department responded by pointing out that:
    3. the AIIA was a non-governmental body and that the invitation to Riad was therefore not official;
    1. Riad was in any case invited because of his long experience in Middle East diplomacy not because of the position he currently occupies; and
    2. as outlined in (7) Australia does not believe it would be appropriate for it to take any position on League affairs. The presence of Riad at the conference did not therefore have any implications as to the Australian Government’s attitude.

Myopia (Question No. 5990)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 22 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Canberra Timesof 28 March 1980, page5, concerning new research which suggests that myopia is related to concentrated use of the eyes for close work in youth.
  2. Is this consistent with theories that bifocal adjustment of myopia may help to retard the development of the disorder more than single lens prescriptions.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The true significance of the findings of the study mentioned in the article, especially relating to the value of bifocals in retarding the progression of myopia, is difficult to evaluate. Debate exists over the relative contributions of genetic and environmental factors in the cause of myopia, and circumstantial evidence is accumulating to suggest that environmental aspects may be of more importance than previously thought.

Although environmental factors are suspected, little is known about the possible mechanisms that could be involved in the aetiology of acquired myopia. It is therefore difficult to extrapolate the hypothesis to the role of bifocals. I agree however, that once the mechanism and role of environmental factors are established, this would provide valuable information on possible methods of treating myopia.

Afghanistan (Question No. 5997)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 23 April 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to claims, in a Soviet news bulletin issued on 18 April 1980, to the effect that (a) insurgents’ in Afghanistan (i) are trained abroad and (ii) have an abundance of modern weapons, including lethal gas grenades marked Made in U.S.A., (b) the America press published reports of rebels in Afghanistan using arms provided by the United States of America Central Intelligence Agency and (c) Soviet forces will withdraw when the Afghan Government no longer needs their help.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to a reported statement by a former Secretary-General of the United Nations that in war the first casualty is truth.
  3. Will he use Australia’s good offices with the United Kingdom and other non-involved powers with past experience of armed intervention in Afghanistan to press for (a) discussions among the disputants, (b) international conciliation and arbitration and (c) the replacement of Soviet forces with United Nations forces in Afghanistan.
  4. Will he demonstrate Australia’s consistency by pressing for similar action in relation to the Indonesian occupation of East Timor and West Irian.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) I am aware of the statements referred to by the honourable member.
  2. Australia is in close and regular contact with all countries which share our opposition to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Government has been active in seeking ways to defuse the crises caused by the presence of over 80,000 Soviet troops in Afghanistan. We attach particular importance to continued dialogue between the countries of the South Asian region and between the superpowers as a means of avoiding misunderstandings which could aggravate an already serious situation. Australia would welcome any peaceful solution involving the complete withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan.

We believe that the international community would wish to see Afghanistan as an independent, non-aligned country free from foreign military and political interference. A number of constructive suggestions have been made to help defuse the crisis by diplomatic means involving the withdrawal of Soviet forces and non-intervention in Afghanistan’s internal affairs. There are some common elements in these suggestions which could form the basis of an eventual political solution. We believe that there is presently scope for identifying a practical way forward.

  1. The Government does not see any parallel between East Timor and Irian Jaya and the situation which currently exists in Afghanistan.

War Widow’s Pension (Question No. 6010)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 29 April 1980:

Does the Repatriation Commission intend to appeal against a decision in March by Mr Justice Toohey of the Federal Court in favour of Mrs Nancy Law of Wembley, Western Australia, in the matter of her entitlement to a war widow’s pension: if so, what are the reasons for the proposed appeal.

Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

Yes, an appeal has been lodged because Mr Justice Toohey ‘s decision raises issues of law which require clarification by the Full Court of the Federal Court. The matter was heard in Penh on 7, 8 and 9 May 1980. The Court reserved its decision.

Duty Free Purchases (Question No. 6048)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 29 April 1980:

Is his Department considering allowing duty free purchases by inward bound passengers at Sydney and Melbourne international airports; if so:

a ) what are the benefits of the proposal, and

would the provision of this same facility to inward bound travellers arriving at Brisbane and Townsville international airports be considered.

Mr Garland:
LP

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

  1. The Bureau of Transport Economics’ report on inwards duty free shopping at international terminals in Australia is under consideration by an Interdepartmental Committee. No decision has yet been taken by the Government. The benefits claimed include overall economic advantage to Australia, safety aspects in that less loose articles would be carried in the aircraft and fuel savings because passengers would be carrying marginally less luggage. However, there is a large number of issues to be resolved.
  2. Any decision taken by the Government would apply to all international airports in Australia, provided private enterprise is prepared to operate the facility in the particular airport.

Interest on Overseas Loans (Question No. 6052)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 29 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) What approximate percentage of (a) tax revenue and (b) Gross Domestic Product is required by the Federal Government to pay the interest on overseas loans.
  2. What was the percentage for each of the last S years.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Interest liability paid by the Commonwealth on its overseas borrowings (excluding interest paid by the Commonwealth and reimbursed to the Commonwealth in respect of borrowings undertaken by it for onlending to Qantas, TAA, Australian Shipping Commission and the Australian Industry Development Corporation) as a percentage of total taxation revenue and of Gross Domestic Product for the past 5 financial years is as follows:

War Pensions (Question No. 6067)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs, upon notice, on 30 April 1 980:

Will the Government reduce the proportion of war pensions, including (a) the general rate, (b) the special rate and (c) family allowances, included as income for determining means-tested pension entitlements, with a view to eliminating this proportion within the life of one Parliament.

Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

The income test for Repatriation service pensions in the Repatriation Act already provides that 50 per cent of any disability pension, including those received under the General Rate and Special Rate of Repatriation pensions, payable to a veteran and his wife is regarded as income for the purpose of assessing the amount of service pension payable.

The income test provisions are considered from time to time in the Budget context.

Disposable Gas Lighters (Question No. 6115)

Mr Goodluck:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 14 May 1980:

Has his Department been asked to investigate reports that disposable gas lighters are dangerous, especially when used for lighting gas cylinders; if so, is there any substance in the reports.

Mr Garland:
LP

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

The Depanment of Business and Consumer Affairs has been asked to investigate reports that disposable gas lighters may pose a safety hazard. These reports have not, however, referred to the use of disposable gas lighters for lighting gas cylinders.

These reports have been investigated by the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs and the Commonwealth /State Consumer Products Advisory Committee (CSCPAC) which comprises Commonwealth, State and Territory consumer affairs officials. CSCPAC has received advice from New South Wales Government officials who have undertaken tests into the safety aspects of butane cigarette lighters. These tests have not indicated any product safety hazard for butane cigarette lighters except for some valve failures with one brand of lighter which has now been withdrawn from sale.

On the present evidence available, action to ban the supply of butane cigarette lighters would not appear to be justified. The Department of Business and Consumer Affairs will continue to investigate any complaints should they arise and if action to ban the supply of these goods appears necessary I will re-examine the matter.

Building Agreements (Question No. 6130)

Mr EWEN CAMERON:
INDI, VICTORIA · LP

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 15 May 1980:

  1. 1 ) Further to the answer to question No. 4775 (Hansard, 21 February 1980, page 313) concerning building agreements of the Master Builders Association (MBA), will he consider instructing the Trade Practice Commission to have the statement referred to in the answer to part ( 1 ) of that question included on the cover of all the Association ‘s building agreements that contain an inference of the Scott v. Avery arbitration clause.
  2. Has his attention been drawn to apparent weaknesses in the provisions of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection 68 ( 1 ) and sub-section 68 (2) of the Trade Practices Act in relation to the Scott v. Avery arbitration clause in the Association ‘s building agreements.
Mr Garland:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Trade Practices Commission may require the variation of agreements, or the inclusion of statements in agreements, where it considers it is necessary so to do as a condition of granting authorisation pursuant to Part VII of the Act. The Trade Practices Commission is an independent statutory body and I have no power to give it instructions in the exercise of its function under Part VII of the Act.
  2. The question of whether any weakness exists in section 68 of the Trade Practices Act is a matter involving the interpretation of the law. I am not aware of any case in which a Court has held that the operation of section 68 is affected by contractural arbitration clauses.

McDonalds Fast Food Co. (Question No. 6160)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 20 May 1980:

Is it a fact that the Multinational Corporation McDonalds Fast Food Co. has not only exploited Australian workers but has sold franchises to Australians at a figure so inflated that several have been forced into resale to McDonalds at a loss and that many other franchise holders are losing heavily.

Mr Garland:
LP

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

I have no information about the terms and conditions between McDonald ‘s Fast Food Company and its franchisees.

I have referred the contents of your question to the Trade Practices Commission.

Minister for Foreign Affairs: Overseas Visits (Question No. 4200)

Mr Morris:

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

  1. What was the purpose of his visit to (a) the United States of America, Europe and Singapore in January 1979, (b) Indonesia from 19 to 22 March 1979 and (c) China and Europe in June 1979.
  2. What was the name, classification and salary of each person who accompanied him.
  3. What was the (a) cost of travel, (b) cost of accommodation, (c) other expenditure and (d) total costs incurred in respect of himself and each person who travelled with him.
  4. Which airlines and/or other means of transport were utilised during each stage of each journey.
  5. In the course of his duties (a) what places were visited and (b) with whom were consultations held.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by Senator Carrick to a question without notice asked by Senator Keeffe on 20 February 1980. (Senate Hansard of 2. April 1980, pages 1703-12 refers.)

Minister for Housing and Construction: Overseas Visit (Question No. 4208)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 6 June 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What was the purpose of his visit to the Philippines from 6 to 13 March 1979.
  2. What was the name, classification and salary of each person who accompanied him.
  3. What was the (a) cost of travel, (b) cost of accommodation, (c) other expenditure and (d) total costs incurred in respect of himself and each person who travelled with him.
  4. Which airlines and/or other means of transport were utilised during each stage of the journey.
  5. In the course of his duties (a) what places were visited and (b) with whom were consultations held.
Mr Groom:
LP

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

  1. To attend the 35th Session of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
  2. Mr L. G. Pincott, Senior Private Secretary, $20,59 1.
  3. to (5) I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by Senator Carrick to a question without notice asked by Senator Keeffe on 20 February 1980. (See Senate Hansard, 23 April 1980, pages 1703-9.)

International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation Conference (Question No. 5307)

Mr Holding:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 19 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Who are the Australian representatives to the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation Conference (INFCE), to which Commonwealth Departments and authorities are they attached and what are their designations and salaries.
  2. How many meetings have they attended, where were those meetings and what was their duration.
  3. What was the cost of Australia’s participation, by Department, to 5 December 1979.
  4. Has his attention been drawn to reports which appeared on or about 5 December 1979 regarding conference predictions that hundreds of nuclear power plants would be built in the next 20 years.
  5. Has his attention also been drawn to critiques of those conference predictions which claim that those predictions are based on 1977 statistics.
  6. If so, do those critiques have any foundation in fact.
  7. Did the Conference carry out any detailed evaluation of the Three Mile Island reactor accident in March 1 979, and other subsequently reported accidents and losses at nuclear power and uranium enrichment plants in the United States of America.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. Over the full period of the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation (INFCE) from October 1977 to February 1 980, the following officers represented Australia for varying periods at one or more of the meetings of the Plenary Conference, the Technical Co-ordinating Committee and the eight Working Groups which are listed in the answer to (2) below.
  1. The following INFCE meetings were attended by Australian representatives:

Organising Conference, 19-21 October 1977- Washington

Working Group 8, 15-16 November 1977-Washington

Working Group 7, 22-23 November 1977-Vienna

Working Group 4, 6-7 December 1977-London

Technical Co-ordinating Committee, 12-13 December 1977- Vienna

Sub-groups A and B of Working Group 4, 23-27 January 1978- Vienna

Working Group 1,26-27 January 1978-Vienna

Working Group 3, 30 January-3 February 1978-Vienna

Working Group 8, 30-3 1 January 1 978-Vienna

Working Group 7, 15-17 February 1978-Vienna

Sub-group B of Working Group 2, 23-24 February 1978-Vienna

Working Group 6, 8-9 March 1978-Vienna

Sub-groups A and B of Working Group 7, 20-23 March 1978-Vienna

Sub-groups A and B of Working Group 4, 30 March-3 April 1978-Vienna

Sub-groups C and D of Working Group 5, 6-7 April 1978-Vienna

Working Group 3, 24-28 April 1978-Vienna

Working Group 7 and Sub-groups A and B, 8-11 May 1978-Vienna

Working Group 4 and Sub-groups A and B, 15-19 May 1978-Tokyo

Working Group 1 and Sub-group A of Working Groups 1 and 2, 31 May-2 June 1978-Vienna

Working Group 6 Task Groups, 5-9 June 1978-Vienna

Technical Co-ordinating Committee, 12-14 June 1978-Vienna

Sub-group A of Working Groups 1 and 2, 10 July 1978-London

Working Group 7, 1 1-12 July 1978-Helsinki

Working Group 3, 24-28 July 1978-Vienna

Working Group 8,11-13 September 1 978-Vienna

Sub-group B of Working Group 2, 14-15 September 1978-Vienna

Sub-groups A and B of Working Group 4, 18-21 September 1978-Vienna

Working Group 7, 9-12 October 1978-Braunschweig, West Germany

Working Group 6, 9-13 October 1978-Vienna

Working Group 2 and Sub-group A of Working Groups 1 and 2, 16-19October 1978-Vienna

Working Group 1 and Sub-groups B, C and D, 16-19 October 1978-Vienna

Technical Co-ordinating Committee, 23-25 October 1978-Vienna

Working Group 3, 30 October-3 November 1978- Vienna

First Plenary Conference, 27-29 November 1 978- Vienna

Sub-groups A and B of Working Group 4, 29 November- 1 December 1978-Vienna

Working Group 3, 29 November-5 December 1978- Vienna

Working Group 8, 6 December 1978-Vienna

Working Group 3, 22 January-2 February 1979-Vienna

Working Group 7, 23-25 January 1979- Cadarache, France

Working Group 4 and Sub-groups A and B, 24 January- 1 February 1979- San Francisco

Working Group 1 and Sub-groups A, B, C and D, 6-9 February 1 979-Vienna

Working Group 2 and Sub-group B, 8-13 February 1979- Vienna

Working Group 8, 12-15 February 1979-Vienna

Technical Co-ordinating Committee, 27-28 February 1979-Vienna

Working Group 6, 12-16 March 1979-Vienna

Sub-groups A and B of Working Group 4, 2-6 April 1979-Vienna

Working Group 7, 3-5 April 1979-Vienna

Working Group 3, 18-27 April 1979-Vienna

Working Group 1, 2-4 May 1979-Vienna

Sub-group B of Working Group 2, 10-11 May 1979-Vienna

Working Group 4 and Sub-groups A and B, 14-18 May 1979-Vienna

Working Group 8, 15-17 May 1979-Vienna

Working Group 6,21-25 May 1979-Madrid

Working Group 7, 2 1 -25 May 1 979-Vienna

Working Group 2, 28-29 May 1979-Vienna

Working Group 3,28 May- 1 June 1 979-Vienna

Technical Co-ordinating Committee, 23-25 July 1979-Vienna

Working Group 1 and Sub-groups A and B, 26-27 July 1979- Vienna

Working Group 6, 3-7 September 1979-Cadarache, France

Working Group 2, 12-13 September 1979-Vienna

Working Group 1, 13-14 September 1979-Vienna

Working Group 4, 1-4 October 1979-Vienna

Technical Co-ordinating Committee, 12-16 November 1979, 7-1 1 January 1980, 22-23 February 1980- Vienna

Final Plenary Conference, 25-27 February 1980- Vienna

  1. Up until 30 June 1978 Departments met costs individually. After that date, the direct costs of all INFCE representation were met by the Depanment of Foreign Affairs. The figures set out below represent the best possible estimate of costs up until 5 December 1979 given that some expenditure was incurred for travel for purposes in addition to attendance at INFCE meetings.
  1. and (5) Yes.
  2. INFCE recognised that longer-term nuclear capacities could not be forecast with a high degree of accuracy. World energy demands and the mix of fuels to meet this demand would depend on a large number of factors, including population growth, economic growth, technological developments in supply and utilisation of fuels, availability of resources and national and international policies.

INFCE did not attempt to predict the most probable nuclear energy capacity at any future date. Instead, it developed a high and a low case in order to illustrate a wide range of possible installed nuclear capacities over time to serve as a basis for projecting requirements for nuclear fuel, heavy water and nuclear fuel cycle services between now and the year 2025. It was recognised that these projections were not limiting bounds, but representative projections and that higher and lower capacities were possible, depending on future developments and decisions.

Future requirements for nuclear fuel, heavy water and fuel cycle services would also depend in part on the types of reactors operated over the longer term and the fuel cycle options adopted by different countries.

  1. 7 ) No. It was not within the terms of reference of INFCE to evaluate the environmental, health or safety aspects of nuclear power programs or the management and operation of specific national nuclear facilities.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park: Japanese Fishermen (Question No. 5347)

Mr Cohen:

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 19 February 1980:

  1. 1) Is it a fact that under the Fisheries Agreement, signed between Australia and Japan on 17 October 1979, Japanese longline fishermen are allowed to fish within the boundaries of the Capricornia section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
  2. Have Japanese longline fishermen fished within the boundaries of the Capricornia section of the Marine Park since 2 1 October 1979; if so, what fish have been caught, and how large was the catch.
  3. Was the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority consulted in respect of the areas of the Great Barrier Reef region which Japanese longliners would be permitted to fish.
  4. Was the Park Authority consulted over whether the Japanese fishermen would have access to fish within the Capricornia section of the Marine Park.
Mr Thomson:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The Subsidiary Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan concerning Japanese tuna longline fishing provides for the exclusion of Japanese longliners from all of the Capricornia Section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, apart from an area eastward of the 200 metre line. It is estimated that the area eastward of the 200 metre line covers about 15 per cent of the Capricornia Section. The matter of excluding the Japanese fishing vessels from the remainder of Capricornia Section after the expiry of the current agreement on 3 1 October 1 980 is under consideration.
  2. There have been no reports of sightings or of catches by Japanese longliners in this small area of the Capricornia Section since the Subsidiary Agreement came into force on 1 November 1979.
  3. and (4) No, but the Japanese have been advised that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is seeking exclusion of the longliners from the remaining portion of the Capricornia Section. They have been put on notice that the matter will, subject to Government consideration, be raised during the renegotiation of the agreement to operate from 1 November 1980.

Teacher Training (Question No. 5389)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 20 February 1 980:

What forecasts have been made of-

graduating teachers during each of the next five years.

the net number of jobs which will be available to graduate teachers, and

the average cost of training a graduate teacher for the ful period of their training.

Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. Since 1975 there has been a steady reduction in the number of students entering primary and secondary preservice teacher education courses. As a result the number of students graduating fell in 1979, and further substantial falls are projected. In accordance with the Government’s Guidelines, the Tertiary Education Commission has been monitoring trends in the supply and demand for teachers and last year began detailed discussions with State authorities and institutions to determine levels of intake into teacher training courses for the 1 982-84 triennium. As part of this consultative process, the Commission has prepared a working paper which seeks to arrive at a level of new graduates which will achieve a reasonably balance between supply and demand. The working paper’s estimates are for Australia as a whole and the trends and implications identified will differ in impact from State to State; the paper was circulated to State authorities for discussion and comment in October 1979. The Commission’s estimates from this working paper for the number of pre-service primary and secondary teacher graduates for the next five years are as follows:

The Commission proposes to revise these estimates when discussions with State authorities have been completed.

  1. As pan of the working paper’s assessment of teacher supply and demand in the 1980s, the Commission has made an estimate of possible demand levels for additional teachers based on assumptions of future school enrolment levels, pupil teacher ratios and wastage rates for employed teachers. These estimates suggest that the demand for additional teachers over the next five years will be about 13,000 per annum. This would represent the maximum number of jobs available to new graduate teachers; while in practice most of these positions will be filled by new graduates, it is the responsibility of employers to decide whether to employ a new graduate or an experienced teacher seeking to re-enter the workforce.
  2. For students wishing to become teachers there are two types of courses available. Most secondary teachers undertake a four year course of study which includes the equivalent of one year’s specific teacher training; the remainder of the course is equivalent to the normal arts/ science/economics programs undertaken by other students. For primary teachers, the typical course is of three years in length and while a significant component of the course is not specifically related to teaching, the training is more related to the teaching function and is spread through the full length of the course. In the case of secondary teachers the general education component is not regarded as a direct cost of training a teacher since a non-teaching qualification is normally obtained upon completion of the first three years of the four year program; in the primary case, it is more reasonable to regard the total cost as being incurred in teacher training. Given this, the Commission has estimated that the average cost of training a teacher education graduate for the full period of training is approximately $13,000 at December 1979 cost levels. However, if account is taken of the teacher training component alone, the average cost per student is approximately $8,000.

Industry Policy (Question No. 5496)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 26 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to comments by the retiring president of the Australian Industries Development Association, Mr A. W. Hamer, that Australia’s capacity to become a modern, thrusting and internationally competitive industrial nation is being seriously retarded because of the inability of governments to lift themselves above short-term and ad-hoc reactions to current crises.
  2. Did the Vernon Committee, the Jackson Committee and the Crawford study group all urge the development of long-term industrial policy; if so, what are the Government’s intentions in relation to this matter.
Mr Lynch:
Minister for Industry and Commerce · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

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

The comments to which the honourable member refers were made by Mr Hamer when presenting the 1978-79 Australian Industries Development Association Annual Report, and were directed equally at governments of both parties.

Our record since returning to office, however, speaks for itself.

On the broad front we adopted an overall economic strategy designed to re-establish the conditions for sustainable economic growth. By bearing down relentlessly on inflation through firm, but responsible, monetary and fiscal policies we have returned to a stable economic environment in which industry can take advantage of its development potential.

We also moved quickly to provide a considered statement of policy for manufacturing industry. The White Paper, published in May 1977, made clear our commitment to the role and future of manufacturing industry and drew specific attention to the changing environment facing Australian manufacturers. We stressed in particular the significance of policies to facilitate the development of a manufacturing sector which was more export-oriented, innovative, specialised and less dependent on Government support.

The White Paper, of course, does not represent an exhaustive statement of our approach to the long term development of Australian industry. It does, however, provide a framework against which ongoing policy development can take place.

In a period that has been characterised by the need to maintain the maximum possible restraint on Government expenditure, we have taken a number of initiatives designed to stimulate industry development and give effect to our policy objectives.

Immediately after our return to office for example we reintroduced the investment allowance; we have since extended its application for a further two years. This measure alone is estimated to cost $330m in 1 979-80.

In 1978 we introduced the Export Expansion Grants scheme, improved the Export Market Development Grants scheme and upgraded a number of the services available to Australian exporters. We have also improved and broadened the scope of industrial research and development incentives

As a consequence of these and other important initiatives, budgetary assistance provided manufacturing industry has move than doubled in real terms since 1975-76. In particular manufacturing was a major beneficiary of the 1979-80 Budget with direct assistance more than doubling to $3 1 8m and various tax incentives costing an estimated $267m.

In addition to budgetary measures, we have also taken the following initiatives: amended the IAC Act in relation to guidelines, report rules and temporary assistance procedures implemented sectoral policies in relation to certain important industries modified the foreign investment guidelines in recognition of our need for foreign capital whilst at the same time ensuring Australian participation in ownership and control initiated a new program of studies of mineral and other resources processing projects strengthened the approach to granting preference to Australian firms in Government purchasing

Coupled with responsible general economic policies which have resulted in our rate of inflation falling to below the OECD average, these initiatives have markedly improved the international competitiveness of Australian manufacturing industry.

There is general agreement that manufacturing industry is in better shape now than it has been for many years and this is reflected in a number of indicators: exports of manufactures have increased strongly, with their value in the nine months to March 1980 running almost 40 per cent above that of a year earlier output as measured by the ANZ Bank index of factory production, rose strongly in 1979 and in the three months to February 1980 was nearly 6 per cent above that of a year earlier capital expenditure by private manufacturing enterprises has continued to increase

Moreover, there are sound prospects for continued expansion of the manufacturing sector in 1980. Recent surveys, both Government and private, indicate that new capital expenditure and exports by manufacturers are likely to continue at the current stronger level.

It is important that the gains made are consolidated and that the prospects identified are realised. Our industry policies will therefore have an increasingly important part to play in the future.

The Government also acknowledges that movement toward our long-term industry policy objective will involve the achievement of a less complicated tariff structure based on gradual progress towards lower and more stable tariff levels.

However, the ability of the economy and the community to absorb change will continue to be an important factor in the Government’s consideration of the extent and timing of any tariff reductions.

In this context we will continue, if necessary, to take special measures, of a recognised temporary nature, to support employment and ensure that movement towards our long term goals is not accompanied by economic and social disruption.

As was pointed out by the Crawford Study Group on Structural Adjustment, there are some industries which can face adjustment problems of a particularly severe nature. Accordingly the Report of the Group endorsed the Government’s approach, which recognises there can be a need for policies for particular sectors of industry.

In developing our industry policy framework account was taken of several significant contributions to the subject of industry policy, in particular the Report of the Jackson Committee. With regard to the Crawford Study Group’s Report, the basic objectives of its proposals are consistent with the Government’s policies for manufacturing industry.

For its part, industry in general has responded positively to the more stable economic environment we have been able to provide.

Public Service: Second Division Classifications (Question No. 5567)

Mr Lionel Bowen:

asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 5 March 1980:

  1. In which departments and statutory bodies are the officers immediately junior to the permanent heads or statutory office-holders with the status of permanent heads, such as Deputy Secretaries and their equivalents classified as 2nd division (a) level 6, (b) level 5, (c) level 4, (d) level 3, (e) level 2 and (0 level 1 officers.
  2. In which departments and statutory bodies are the heads of divisions and their equivalents classified as 2nd division (a) level 6, (b) level 5, (c) level 4, (d) level 3, (e) level 2 and (f) level 1 officers.
  3. What criteria does the Public Service Board use to classify and re-classify these positions.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

The Public Service Board has advised that:

  1. and (2) The information requested is shown in the table below-current as at 1 April 1980. It covers Public Service Act departments, and authorities whose heads have permanent head powers under the Public Service Act.
  2. Classification decisions regarding Second Division positions in the Australian Public Service involve judgements based on comparisons with positions which are similar in function and responsibility and comparisons with the general pattern of Second Division classifications. Factors taken into account by the Public Service Board in classifying Second Division positions in particular include: policy development and advisory role policy co-ordination and administrative role complexity and diversity of functions size of the management task.

In reclassifying positions, the Board adheres strictly to the National Wage Case guidelines. In the particular case of proposals for ‘upwards’ reclassifications, the Board looks for evidence of a ‘significant net addition to work requirements’.

Housing Industry (Question No. 5616)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 6 March 1980:

  1. Is industrial capacity within the housing industry decreasing; if so (a) why and (b) what effect is this having on the number of apprenticeships being offered in the industry.
  2. Is the Government taking any steps to increase industrial capacity within the industry.
  3. What were the figures for (a) completions and (b) commencements of dwelling units for 1 978-79.
  4. What was the shortfall between (a) demand and (b) completions in 1978-79.
  5. What is the estimated shortfall between (a) demands and (b) completions for (a) 1979-80 and (b) 1980-81.
  6. Is it estimated that there will be a shortage of skilled tradesmen in the housing construction industry over the next 10 years; if so, what is the estimated shortage.
  7. How many skilled workers expressed in (a) actual terms and (b) as a percentage of employees in the industry left the housing construction industry in 1 978-79.
  8. How many apprentices have commenced their apprenticeships in the housing construction industry in 1980 to date.
Mr Groom:
LP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (6) The capacity of the housing industry has been decreasing in recent years. Such a movement, however, was inevitable following the growth in capacity that accompanied the period of over-building in the mid 1970s.

The future capacity of the industry depends partly on the supply of labour and thus the number of apprentices taken on. While some skills may be in short supply in particular regions from time to time, there is not likely to be a general shortage of skilled tradesmen in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, the Government is concerned to ensure conditions under which an adequate supply of skilled manpower can be maintained.

The introduction of the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-Time Training (CRAFT) scheme will help to increase the future supply of skilled workers. (3), (4) and (S) In 1978-79 total dwelling completions and commencements were respectively 117,134 and 119,103. It has been estimated that dwelling completions will be in the region of 125,000 in 1979-80, rising to approximately 1 30,000 in 1 980-8 1 .

  1. 7 ) Data on skilled workers who have left the housing construction industry are not available.
  2. The number of apprentices taken on in the construction industry (includes housing and non-residential sectors) in the first two months of 1 980 totalled 2,052.

Private Dwelling Constructions (Question No. 5618)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 6 March 1980:

  1. How many private dwelling constructions were commenced in the government sector in (a) 1975-76, (b) 1976-77, (c) 1977-78 and (d) 1978-79.
  2. What is the estimated number of private dwelling constructions to be commenced in 1979-80.
  3. What was the percentage increase in the cost of (a) building and (b) buying a house in the local government areas in New South Wales of (i) Sydney, (ii) Leichhardt, (iii) Marrickville and (iv) South Sydney in the period from 1975 to 1979.
Mr Groom:
LP

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

  1. The numbers of private and government commencements for the year requested are as follows:
  1. The Indicative Planning Council has estimated that private dwelling commencements in 1979-80 should total approximately 120,000.

  2. (a) It is not possible to provide a reliable estimate of changes in the cost of building a house in the local government areas identified. While the Australian Bureau of Statistics does collect data on the value of dwellings completed in local government areas, these data are not adjusted ibr quality, size or location within the LGA. Consequently, when there are relatively small numbers of houses or groups of units being produced, changes in average dwelling completion values do not provide a reliable guide to changes in underlying costs.

    1. The following table shows the annual percentage increase in the average price of all houses sold in each area in the years 1976-77 to 1978-79. Similar data for ‘other’ dwellings are not available. Again, these data should be used with caution as there is no adjustment for quality, size or location of the dwelling.
  1. Sales data on the purchase price of houses in the areas requested are not available prior to the December quarter 1975. For 1976-77, the percentage increase is based on the last three quarters of 1 975-76.

Medical Services for Standard Ward Hospital Patients (Question No. 5684)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 March 1980:

  1. Does the common fee for medical services as updated by Mr Justice Ludeke continue to include a loading to compensate medical practitioners for free of charge treatment of public hospital patients prior to 1 975.
  2. Have medical practitioners, since the 1975 Commonwealth/State hospital agreements, been entitled to (a) sessional fees or (b) modified fees-for-service for all work performed on standard ward public hospital patients.
  3. What was the estimated cost, for the last year for which figures are available, of providing medical services by visiting private medical practitioners for standard ward hospital patients for (a) each State, (b) the Australian Capital Territory and (c) the Northern Territory.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The common fee for medical services did not include a specific loading to compensate medical practitioners for free of charge treatment of public hospital patients prior to 1975. The concept of ‘the most common fees currently being charged in each State for all the medical services and procedures provided by medical practitioners’ was proposed by the Committee of Enquiry into Health Insurance (the Nimmo Committee)- see paragraph 4.51 of the Report (March 1969). The most common fees advised by the Australian Medical Association (AMA) to the Government in January 1970 were determined in accordance with a complex set of rules from data on fees commonly charged, but mainly they represented the major modal fee. The new medical benefits introduced from 1 July 1970 were based on these most common fees, which became known as Medical Benefits Schedule fees.

The Nimmo Committee considered the matter of some doctors providing services without charge or at concessional rates. 4.68. The total volume of services provided without charge or at concessional rates is substantial and is one of the factors responsible for the continued wide gap between doctors’ charges to insured patients and benefit entitlements. The medical profession is pursuing the ‘Robin Hood’ principle which applied before governments became involved. Its application is much less justified now and we consider that future policy should be directed to its gradual elimination by the payment to the profession of fair and reasonable remuneration for these services. 4.69. We emphasise that it is in relation to ‘future policy’ that we express this view. Honorary services in public hospitals are given under arrangements existing between the State hospital authorities and the medical profession. Any alteration to these arrangements could only be made by agreement between the hospital authorities and the doctors. In any case it would clearly be wrong for payment to commence immediately for all these services as doctors have taken them into account in setting their current fees. But in relation to the question of fee adjustments, it seems to the Committee that the whole honorary and concessional fee structure should be examined as part of each review. For example, if the authorities were to agree that doctors should have the right to charge fees to insured patients in public wards of public hospitals, this right might be equal to or of greater value to the profession than a general 5 per cent increase in fees. Likewise, a 10 per cent increase in pensioner medical service consulting fees might be of similar value to a 2 per cent increase in general practitioner consulting fees to insured patients. The honorary and concessional elements in these services are at present distorting the fee structure and future policy should, as we have said, be directed towards their gradual elimination. 4.70. Before measures to this end could be considered it would be necessary to collect and assess a great deal of factual material not at present readily available. It would also be necessary for the Commonwealth and the State Governments to enter into detailed negotiations with the medical profession regarding all the implications of any new policies.

We consider that the National Health Insurance Commission should undertake the assembly of the necessary factual material. When the relevant information is available the Commonwealth and State Governments should be able to determine the extent to which they are prepared to eliminate, at any particular time, the honorary and concessional elements in medical services provided. To the extent that this can be done the need for upward adjustments in the established common fees for services to the public will be reduced.’

With the reduction of honorary and concessional services following the introduction of Medibank in 1975, the Government submitted to the Second Private Enquiry on Medical Fees for Medical Benefit Purposes 1975 that whatever percentage increase in Schedule fees was determined by the Enquiry, it should be reduced by five percentage points in view of the increase in income following the payment for services previously rendered free or at concessional rates. At page 12 of the Determination of that Enquiry, it was stated that- the financial benefits under discussion will affect doctors quite differently, depending on the nature of their practice so that the imposition of ‘an across the board ‘ reduction to the percentage increase would, to a certain extent, redistribute income within the profession. Such an adjustment would be clearly inequitable. ‘

It could well be that some medical practitioners will not benefit financially from any of the effects of Medibank, and it would be unjust for these people to be penalised in such a way. Accordingly, I have made no allowance for this matter in my Determination. ‘

In 1976, following discussions with the Government, the AMA proposed that the increase it was making to its list of medical services and fees of 7.5 per cent overall, from 1 January 1977, should be applied to Medical Benefits Schedule fees, even though an increase of 14 per cent was indicated by the AMA’s Medical Fees Index to cover increases in wages and other practice costs, and to maintain net income in real terms. The Government implemented the increase in Schedule fees from 1 January 1977.

  1. Yes.
  2. Payments made to Visiting Medical Officers for services to ‘hospital’ patients in recognised hospitals during 1978-79 are listed below. These payments include sessional and contract (modified fee for service) arrangements.

Overseas Excursion Air Fares (Question No. 5692)

Mr Jull:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 25 March 1 980:

  1. Are excursion air fares available between Australia and (a) Cairo, Egypt and (b)Tel Aviv, Israel?
  2. If so (a) what is the fare, (b) when was the fare agreed upon and (c) does Qantas operate direct services to either of these destinations?
  3. If Qantas does not operate direct services to these destinations, why are excursion fares to them available?
  4. Are excursion fares not available to other destinations of potentially greater tourist benefit to Australia?
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Excursion fares are available from points in Australia to Cairo and Tel Aviv.

  2. (a) From Sydney to Cairo round trip $1,353 low season, $1,461 high season; from Sydney to Tel Aviv round trip $1,339 low season, $1,447 high season. Specified fares are also available from Brisbane, Darwin, Melbourne, Perth to Cairo and Tel Aviv.

    1. Excursion fares were agreed 5 January 1975.
    2. Qantas does not operate direct services to Cairo or Tel Aviv.
  3. In establishing an excursion fare between two points it is not a prerequisite that Qantas offer a service on the route. Numerous excursion type fares are available from Australia to overseas destinations not served by Qantas in order to provide international travellers wishing to travel to these points with option of the cheapest possible fare for the journey. In addition, it should be noted that it is not a condition of the excursion fare type that a direct on line service be available, as it is with the advance purchase fares. Passengers holding excursion fare tickets may transfer en route between Australia and Cairo or Tel Aviv. For members information, there is, however, a direct service offered between Australia and Tel Aviv by Alitalia.
  4. Could the honourable member clarify this aspect of his question by specifying destinations of greater potential tourist benefit to which excursion fares are not available. In order to permit the broadest possible spectrum of international travel into and out of Australia, the vast majority of our approved excursion fares are combinable with any other fare offered by a licensed airline resulting in excursion and other fare combinations to a very large number of off-line points.

Overseas Excursion Air Fares (Question No. 5694)

Mr Jull:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 25 March 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that if Qantas does not operate directly to an overseas country there is no requirement for a direct excursion air fare to that country?
  2. If this is not the case, is he prepared to negotiate excursion fares to countries not served directly by Qantas?
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. No.
  2. It is not a prerequisite for Qantas to operate on a route to enable the introduction of an excursion fare on that route. For example, Qantas does not operate services to Tahiti or Johannesberg but excursion fares are currently available. It is a matter for a licensed carrier, after assessment of the market potential of a route to seek government approval to introduce an excursion fare. Such applications would then be a matter for bilateral negotiation.

Student Statistics (Question No. 5696)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 25 March 1 980:

  1. How many students in the Electoral Divisions of (a) Lalor and (b) Kooyong (i) attended Form I (or its equivalent) and (ii) attended Form VI (or its equivalent) and (iii) completed the Higher School Certificate or its equivalent in the last year for which statistics are available.
  2. How many students in the Electoral Divisions of (a) Lalor and (b) Kooyong (i) commenced courses and (ii) completed courses or gained degrees or diplomas in the last year for which figures are available at (A) universities, (B) colleges of advanced education (including constituents of the Victoria Institute of Colleges or the State College of Victoria ) and (C) technical and further education institutions.
  3. In respect of each Division, is he able to state how many persons are aged between (a) 12-18 years and (b) 18-24 years.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

Information requested by the honourable member is not held and the question cannot be answered without extensive deployment of staff resources. I do not consider that the request justifies the diversion of such resources from other essential duties.

In respect to question (1) and (2) I suggest that the honourable member may wish to arrange for an approach to be made to State education authorities and institutions to ascertain whether the information sought can be provided from those sources.

Tourist Industry (Question No. 5775)

Mr Jull:

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 3 1 March 1980:

What incentives are available for expansion of the tourist industry (a) domestically and (b) by the promotion of Austrafia overseas as a tourist destination?

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. The Government, in the 1979-80 Budget: announced a Vh per cent depreciation allowance for new income-producing buildings, or for the renovation or extension of existing buildings, used for the accommodation of travellers and consisting of at least 10 guest rooms; increased the proportion of after-tax trading profit which a private company may retain free of undistributed profits tax from 60 per cent to 70 per cent; provided $200,000 to the Australian Tourist Commission as part of a $500,000 two-year domestic tourism promotion campaign to encourage Australians to travel more extensively within Australia and to make use of tourist facilities in off-peak seasons; provided $ 1 30,000 to the Bureau of Industry Economics to continue their research into the economic significance of tourism; provided $2 million for works at Kakadu and Uluru National Parks in the Northern Territory; provided funds for the progressive declaration, management and development of marine parks along the Great Barrier Reef ($500,000 was provided for researchincluding tourism aspects); provided $400,000 on a $2 Commonwealth to $1 Tasmanian basis, as part of a seven-year program for the restoration and development of the historic Port Arthur region; provided sufficient funds to the Northern Territory Government to enable it to make significant progress on the development of the new Yulura tourist village to service visitors to Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mt Olga) National park. (The Northern Territory Government allocated some $6 million to the project in 1979-80.)

In addition, tourist developments may be eligible for assistance by way of Commonwealth Development Bank loans, and/or Decentralisation Advisory Board loans or grants.

The Commonwealth, through the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs, also provides a range of programs of training assistance to both employers and employees in the travel and tourist industry. An investment allowance in the form of a tax deduction of up to 20 per cent of eligible expenditure is available for tourist association operators on the capital cost of new plant and equipment.

  1. In 1978 the Export Market Development Grants Scheme was extended to cover overseas promotion by the travel and tourist industry. This is designed to encourage individuals, firms and organisations to increase their promotion of the travel and tourist industry in overseas markets. Under this Scheme the Commonwealth will pay a grant of 70 cents in the dollar in respect of eligible expenditure on overseas promotional activities.

The expansion of the tourist industry is also assisted by the promotion of Australia overseas by the Australian Tourist Commission. The Commission’s allocation of funds was increased in the 1979-80 Budget by 93 per cent to $8.2 million. This has enabled the ATC to treble its overseas promotion activities.

Indo-Chinese Refugees (Question No. 5780)

Mr Kerin:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 2 April 1 980:

  1. Does his Department have an Indo-Chinese Refugee Contingency Program.
  2. If so, (a) what are its features, (b) what amount of the funding is provided by the (i) Commonwealth and (ii) State Governments, (c) how many teachers have salaries funded by the program, (d) are (i) more schools being added to the program, (ii) more teachers being employed under it and (iti) additional funds being allocated to maintain conditions of staffing and (e) who administers the program.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) My Department administers a Contingency Program for Refugee Children. Although at the present time assistance is being given only to Indo-Chinese refugee children, refugee children from other countries are also eligible for assistance.
  2. (a) Under the Program, Commonwealth funds are made available by my Department to government and nongovernment education authorities to help schools cope with the impact of numbers of refugee children at primary and secondary levels, who have recently arrived in Australia. The main purpose of the Program is to facilitate the children’s English language acquisition so that they may be integrated as soon as possible into established migrant education and other programs of the school system. In accordance with the guidelines for the Program, funds are provided mainly for the salaries of specialist language teachers and teacher aides, but may also be used for other purposes such as excursions, transport of students and assistance with materials, equipment and in-service education activities. Assistance is also provided for items such as transport/re-erection/repair costs of demountable classrooms provided by school authorities.

Where necessary, refugee children may receive up to six months assistance under the Program. If they continue to need special language assistance after they move into established programs of the school system, it is expected that they will be assisted in programs funded from Schools Commission or other sources.

  1. (i) In the 1978-79 financial year, approximately $ 1.87m was spent by the Commonwealth on this Program; in the current financial year, expenditure is expected to reach $2.58m.
  2. It is understood that most of the expenditure on special language programs for newly arrived refugee children is funded by the Commonwealth through the Program. However, it is possible that expenditure may be incurred by State and non-government education authorities. It should be noted that the funds made available by the Commonwealth under the Program are additional to,l and are not intended to replace, those provided by the Commonwealth through the Schools Commission for migrant education.

  3. There are 143 teachers, co-ordinators, consultants and counsellors whose salaries are currently being funded. In addition, the salaries of 47 ancillary staff, including bilingual teacher aides, are funded.

    1. (i), (ii) and (iii) Yes
    2. My Department is responsible for the administration of the Program inco-operation with government and nongovernment education authorities.

Unemployment Benefit (Question No. 5842)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 2 April 1980:

  1. Are recipients of unemployment benefits who are genuinely seeking employment and who undertake short courses with a view to increasing their employability, being penalised for showing such initiative.
  2. Will he adjust the unemployment and work test Commonwealth Employment Service guidelines so that benefit recipients will not have their benefits cut off while engaged in job-related short courses.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The determination of eligibility for Unemployment Benefit is the responsibility of the DirectorGeneral of Social Services. The guidelines relating to claimants of Unemployment Benefit who undertake study courses provide for each case to be treated on its merits; as a general rule, where the time spent in classes or lectures exceeds 8 hours a week during normal working hours, Unemployment Benefit is not payable.

Boeing Aircraft: Adelaide Services (Question No. 5867)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) What is the effective perceived noise level of Boeing 767 and 737 aircraft, to be purchased by Ansett Airlines of Australia, compared with aircraft currently in use in Australia.
  2. Will changes need to be made to (a) the runway and taxiways and (b) terminal facilities at Adelaide Airport,

South Australia should these aircraft be introduced on regular flights to Adelaide: if so, what changes will be required.

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Australian Financial Review of 28 February 1980 which stated that Trans Australia Airlines had no immediate plans to use Airbus aircraft for flights to and from Adelaide, following their introduction in 1981.
  2. Is the Airbus quieter than existing aircraft; if so, and as the Adelaide Airport is located in a built-up area, why will there be a delay in the introduction of these quieter aircraft to Adelaide. .
  3. ) Will the new Boeing aircraft to be purchased by Ansett be introduced on the Adelaide services; if so, when.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNL) of the B737-200 aircraft compared with the domestic airline aircraft currently in use in Australia is shown, for the three standard international noise measurement positions, in the table below. The noise levels of the Boeing 767 are not yet known as the aircraft prototype has not flown and therefore no measurements have been taken. However, in its type certification process the Boeing 767 will be required to meet the latest noise standards established by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and these are quieter than the standards applicable to the older comparable aircraft.
  2. Introduction of Boeing 737 aircraft will not necessitate changes to facilities at Adelaide Airport as these aircraft are less demanding on pavements and terminal building capacity than other jet aircraft already operating to Adelaide.

Larger wide-bodied aircraft such as the Boeing 767 and Airbus A300 will require minor changes such as widening fillets at some intersections of runways and taxiways because of the wider track of these aircraft.

Difficulties are already being experienced at the existing terminal building as a result of overcrowding during peak periods. These problems will become more acute following introduction of wide-bodied aircraft. Proposals are presently being formulated as to the most effective ways of overcoming these deficiencies.

  1. Yes.
  2. The Airbus is quieter than all other comparable types of airline jet aircraft currently flying in Australia. The deployment and introduction into service of the Airbus aircraft at any airport is a commercial decision by TAA subject to the operational requirements of the Department of Transport.
  3. The proposed acquisition of Boeing aircraft by Ansett is currently being assessed by the Depanment of Transport. Ansett have not yet provided information regarding deployment of the new Boeing aircraft.

Unemployment Benefit (Question No. 5890)

Mr Young:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 April 1980:

How many persons in receipt of unemployment benefit payments were found to be ineligible for payment of unemployment benefits and had their benefits terminated in 1978-79 (a) throughout Australia, (b) in New South Wales and (c) in the Armidale area, New South Wales (with particular reference to those registered with the Armidale office of the Commonwealth Employment Service ).

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

The total numbers of unemployment benefits terminated in 1978-79 for Australia, New South Wales and the Armidale Social Security Region are estimated at 785,000, 244,000 and 3,200 respectively. Statistics of terminations by reference to the CES office at which beneficiaries were registered for work, are not available.

Road Funds (Question No. 5916)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 16 April 1980:

What funding was granted to each State for the specific purposes of road building and maintenance in each year since 1974.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

The funds granted to each State for road building and maintenance since 1 974 are set out in the table below.

Great Barrier Reef: Shipping Traffic (Question No. 5923)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 17 April 1980:

  1. What was the volume of shipping between the Queensland coastline and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park as at 31 March 1980.
  2. ) What proportion of this traffic consisted of oil tankers.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

There is no traffic count of vessels transitting Great Barrier Reef waters, but the volume using the inner route is estimated to be1500 per year, of which 7 per cent would be loaded bulk tankers. This estimate does not include intrastate traffic which partly comprises small tankers distributing refined petroleum products to Queensland ports.

Black Marlin Fishing (Question No. 5927)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 17 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to an article in a recent edition of a Qantas magazine dealing with black marlin fishing in North Queensland indicating that tourism in Cairns and North Queensland generally would be greatly reduced without the presence of the black marlin.
  2. Will he take action to have the Government ensure that the Australia-Japan fisheries agreement is re-negotiated to guarantee the continued existence and flourishing of the black marlin population in Australian waters.
Mr Thomson:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)Yes.

  1. I have brought this question to the attention of the Minister for Primary Industry, who has responsibility for the re-negotiation of the Australia- Japan fisheries agreement.

Foreign Language Teaching (Question No. 5942)

Dr Cass:

asked the Minister forEducation, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1 980:

  1. How many (a) State and (b) private (i) kindergartens, (ii) primary schools and (iii) secondary schools are there in each State and Territory.
  2. In how many of each are the (a) Italian, (b) Greek, (c) Arabic, (d) Serbian, (e) Croatian, (f) Spanish, (g) Turkish and (h) Maltese languages taught.
  3. In what proportion of (a) universities and (b) colleges of advanced education in each State and Territory are these languages taught
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Information on the number and type of schools for each State and Territory as at 1978, the latest year for which such information is available, is shown in the table below. Information about kindergartens and other ‘pre-primary ‘ institutions is not available on a national basis. While data are available for some States, they are not comparable because of differences in the scope, coverage, and definitions used in the separate collections.
  1. Up-to-date information on languages taught in schools is not available on an Australia-wide basis. Some information may be available from individual States with regard to the number of government schools (particularly secondary) which teach languages. However, this information is not maintained by the Commonwealth nor by all the States.

My Department carried out a sample survey of languages taught in primary and secondary schools in 1975. The major findings were published in the ‘Report of the Committee on the Teaching of Migrant Languages in Schools ‘ (tabled on 9

December 1976, Hansard, House of Representatives, page 3576). My Department is giving consideration to the possibility of carrying out a similar survey when resources permit.

  1. The numbers of universities and colleges of advanced education by State and Territory are as follows:

Courses in the languages listed are taught as follows:

Most of the courses listed above provide for study in the language to at least bachelor degree level, i.e. as a major in a BA-or BEd

The table does not include teacher education institutions which offer a lesser component of language study in their multicultural education courses. The State College of Victoria, Melbourne for example in its Diploma of Teaching (Primary), includes one year’s study in any of the following languages: Greek, Italian, Serbo-Croat, Turkish and Spanish. Full details in this respect can be found in ‘Bulletin 1979: Information of courses in TEFL, TESL, Migrant and Multicultural Education and Ethnic Studies’, published by the Commonwealth Department of Education, page 33.

A number of courses in the languages listed have been mounted in the implementation of Galbally Recommendation No. 14:

Professionals, including those studying and those currently in practices in areas with large migrant clientels should receive assistance in obtaining, or upgrading, language skills and understanding cultural differences ‘.

The majority of these courses are being provided in colleges of advanced education though some are in hospitals and other community centres. Some have aimed at limited communicative competence while others have concentrated on sensitisation to cultural differences. The language courses have been full-time or part-time and vary in duration from 3-36 weeks.

Inter-State Commission (Question No. 5977)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 22 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the view of his predecessor, expressed in the answer to question No. 4617 (Hansard, 7 November 1979, page 2754) that a need exists for a body which will have power to regulate transport in

Australia within the limitations provided for in the Commonwealth Constitution; if so, does he support this view.

  1. Has a decision been made regarding proclamation of the Inter-State Commission Act 1975; if so, what were the circumstances leading to the decision.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes. I support the full text of my predecessor’s reply, from which the honourable member has selectively quoted.
  2. No.

Aboriginal Land Rights (Question No. 5993)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 22 April 1980:

Has the Minister or the Department of Aboriginal Affairs received representations from the Minister or the Department of National Development and Energy seeking amendment of sub-section 43 (2) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 in a way to deprive Aboriginal landholders of the right to payments based on mineral values; if so, what are the details of the representations.

Mr Viner:
LP

-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

During a limited review by Government of arbitral and other procedural provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act which I announced on 24 January 1 979, the Department of National Development and Energy brought to notice difficulties being experienced in respect of payments required under sub-section 43 (2) of the Act in relation to petroleum titles which existed prior to the operation of the Act. The matter was not dealt with in that review. However, in the context of the examination of practical difficulties which have arisen in the operation of the Land Rights Act being undertaken at my request by Mr Barry Rowland, Q.C., I understand that the Department of National Development and Energy raised for Mr Rowland ‘s consideration whether clarification of the Act is required regarding the kind of payments envisaged under sub-section 43 (2). I expect to have Mr Rowland’s report on this and other aspects of the operation of the Act shortly.

Aircraft Noise: Brisbane Area (Question No. 6047)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 29 April 1980:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to reported statements by the principal of the Hamilton State Primary School, Queensland, that at least 1 month of school time is wasted because of aircraft noise in the Hamilton area.
  2. If so, will he consider providing funds for soundproofing the (a) Hamilton State School and (b) other schools which will be affected by the flight path of aircraft using the Brisbane Airport after the new runway becomes operational, particularly the Morningside State School, the Cannon Hill State School, the Balmoral High School, the St Oliver Plunkett School and other schools in the Morningside and Cannon Hill areas, Queensland.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. In the case of government schools, State Departments of Education determine what projects are undertaken in these schools in accordance with their priorities. Soundproofing would be a legitimate use of funds provided to the Queensland Government by the Commonwealth through the Schools Commission ‘s Capital Grants Program.

Projects involving the soundproofing of non-government school buildings against disturbances caused by external noise are eligible for assistance under the Schools Commission’s Capital Grants Program. The precise measures taken depend, of course, on the type of noise and the extent to which the learning environment of each school ‘s pupils is impaired. Several projects have, in the past, been approved in cases where, for example, there have been high levels of traffic noise at a school.

Non-government schools in the vicinity of Brisbane Airport which believe they have a noise problem which significantly disrupts school activities may apply to the Commission’s Planning and Finance Committee in Queensland for financial assistance in overcoming the problem. Applications will be assessed by the Committee having regard to their educational and financial priority in relation to the projects of other schools.

National Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme (Question No. 6053)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 29 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Will the Minister bring up to date the figures provided in the answer to Question No. 132 (Hansard, 7 March 1978, page 497) concerning the financial aspects of the proposed National Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme.
  2. Have the National Advisory Council for the Handicapped and the Standing Interdepartmental Committee on

Rehabilitation completed consideration of the scheme in formulating their advice on programs for the International Year for Disabled Persons 1 98 1 ; if so, will their recommendations be made public.

  1. What was the (a) date and (b) outcome of the Minister’s discussions of the scheme with State Governments as indicated in answer to Question No. 1713 (Hansard, 18 October 1977, page 2056).
  2. What were the percentage increases in (a) workers’ compensation and (b) compulsory third party insurance premiums from the figures for the 1974-75 financial year as indicated in the answer to Question No. 1748 (Hansard, 20 October 1977, pages 2301-2).
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) On the basis of figures provided in the Office of the Insurance Commissioner’s publication ‘Selected Statistics on the General Insurance Industry for the year ended 30 June 1979’; the updated figures for 1978-79 are:

Separate figures for legal and hospital and medical costs are not published and must be estimated. If the ratios implicit in the reports of the Working Parties on the National Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme are applied to the actual amounts paid in benefits in 1978-79, the figures for legal and hospital and medical costs would have been:

  1. The National Advisory Council for the Handicapped and the Standing Interdepartmental Committee on Rehabilitation have taken the issues involved into consideration in formulating proposals for the International Year of Disabled Persons. These proposals, which suggest an overall approach as well as some specific recommendations, will be made public.

  2. (a) 10 May 1976.

    1. There was broad agreement that any scheme should be jointly administered by Commonwealth and State Governments. A further meeting between Commonwealth and State Government officials took place on 23 and 24 June 1976. Extensive consultations with representatives of the general insurance industry were also undertaken, as well as with other interested groups. In the event, the matter proved very complex and no agreement to proceed with any form of a national scheme was reached.
  3. Using the same basis as in the answer to Question No. 1748 (Hansard, 20 October 1977, pages 2301-2) the percentage increases in premiums between 1974-75 and 1978-79 were:

Bulk Ore Trade With the Far East (Question No. 6071)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 May 1980:

  1. 1 ) How many Australian National Line (ANL) ships operate on the bulk ore trade between Australia and the Far East.
  2. For what periods are these ships contracted to service these routes.
  3. Are the contracted rates for the ANL ships lower than those paid to Japanese and other foreign operators; if so, what are the reasons for the differences in rates.
  4. Does ANL have plans to utilise these ships at the end of the term of these contracts.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Four. Australian Pioneer, Australian Purpose, Australian Prospector, and Australian Progress.
  2. and (4) The contract of employment for these vessels envisages long term employment for the Japanese Steel Mi”s, subject to periodic agreement between the parties on freight rates. Rates for Australian Prospector and Australian Progress are to be reviewed before I October 1980 and for the remaining two vessels before 1 April 1981.
  3. Rates for long term contracts in the Australia- Japan iron ore trade are negotiated separately and privately between shipowners and the Japanese Steel Mills. The rates paid for the ANL vessels are understood to be similar to those which would apply to a Japanese shipowner.

Centre for the Study of Marine and Antarctic Sciences (Question No. 6072)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 1 May 1980:

  1. Did the University of Tasmania propose before October 1978 the establishment of a special centre for the study of marine and Antarctic sciences.
  2. Has the Government made a decision on the proposal; if not, (a) why not and (b) is a decision anticipated in the near future.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. Yes- the proposal by the University of Tasmania to establish a Marine and Antarctic Studies Centre was one of a number of proposals for expanded or new specialist courses in Tasmania submitted by the Tasmanian Government to the Tertiary Education Commission early in 1978, following the Government’s consideration of the Callaghan Report (Inquiry into the Structure of Industry and the Employment Situation in Tasmania).
  2. (a) and (b) Following receipt of advice from the Tertiary Education Commission, the Government decided to seek the views of the Antarctic Research Policy Advisory Committee (ARPAC) and of the Australian Marine Sciences and Technologies Advisory Committee (AMSTAC) on the proposal. The advice of these two advisory bodies has now been received, and in the light of their views the proposal is currently being re-examined by the Tertiary Education Commission. The proposal will then be further considered by the Government in the context also of its Tasmania policy.

Unemployment Benefit (Question No. 6078)

Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 1 May 1980:

  1. 1 ) Have any directions been given to interviewing officers of his Department for the consideration of complaints by females that they were forced to leave employment because of molestation or sexual demands by employers or other supervisory staff; if so, what directions have been given.
  2. Are women who make these complaints required to either provide proof of their claims or lose their entitlement to unemployment benefits.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Commonwealth Employment Service has a long standing policy in relation to complaints involving sexual harassment by employers. This policy precludes the CES from actioning a vacancy where the bona fides of an employer or a vacancy are suspect. In the event of such a complaint being received the CES will automatically defer further referral pending clarification of the matter, and where the allegations can be substantiated, or the CES has reason to believe that they are true, it will have no further dealings with the employer concerned.
  2. The determination of eligibility and the payment of Unemployment Benefit is the responsibility of the Department of Social Security. In completing a claim for Unemployment Benefit a person is required to detail the reasons for ceasing work and the circumstances are assessed by the Department of Social Security. I should mention that in terms of the Unemployment Benefit work test, voluntary unemployment excludes situations where employees are forced to resign for reasons outside their control, or where extenuating circumstances are involved.

Australian Broadcasting Commission: Indonesian Visa (Question No. 6120)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 S May 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Has his Department advised the Australian Broadcasting Commisson not to object to Indonesia’s refusal to allow (a) Mr J. Coman to fill a vacancy in a longstanding ABC position in Jakarta and ( b ) reporting of events in East Timor.
  2. Has the ABC also been advised that it should seek Opposition advice or make an independent decision in this matter.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. 1) (a) No. Indeed, the Australian Embassy, Jakarta has on several occasions made representations to the Indonesian authorities in support of Mr Coman ‘s visa application. In addition, I have expressed my regret about the Indonesian position in the House and took steps to ensure that the Indonesian Government was aware of my view.

  2. The ABC makes its own decisions in such matters and is free to seek advice from any source it wishes.

Television Stations: Ownership

Mr Staley:
LP

-On 15 May 1980 (Hansard, page 2778) the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) asked me a question without notice regarding a letter said to have been sent to me by Sir Reginald Ansett which drew attention to acquisitions by News Limited of shares in Ansett Transport Industries Limited.

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

There is no record of such a letter having been received by me. However, on 22 January 1980 my colleague, the Attorney-General, wrote to me enclosing a letter dated 5 December 1979, in which Sir Reginald referred to this matter. Copies of these letters are at Attachment A.

On 19 December 1979 the Attorney-General acknowledged Sir Reginald’s letter, and on 22 January 1980 wrote to Sir Reginald and advised that, as the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 was administered by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, he had referred Sir Reginald ‘s letter to me for consideration (Attachment B).

I had already asked my Department to make inquiries of the Tribunal for advice regarding the share transactions which had taken place and any communications which had been recieved by the Tribunal from the parties concerned. Subsequendy, I received advice from the Tribunal in a letter addressed to my Department dated 20 February 1980. This advice is at Attachment C.

On 6 February 1980 Sir Peter Abeles wrote to me on behalf of Ansett Transport Industries Limited on the same matter, enclosing a copy of his letter to the Attorney-General (Attachment D).

On 26 March I responded to Sir Reginald saying that I had obtained information from the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and had considered this carefully. I concluded that, in all the circumstances, I did not propose to take any action under the Broadcasting and Television Act (Attachment E).

On the same day I also wrote to the Attorney-General, enclosing a copy of my letter to Sir Reginald informing him of my belief that, under the circumstances, a prosecution should not be instituted (Attachment F). In forming this view, I had regard to the fact that the Tribunal had given notice of its intention to hold a public inquiry on this matter. I will continue to keep the matter under review and there will be an opportunity to re-assess the position when the Tribunal ‘s Report is available.

Attachment A

Attorney-General

Parliament House,

Canberra, ACT 2600 22 January 1980

Dear Minister,

I am writing to you in connection with a letter dated S December 1979 that I have received from Sir Reginald Ansett. A copy of the letter is attached.

For the reasons set out in his letter, Sir Reginald Ansett asserts that News Ltd has contravened section 92 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 by reason of certain share acquisitions by that company in Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. He asks that action be taken to investigate the matter and to enforce that provision.

Although the effect of section 92KA of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 is that a prosecution for an offence against the provisions of section 92 may not be instituted except with the consent in writing of the Attorney-General, the question whether any action of the kind suggested by Sir Reginald Ansett should be taken on behalf of the Government is primarily a matter for you as Minister administering the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942.I am accordingly referring Sir Reginals Ansett ‘s letter to you for your cosideration.

I am attaching a copy of my reply to Sir Reginald Ansett advising him that the matter raised in his letter has been referred to you.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Staley:
LP

-On 20 May 1980 (Hansard, page 2885) Mr Kerin asked me a question without notice asking whether it is a fact that, during the inquiry by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal on 18 December 1979 into the purchase of the issued capital of Southern Television Corporation Limited, the licensee of NWS-9 Adelaide, Senator Button was misled and denied the opportunity to present further argument regarding possible illegal acts by the News Limited group.

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

Senator Button appeared for the ALP, which was approved by the Tribunal as a party to the inquiry involved. The transcript stands as the official record of the proceedings before the Tribunal. There are remedies available to a party to proceedings before the Tribunal if a party considers that the Tribunal has acted contrary to the law.

Mr Staley:
LP

-On 20 May 1980 (Hansard, page 2884) Mr Keith Johnson asked me a question without notice concerning a letter from Ansett Transport Industries Limited which was referred to in the Tribunal’s inquiry into the purchase of shares by Control Investments Pty Ltd in the issued capital of Ansett Transport Industries Limited.

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

The Secretary of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal wrote to Senator Button in March 1980 (and not on 8 February as stated in the question) in response to a letter dated 8 February from Senator Button.

The transcript of the Tribunal’s proceedings into the application by Control Investments Pty Ltd for approval to the transfer of shares in Ansett Transport Industries Limited records that Mr Nicholson, Q.C., asked the Tribunal to produce a letter from Sir Reginald Ansett, as Managing Director of Ansett Transport Industries Limited, to the Tribunal.

There is no record of such a letter to the Tribunal. Sir Reginald Ansett did write to the Attorney-General on the subject of the purchase by News Limited of shares in Ansett Transpon Industries Limited.

Mr Staley:
LP

-On 20 May 1980 (Hansard, page 2883) Mr Barry Jones asked me a question without notice concerning a letter dated 5 December 1979 from the Secretary of Ansett Transport Industries Limited to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal.

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

By a letter dated 5 December 1979, Mr W. Franklin, Secretary of Ansett Transport Industries Limited, wrote to the Secretary of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. I attach a copy of this letter which the Tribunal considered did not call for a reply.

ANSETT TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES LIMITED

(incorporated in Victoria)

Registered Office: 489 Swanston Street, Melbourne, Australia.

Telephone 345 3144 Telex AA30085. Telegrams and cables Ansett’ Melbourne, P.O. Box 362F, Melbourne 300 1.

December5, 1977

The Secretary,

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, 153 Walker Street, North Sydney, NSW 2060

Dear Sir,

As you are no doubt aware, the media and panicularly the major newspapers have reported that since last Thursday, November 29, 1979, News Limited and/or interests connected or associated therewith have been acquiring and expressed their intention to continue acquiring shareholding interests, as defined in the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, in Ansett Transport Industries Limited, which in turn holds all the issued capital of Austarama Television Proprietary Limited, operator of Channel ‘ O ‘ in Melbourne, and Universal Telecasters (Q’ld) Limited, the operator of Channel ‘O’ in Brisbane.

Such reports funher indicated that News Limited and/or interests connected therewith hold, and /or may be beneficially entitled to more than 1 5 per cent of the issued ordinary shares in Ansett Transport Industries Limited. Indeed, in today’s press the Chairman of The Bell Group Limited is reported as confirming the sale to News Limited of all the shares in Bell Bros. Air Charter Pty Ltd, itself the beneficial owner of 14 per cent of the shares in this Company. As you are well aware, News Limited has a controlling sharehold interest in United Telecasters Sydney Ltd, the operator of Channel ‘ 10 ‘ in Sydney.

Herewith are copies of notices forwarded to various shareholders in Ansett Transpon Industries Limited and to News Limited in order to ascertain whether the transfers of shares in ATI or other companies or the holding of shares in ATI or other companies by the parties mentioned therein constitutes a contravention or offence under the Act.

No doubt you will make your own enquiries in order to ascertain whether any contravention of the Act is being perpetrated or offence committed, and no doubt you will invoke all powers given to you under the Act in order to stop the continuance of any such contravention or offence and act accordingly.

Yours faithfully,

F.FRANKLIN,

Corporate Secretary and Finance Manager.

page 3172

PETER DURACK

The Hon. A. A. Staley, M.P.,

Minister for Post and Telecommunications,

Parliament House,

Canberra, A.C.T. 2600

Attachment A(ii)

page 3172

ANSETT TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES LIMITED

(Incorporated in Victoria)

Registered Office: 489 Swanston Street,

Melbourne, Australia

Telephone 345 3144. Telex AA30085.

Telegrams and cables ‘ANSETT’

Melbourne. P.O. Box 362F, Melbourne 3001. 5 December 1979

Senator The Hon. P. Durack,

AttorneyGeneral,

Parliament House,

page 3172

CANBERRA, ACT 2600

Dear Senator Durack,

You will be aware that this Company through two whollyowned subsidiaries is the owner of two commercial television licences in Melbourne and Brisbane respectively.

You will be aware that News Limited is the owner of a controlling interest in United Telecasters Sydney Limited, the owner and operator of one commercial television licence in Sydney.

We draw your attention to the statement in today’s issue ofThe Australian’, a newspaper owned by News Limited, that News Limited holds over twenty-five per cent of the shares in this Company.

Such acquisition constitutes a flat contravention of Section 92 of the Broadcasting and Television Act, 1 942.

We ask that you take full action to investigate the matter and to enforce this law of the Commonwealth.

Yours faithfully,

page 3172

R.M. ANSETT,

Managing Director

Attachment B 19 December 1979

Dear Sir Reginald,

I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 5 December 1979 concerning a statement in ‘The Australian’ newspaper of 5 December 1979 which indicated that News Limited holds over 25 per cent of the shares in Ansett Transport Industries Limited.

I will write to you again on this matter.

Yours sincerely,

page 3172

PETER DURACK

Sir Reginald Ansett, K.B.E.

Managing Director,

Ansett Transport Industries Limited,

P.O.Box362F,

MELBOURNE, Vic. 3001

Attachment B(ii)

Attorney General,

Parliament House,

page 3173

CANBERRA, ACT 2600

22 January 1980

Dear Sir Reginald,

I refer to your letter dated 5 December 1979 requesting me to take certain action in relation to an alleged breach by News Ltd of the provisions of section 92 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942.

As the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 is administered by my colleague the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, I have referred your letter to him for his consideration.

Yours sincerely,

page 3173

PETER DURACK

Sir Reginald Ansett, K.B.E.,

Chairman, Ansett Transport Industries Ltd,

P.O.Box362F,

MELBOURNE, Vic. 3001

page 3173

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL

153 Walker Street, North Sydney, N.S.W. 2060

P.O. Box 1 303, North Sydney 2060

Telex ‘ ABTEE ‘26683

Telephone 922 2900 20 February 1980

Mr Robert Lord

First Assistant Secretary,

Broadcasting Policy Division

Postal and Telecommunications Department 153 Walker Street

page 3173

NORTH SYDNEY. N.S.W. 2060

Dear Mr Lord,

I refer again to your letter dated 11 January 1980, concerning the purchase by the News Group of Companies (News) of shares in Ansett Transport Industries (Ansett) in relation to the provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act (Act) which govern the ownership and control of commercial television stations.

The Tribunal has received several letters from News and a letter from Ansett which have a bearing on the matter. There have been a number of telephone discussions as well.

On 12 December 1979, News Limited advised the Tribunal that the News Group had purchased 43.6 per cent of the share capital of Ansett and was continuing to purchase shares with a view to acquiring up to 50 per cent of the issued ordinary share capital of Ansett. The letter acknowledged that provided the Tribunal approved the sale of News’ interests in NWS Adelaide (since approved), and Ansett disposed of its interests in TVQ Brisbane (negotiations partly completed), the News Group would no longer hold prescribed interests in television stations in excess of those permitted by section 92( 1 ) of the Act. The same correspondence said that it was the intention of one or more companies in the News Group to apply to the Tribunal for approval of the acquisition of the Ansett shares, as soon as matters relating to NWS and TVQ were resolved. It was also pointed out that the ultimate holding company of the News Group had become The News Corporation Limited and all companies in the Group would become direct or indirect subsidiaries of that company.

Details of the authorised and issued share capital of News Corporation Limited, News Limited and News Investments Pty Limited, which form part of the News Group of companies, were notified to the Tribunal on 4 January 1 980. The News Corporation Limited advised the Tribunal on 25 January 1 980, that News and Ansett were currently seeking a buyer or buyers for TVQ but one factor which had contributed to the delay was that the sale of the John Fairfax Limited interests in station QTQ Brisbane was the subject of concurrent negotiations.

Advice has since been received that QTQ is being purchased by AWA Ltd and that Ampol Petroleum Ltd was acquiring some 60 per cent of the issued share capital of TVQ. In a letter dated 13 February 1980, Sir Peter Abeles, the Joint Chief Executive of Ansett Transport Industries Limited advised the Tribunal that a preliminary agreement had been reached for Ampol Petroleum Ltd to acquire some 60 per cent of the share capital of TVQ and that negotiations were continuing for the sale of the balance of the Ansett interests in TVQ.

In the letter from News Limited dated 13 December 1979 a copy of which was forwarded to your Department on 1 5 January 1980, the company acknowledges that its Ansett shareholding transaction caused a contravention of the ownership and control provisions of the Act in that it held at that date a prescribed interest in both TEN Sydney and NWS Adelaide, and automatically acquired through Ansett a prescribed interest in ATV Melbourne and TVQ Brisbane. On the facts available, the Tribunal was aware of this situation. However, it has been the practice over the years for such contraventions to be corrected either through negotiation with the parties concerned or voluntarily by such parties as soon as they realised the situation in which they were placed. There is no record of any prosecutions having been launched in connection with contraventions which have occurred from time to time.

It is the opinion of the Tribunal that continuation of the previous atutude to contraventions is desirable where it is clear, as is the case in regard to the News Group purchase of the Ansett shares, that every attempt is being made to remedy the contravention as soon as possible. On the general question of the institution of court proceedings regarding contraventions, the Tribunal believes that the powers and functions conferred upon it by the Act do not impose any responsibility for it to initiate prosecutions in relation to contravention of the ownership and control provisions. However, the Tribunal accepts that where a contravention exists and the offending party refuses to take corrective action, the Tribunal should hold a public inquiry and, if appropriate, direct the divestment of the excess interests. If such a direction were to be ignored, the Tribunal would report the matter to the Minister with a view to the Commonwealth instituting legal proceedings.

I understand that your letter was written as a direct result of a letter which Sir Reginald Ansett forwarded to the Attorney-General some time ago.

As you are aware Sir Reginald has since disposed of his personal interest in Ansett Transport Industries to the News Limited Group. The Tribunal has been informed that Sir Reginald does not wish the subject matter of his letter to be pursued and that the Joint Chief Executive Officer of Ansett Transport Industries will be writing to your Department to this effect.

In conclusion, I should mention that although the News Corporation Limited has yet to make a formal application for approval in relation to its purchase of the shares in Ansett and the full extent of any contraventions cannot be established until then, the Tribunal has invited members of the public to furnish submissions on the matter. On receipt of these submissions the Tribunal will determine whether the transactions should be the subject of a public inquiry, pursuant either to section 92F(4) or section 1 8( 1 ) of the Act.

Yours sincerely,

page 3174

B. J. CONNOLLY

Secretary

Attachment D

page 3174

ANSETT TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES LIMITED

(Incorporated in Victoria)

Registered Office: 489 Swanston Street, Melbourne, Australia

Telephone 345 3 144: Telex AA30085. Telegrams and cables ANSETT’ MELBOURNE, P.O. Box 362F, Melbourne, 3001 6 February 1980

The Hon. A. A. Staley, M.P.,

Minister for Post and Telecommunications,

Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600

My Dear Minister,

On the 5 December 1979, Sir Reginald Ansett wrote to Senator Durack making certain allegations about News Ltd’s acquisition of shares in Ansett Transpon Industries Ltd. The Attorney-General finally replied to that letter on the 22 January 1980, indicating that he had referred the matter to you.

For this reason, I enclose a copy of a letter which I have written to the Attorney-General today.

Yours sincerely,

page 3174

E.H. P. ABELES

Joint Chief Executive

Attachment D(ii) 6 February 1980

Senator The Hon. P. Durack,

Attorney-General,

Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600

Dear Senator Durack,

I refer to a letter addressed to you from Sir Reginald Ansett dated 5 December 1979, and to your replies to it dated 19 December 1979, and 22 January 1980.

I have had the matter referred to in Sir Reginald’s letter considered and, our advice is that the views concerning contravention of Section 92 of the Broadcasting and Television Act by News Ltd expressed in that letter are incorrect.

Accordingly, so far as this Company is concerned, would you regard Sir Reginald’s request that you investigate the matter as withdrawn.

Yours sincerely,

page 3174

E.H. P. ABELES

Joint Chief Executive

Attachment E 26 March 1980

Minister for Post and Telecommunications Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600

Dear Sir Reginald,

I refer to your letter dated 5 December 1979 to my colleague, the Attorney-General, concerning a possible contravention of Section 92 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942.

I have obtained information from the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and have considered this carefully. In all the circumstances, I do not propose to take any action under the Broadcasting and Television Act.

Yours sincerely,

page 3174

A. A. STALEY

Sir Reginald Ansett, K.B.E.,

Chairman,

Ansett Transpon Industries Ltd, 489 Swanston Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3000

Attachment F 26 March 1980

Minister for Post and Telecommunications

Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600

My Dear Attorney-General,

I refer to your letter dated 22 January 1 980, under cover of which you provide a copy of a letter dated 5 December 1979 received by you from Sir Reginald Ansett.

I attach a copy of a letter dated 20 February 1 980 from the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to my Department providing background information on this matter and reporting developments since Sir Reginald ‘s letter to you.

Under the circumstances, I believe that a prosecution should not be instituted, and I have written to Sir Reginald as attached.

Yours sincerely,

page 3174

A. A. STALEY

Senator the Hon. Peter Durack, Q.C.,

Attorney-General,

Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600

Television Stations: Ownership

Television Stations: Ownership

Television Stations: Ownership

Minister for Health: Overseas Visit (Question No. 4130)

Mr Morris:

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

  1. What was the purpose of his precdecessor’s visit to Europe and North America from 12 April to 20 May 1979.
  2. What was the name, classification and salary of each person who accompanied his predecessor.
  3. What was the (a) cost of travel, (b) cost of accommodation, (c) other expenditure and (d) total costs incurred in respect of his predecessor and each person who travelled with him.
  4. Which airlines and/or other means of transport were utilised on each stage of the journey.
  5. In the course of his predecessor’s duties (a) when and which persons were visited and (b) with whom were consultations held.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. to (5) I refer the honourable member to the answer provided to a question without notice concerning overseas travel and asked of Senator Carrick by Senator Keeffe (Hansard, pages 1 703- 1 1 ).

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs: Overseas Visit (Question No. 4131)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 4 June 1979:

  1. What was the purpose of his visit to South-East Asia between 1 and 1 1 May 1979.
  2. What was the name, classification and salary of each person who accompanied him.
  3. What was the (a) cost of travel, (b) cost of accommodation, (c) other expenditure and (d) total costs incurred in respect of himself and each person who travelled with him.
  4. Which airlines and/or other means of transport were utilised during each stage of the journey.
  5. In the course of his duties, (a) which places were visited and (b) when and with whom were consultations held.
Mr Macphee:
Minister Assisting the Treasurer · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · LP

– I refer the honourable member to Senator Carrick ‘s answer to a question without notice from Senator Keeffe on pages 1 703- 1 2 of the Senate Hansard of 23 April 1980.

Minister for Special Trade Representations: Overseas Visit (Question No. 4141)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Special Trade Representations, upon notice, on 4 June 1979:

  1. What ws the purpose of the Minister’s predecessor’s visit to Europe from 5 to 7 March 1979.
  2. What was the name, classification and salary of each person who accompanied the Minister’s predecessor.
  3. What was the (a) cost of travel, (b) cost of accommodation, (c) other expenditure and (d) total costs incurred in respect of the Minister’s predecessor and each person who travelled with him.
  4. Which airline and/or other means of transport were utilised during the visit.
  5. In the course of the Minister’s predecessor’s duties, (a) when and which places were visited and (b) with whom were consultations held.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

I refer the honourable member to documents tabled by Senator Carrick on 23 April 1980 (pages 1704-12 of Senate Hansard). These documents contain full details of all Ministerial travel from 1973 to 1979.

Minister for Home Affairs: Overseas Visit (Question No. 4142)

Mr Morris:

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

  1. What was the purpose of his visit to China, North America, the United Kingdom and France from 3 to 27 May 1979.
  2. What was the name, classification and salary of each person who accompanied him.
  3. What was the (a) cost of travel, (b) cost of accommodation, (c) other expenditure and (d) total costs incurred in respect of himself and each person who travelled with him.
  4. Which airlines and/or other means of transport were utilised on each stage of the journey.
  5. In the course of his duties, (a) when and which places were visited and (b) with whom were consultations held.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by Senator Carrick to a question without notice asked by Senator Keeffe on 20 February 1980. (See Senate Hansard, 23 April 1980, pages 1703-12.)

Test Cricket Telecasts (Question No. 4147)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 4 June 1979:

In view of the successful bid by the Channel 9 network for the exclusive telecasting of test cricket in Australia, will the Australian Broadcasting Commission telecast test cricket in country areas where (a) a commercial television station operates but declines to telecast test cricket and (b) no commercial channel operates.

Mr Staley:
LP

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

The honourable member would know that since agreement was reached between the Australian Cricket Board and representatives of a commercial television operator, which grants exclusive rights to telecast cricket matches arranged by the Cricket Board to the Channel 9 network, no cricket has been covered by the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The ABC has instituted legal challenge against this agreement. I understand that this is before the court.

Treasurer: Overseas Visit (Question No. 4199)

Mr Morris:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 6 June 1979:

  1. 1 ) What was the purpose of his visit to the United States of America from 2 to 1 8 March 1 979.
  2. What was the name, classification and salary of each person who accompanied him.
  3. What was the (a) cost of travel, (b) cost of accommodation, (c) other expenditure and (d) total costs incurred in respect of himself and each person who travelled with him.
  4. Which airlines and/or other means of transport were utilised during each stage of the journey.
  5. 5 ) In the course of his duties (a) what places were visited and (b) with whom were consultations held.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to Senator Carrick ‘s reply on 23 April 1980 to Senator Keeffe ‘s question without notice on overseas travel. (See Senate Hansard, 23 April 1980, page 1703).

Minister for Defence: Overseas Visit (Question No. 4202)

Mr Morris:

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

  1. 1 ) What was the purpose of his visit to Britain and Belgium in January 1979.
  2. What was the name, classification and salary of each person who accompanied him.
  3. What was the (a) cost of travel, (b) cost of accommodation, (c) other expenditure and (d) total costs incurred in respect of himself and each person who travelled with him.
  4. Which airlines and /or other means of transport were utilised during each stage of the journey.
  5. In the course of his duties (a) what places were visited and (b) with whom were consultations held.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. to (5) I refer the honourable member to the reply given by Senator Carrick to a question without notice asked by Senator Keeffe, relating to ministerial overseas travel (Senate Hansard, 23 April 1980, pages 1703-12).

Australian Forces Stationed Overseas (Question No. 4421)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) In which countries have elements of the Australian forces been stationed at any time in the last 20 years.
  2. Between what dates were they stationed in each country.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. and (2) It has been assumed that the terms ‘elements . . stationed relate to substantial bodies of men and material in operational or quasi-operational roles over lengthy and continuous periods. The following is the relevant information:

    1. Countries where the Royal Australian Navy has maintained a shore establishment or from which it has operated at least one vessel in the last 20 years are:
    1. Malaysia, from the time that country was formed in 1964 until the separation from it of Singapore in 1965; and

    2. Singapore, from the time it became an independent country in 1965 until the present; however, the operating of ships out of Singapore has not been continuous throughout the period.

    3. Countries in which the Australian Army has maintained a substantial force on a long-term basis in the last 20 years are:
    1. Malaya, later Malaysia, until 1 970;
    2. Singapore, from 1970 until 1973; and

    3. Vietnam, from 1 965 until December 1 972.

    4. Similar data for operational aircraft and supporting units of the Royal Australian Air Force are:
    5. Malaya, later Malaysia, continuously to the present time;
    1. Vietnam, from July 1 964 until March 1 972; and
    2. Thailand, from June 1 962 until August 1 968.

Detail such as the rotation from time to time in the 1970s of an Australian Army company through the RAAF establishment at Butterworth in Malaysia is not included. It should also be noted that groups have served in UN forces operating, in some instances, in areas where national frontiers were in dispute. Recently a contingent served in Rhodesia-Zimbabwe as part of the Cease-fire Monitoring Force.

The administrative effort involved in assembling the information relating to all the various other assignments and activities abroad, against all the dates for the service of the relevant personnel overseas during the past 20 years, would be substantial, especially given that much of the activity has not been continuous in respect of particular countries over the period. However, more important examples are:

  1. Training assignments, which have resulted in a flow of personnel to and from the United States and Britain and, on a less continuous basis, to and from New Zealand, Canada and other countries.
  2. Major defence cooperation programs. Some hundreds of Defence Force personnel have been present in Papua New Guinea continuously since that former territory became an independent country. Also on a continuous basis or nearly so, varying small numbers of Australian Defence Force personnel have been engaged in defence cooperation projects in Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore since the inceptions of the respective programs.
  3. The acquisition of major items of defence equipment overseas, leading to the presence of teams of Australian Servicemen from time to time in major supplier countries such as the United States and Britain.

Australia Post: Complaints by Mr T. Coulthard (Question No. 4535)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 29 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) Did he receive allegations and complaints concerning the suggestion, scheme and management practices of Australia Post from a Mr T. Coulthard of South Australia, in 5 letters dated 25 May, 4 July, 6 September and 8 November 1978 and 8 February 1979.
  2. If so, did his office reply to only 3 of these letters.
  3. Did the first 2 of his replies state that he had asked for a report presumably from Australia Post, over Mr Coulthard ‘s allegations.
  4. Did the third and final reply, dispatched no more than 3 days after receipt of Mr Coulthard ‘s latest complaint offer no reply to any of Mr Coulthard ‘s detailed allegations, make no mention of the proposed report and suggest that Mr Coulthard take his complaints back to the management of Australia Post.
  5. Is it a fact that management formed part of Mr Coulthard ‘s complaints and that management had already been approached by Mr Coulthard on numerous occasions in relation to these matters.
  6. Was he informed of Mr Coulthard’s complaints against management in previous correspondence.
  7. 7) Has Mr Coulthard ‘s complaint been treated in the normal manner; if not, in what way was it treated.
  8. Will he present to the Parliament the report requested by him into Mr Coulthard ‘s allegations.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1) to (7) I have received a number of letters from Mr T. Coulthard. All these related to suggestions which Mr Coulthard had put to the management of Australia Post.

In reply it has been made clear to Mr Coulthard that these are matters which really should be raised with Australia Post, which as an independent statutory authority has full responsibility in its own management policies and practices.

All correspondence has been referred to the Australian Postal Commission and the points raised by Mr Coulthard have been carefully considered.

  1. No.

Defence Housing: Maintenance (Question No. 4712)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. What is the normal time lapse between a building maintenance requisition being lodged and maintenance being undertaken for married quarters occupied by RAAF members.
  2. How many requisitions are at present lodged in respect of each maintenance item requested.
  3. Are any requisitions not processed to the stage of maintenance work being carried out.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. Maintenance on Commonwealth owned married quarters occupied by RAAF members is carried out by the Department of Housing and Construction which has supplied the following information:

    1. Urgent maintenance is normally carried out immediately (i.e. same day) on request subject to availability of materials. Minor maintenance not considered urgent is normally carried out within fourteen (14) days of request.
    2. The normal time lapse in undertaking specific items of maintenance to RAAF married quarters will vary according to the method adopted for execution of the work.
    1. if work is to a single married quarter work will normally be undertaken within two months.
    2. if work to a number of married quarters (up to 30) is grouped together and is executed by Department of Housing and Construction day labour it will normally be completed within 2-6 months depending on the extent and nature of maintenance required and reasonable access to the houses being available.

    3. if work to a number of married quarters (up to 30) is grouped for execution by contract, thus requiring documentation and public tendering procedures, the completion of the last house in such a contract could be up to 26 weeks, again subject to access as required by the contractor.

    4. As for 1 (b) above for work of a non urgent nature. Urgent unforeseen work such as repairs to storm damage will commence immediately and normally be complete within two (2) weeks.
  2. Normally only one requisition is lodged or request made for each maintenance item.
  3. Requisitions are processed to the stage of maintenance work being carried out unless the requirement is deferred or withdrawn.

Housing made available to RAAF personnel under Commonwealth/State Housing Agreement arrangements is owned and maintained by the respective State housing authorities.

Ministry: Overseas Visits (Question No. 4767)

Mr Hayden:

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

  1. 1 ) Which Ministers have undertaken overseas trips since December 1975.
  2. What was the date of departure of Ministers on each trip, how many days were involved, and what places did each Minister visit.
  3. 3 ) What sum did each trip cost.
  4. What were the main headings under which this expenditure was incurred.
  5. How many persons accompanied each Minister on these trips and what was their (a) itinerary, and (b) relationship to the Minister where applicable, or official position and functions for each trip.
Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer given by my colleague, Senator the Honourable J. L. Carrick, on 23 April 1980 (Senate Hansard, pages 1703-11) as amended by Senator Carrick ‘s statement on 28 April 1980 (Senate H ansard, page 1 8 1 3 ).

Prescriptions Dispensed in Hospitals (Question No. 5027)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 6 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many prescription items were dispensed in the (a) Royal Canberra Hospital and (b) Woden Valley Hospital, ACT, in each of the last 4 financial years, for persons (i) as inpatients and (ii) attending the outpatient clinics and casualty departments of the hospitals.
  2. What was the total cost for prescriptions dispensed for persons attending outpatient clinics and casualty departments.
  3. Does this cost include salaries and overheads including an allocation for shared costs such as administration, cleaning, power and area used.
  4. How does this cost to the Government compare per prescription with the cost if the prescriptions had been dispensed in a private pharmacy, taking into account the fact that the patient is paying $2.75 towards the total cost when dispensed in a private pharmacy.
  5. Will the Government limit the supply of prescriptions from hospitals and use the facility of private pharmacies to a greater extent.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)(a)and(b)-

  1. 1975-76, $151,771; 1976-77, $227,887; 1977-78, $346,902; 1978-79, $567,681.
  2. No.

  3. No data are available within the Commission on the cost structures of commercial pharmacies and what their drug costs would be were they to assume the role of hospital pharmacies in the outpatient area. Further even if information was available to the Commission concerning pharmacies, any comparison would be difficult because:

    1. hospitals buy large quantities of drugs on a contract basis and obtain discounts which represent a significant cost saving;
    2. private pharmacies would not hold all the drugs that are available at the hospital pharmacies such as- radiopharmaceuticals drugs not approved for marketing drugs under clinical trial.

The prescribing of these drugs would vary at hospitals according to the specialities practised;

  1. there are differences of scale in the overhead costs that apply to dispensing of prescriptions for inpatients and outpatients. There is an inherent difficulty in calculating the actual overhead costs in a hospital pharmacy that can be attributed to outpatient dispensing services.

    1. From November 1979, the Commission revised its hospital pharmacy policy to provide that private patients attending Clinics conducted by medical specialists on hospital premises would be provided with prescriptions for dispensing from private pharmacies.

Television Services: Leigh Creek (Question No. 5106)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on IS November 1979:

Has he considered submissions made to him that, in the resiting of the township of Leigh Creek in South Australia to a site 13 km south of the existing site, the present taped relay television station be replaced by a direct telecast station via the Intelsat satellite, as envisaged in the remote areas television station program; if so, when will his decision be released.

Mr Staley:
LP

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

Officers of my Department are in consultation with the Electricity Trust of South Australia on the very question raised by the honourable member. The precise relocation of the station is still to be determined. At this stage it is hoped that the project will be completed in the 1980-81 financial year.

Consideration is also being given to the provision of real time television (as distinct from a repeater system) following (b)- the relocation of the Station. I am unable to indicate at this time when a final decision on this matter will be reached.

Health Programs (Question No. 5161)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Health, 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) Perth, (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, (2 1 ) 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, (a) to each hospital, (b) for the construction of each school dental clinic, (c) for the operation of each school dental service, (d) for each project under the community health program, (e) for each approved home nursing service, (f) for each nursing home and domicilliary care service and (g) to Aboriginal medical services during (i) 1975-76, (ii) 1976-77, (iii) 1977-78, (iv) 1978-79 and (v) 1 July 1979 to date.

Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. I am informed that the information sought by the honourable member in relation to Commonwealth expenditure for hospitals and nursing homes, excepting the electorate of Canberra, is not readily available. The collation and compilation of this information is a task which would require the use of considerable staff resources and additional cost, and I am therefore reluctant to authorise the expenditure which would be incurred.

In respect of (b) (c) (d) (e) (0 and (g) the following information is provided:

In addition mobile school dental clinics in the States have been funded by the Commonwealth as follows. These cannot be listed against particular electorates. {: type="a" start="c"} 0. Commonwealth expenditures on the operation of school dental services in the States and the Northern Territory have been as follows: (e)- A- Victoria claims annually, late in the financial year. Below is a table containing the information sought by the honourable member in respect of the Australian Capital Territory electorate of Canberra. {:#subdebate-88-12} #### Environmental Decision-making (Question No. 5315) {: #subdebate-88-12-s0 .speaker-CH4} ##### Mr Holding: asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 19 February 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Administrative Review Council (ARC) subcommittee which was established to review environmental decision-making (Council's 3rd Annual Report, clause 72, page 18) made any submission to either the Council or the Government. 1. If so, will the Attorney-General give consideration to publication of that submission and any recommendations arising from it 2. Did the sub-committee seek information or submissions for its review from (a) the Commonwealth Department of the Treasury and (b) any other Commonwealth Departments; if so, which ones. 3. Did the Department of the Treasury, or any other Department, fail to supply information or submissions to that sub-committee for the purposes of its review. {: #subdebate-88-12-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -- The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No submission has been made to the Government. The Administrative Review Council has provided the following information in relation to questions ( 1 ), (3) and (4): The Council's Sub-committee on Environmental Decision-making has not completed its work. It is not expected to do so until next year. The answers to the specific questions are: (l)No. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. No. 1. Not applicable- see the answer to question (3). In light of the answer to question (1), question (2) does not arise. {:#subdebate-88-13} #### Social Security Appeals (Question No. 5318) {: #subdebate-88-13-s0 .speaker-CH4} ##### Mr Holding: asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 19 February 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Administrative Review Council (ARC) made any recommendations to the Government following its review of submissions made to it on the contents of its 1st and 2nd consultative papers on social security appeals (Council's 3rd Annual Report, clauses 23 to 26, pages 6 and 7); if so, what were those recommendations. 1. Did those recommendations make provision for advice and assistance, and for access to an appeal process by Aboriginals and migrants, in social security appeals. 2. Did any of those recommendations require changes in the operations of (a) the Commonwealth Employment Service and (b) the Department of Social Security. 3. If so, what was the reason for and extent of those changes and have they been implemented. 4. If the recommended changes have not been implemented, what is the reason. {: #subdebate-88-13-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No, but it is understood that the Council expects to conclude its report on the matters in the near future. 1. , (3), (4) and (5) See answer to ( 1 ). {:#subdebate-88-14} #### Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Question No. 5319) {: #subdebate-88-14-s0 .speaker-CH4} ##### Mr Holding: asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 19 February 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What action has the Government taken on the recommended changes to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal legislation, made by the Administrative Review Council (Council's 3rd Annual Report, clauses 77 to 99, pages 19 to 24). 1. Is the Attorney-General able to state whether a separ- ' ate Australian Capital Territory Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will be established; if so, when; if not, why not. {: #subdebate-88-14-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 was amended last year to give effect to the most urgent of the Administrative Review Council's recommendations (the constitution of the Council itself, the powers of the Tribunal and the Federal Coun of Australia in relation to stay orders and a machinery matter relating to time limits). The remaining recommendations of the Council are still under consideration. 1. The creation of an Australian Capital. Territory Division of the Tribunal is being considered as a part of the examination of the Council's recommendation that the present Divisional structure of theTribunalshould be substantially altered- see paragraphs 82 and 83 of the Third Annual Report. {:#subdebate-88-15} #### Chemical Research Projects (Question No. 5346) {: #subdebate-88-15-s0 .speaker-CH4} ##### Mr Holding: asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice on 19 February 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. In view of the interest in chemicals used in Vietnam during the war there, as herbicides and pesticides, and the continuing debate within Australia over domestic use of various chemical agents such as 2,4,5-T and 2,4,-D, and the possible health problems caused by these chemicals, has he, his Department or any Government agency under his control, carried out any survey to determine what original research, as distinct from scientific literature reviews, is being conducted by CSIRO, various academic institutions and any other relevant bodies, into the possible effects of chemicals on both humans and the physical environment. 1. If so, (a) what chemical agents are being investigated; ( b) which individuals are carrying out the research, (c) what scientific disciplines do they represent, (d) where are they located, (e) what Commonwealth financial support does eachresearch project receive, (f) what private enterprise financial support does each research project receive and from which sources and (g) has any agency under Commonwealth Government control conducted any review of any of these research projects; if so, when and by whom was the review carried out. {: #subdebate-88-15-s1 .speaker-KVY} ##### Mr Thomson:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Research into the effects of chemicals on health and the environment covers a wide field of activities. No formal survey has been carried out by CSIRO to determine what original research is being conducted into the possible effects of chemicals on both humans and the physical environment. However, several units in CSIRO conduct, researchwork related to this field. For example, the CSIRO Division of Irrigation Research is undertaking research on herbicides used to control water weeds in irrigation systems, including the persistence and distribution of residues in soil, water and crops. These CSIRO research activities have been reviewed in the context of regular internal reviews of the Organisation. The House of Representatives' Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation has initiated an inquiry into the management of chemicals hazardous to health and the environment. One of the issues being considered is what research, assessment and dissemination of information on chemicals potentially hazardous to health and the environment is being conducted in Australia. 1. In January 1979 the Department of Science and the Environment released the first edition of the Australian Research Directory which lists 13,000 research projects inthe natural and selected social sciences. The Directory includes' details of research projects, the names of project leaders, departmental objectives and specialised facilities in universities and colleges of advanced education. The use of key words identifies those projects being conducted on the possible effects ofchemicals on both humans and the physical environment. Copies of the Directory may be obtained from the CSIRO Editorial and Publications Service. {:#subdebate-88-16} #### Chemical and Biological Warfare (Question No. 5359) {: #subdebate-88-16-s0 .speaker-CH4} ##### Mr Holding: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 19 February 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1) Was Australia a signatory to the Geneva Protocol of 17 June 1925, (an international treaty for the restriction of chemical and biological warfare) at (a) 17 June 1925, (b) any time between 1 January 1959 and 31 December 1972 and (c) 3 1 December 1979. 1. Is he able to state whether any legal opinions have been argued in international law that the Geneva Protocol is an accepted part of international law and therefore binding on all states; if so, will he cite the appropriate references. 2. Did the Australian Government make any protest to the United States of America Government at any time between 1960 and 1972 about the use of chemical and biological warfare in Vietnam. 3. If so, did the protest specifically refer to (a) 24D, (b) 245T, (c) cacodylic or dimethylarsenic acid, (d) picloram (e) arsenic trioxide, (0 various arsenates (lead, etc.) and arsenites, (g) calcium cyanamide, (h) sodium cyanide and other cyanides, (i) DNP, (j) 6,4 dinitro orthocresol, (k) maleic hydrazide, (1) malathion, (m) CMU, (n) DDT, (o) pas.turella pestis (plague) and (p) irritant gases. 4. Is Australia currently, or has Australia at any time been, a signatory to the 1945 Nuremberg Chaner denning war crimes and responsibilities. 5. If so, has the Australian Government sought and received any legal opinion on the applicability of any pan of that Charter to the use of chemical and biological weapons against any opposing military forces or any civilian populations affected by war at any time since the inception of that Charter. 6. When, and by whom, was the opinion sought and received and what was the substance of the opinion. 7. Has the United Nations adopted any resolutions, at any time since 1946, which are designed to control or limit the use of chemical and biological weapons in time of war; if so, (a) what are the terms of those resolutions, (b) when were they adopted, (c) what was the vote on each occasion and (d) what UN member-nations (i) abstained from voting and (ii) voted against those resolutions on each occasion. 8. Is Australia still a signatory to the quadripartite agreement made in 1964 between Great Britain, the USA, Canada and Australia (known at the Technical Cooperation Program and/or the Basic Standardisation Agreement) for the purposes of research and development of chemical and biological weapons. 9. Which Minister or Ministers of the then Australian Government were signatories to that quadripartite agreement, or if delegation of that power was made to the Public Service on behalf of the Australian Government, what were the names of the signatories, what were their designations and salaries and which Department did they represent. 10. What was the date on which that agreement was signed and where was it signed. 11. Is Australia a signatory to any other international agreements covering research and development of chemical and biological weapons; if so, when were those agreements made and who were the other parties to those agreements. 12. Does the Government intend to make a stand on the use of chemical and biological weapons. 13. In respect of all international treaties, conventions and agreements governing conduct in war to which Australia is a party what reservations has Australia placed on acceptance of the terms of those treaties. {: #subdebate-88-16-s1 .speaker-MI4} ##### Mr Peacock:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. (a), (b) and (c) Australia was not one of the thirtyeight countries which signed the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare (known as the Geneva Protocol) on 17 June 1925. Australia deposited an instrument of accession to the Protocol on 22 January 1930 with the Government of France, which on 24 May 1930 notified other states of Australian accession. Australian accession took effect from 24 May 1930. 1. The most recent occasion on which the status of the Geneva Protocol in international law has been argued in an international forum was during the debate on the UN General Assembly resolution 2603A(XXIV) (see answer to 8 below) the preamble of which reads in part 'Recognising therefore . . . that the Geneva Protocol embodies the generally recognised rules of international law prohibiting the use in international armed conflcts of all biological and chemical methods of warfare'. It remains a matter of considerable contention whether or not it is binding on all states (a vote on this preambular paragraph was carried in the First Committee by only 57 votes to 10, with 24 abstentions). The same preamble calls for 'an affirmation of these rules and for dispelling, for the future, any uncertainty as to their scope and, by such affirmation, to assure the effectiveness of the rules and to enable all states to demonstrate their determination to comply with them.' An account of the consideration of this issue is given in the Yearbook of the UN for 1969 on pages 27 and 28. 2. and (4) No. 3. The Nuremberg Charter, whose full title is the Agreement for the Persecution and Punishment of War Criminals of the European Axis and Charter of the International Military Tribunal, had four signatory Governments, France, the USSR, the United Kingdom and the United States. The four signatory Governments signed the Agreement in London on 8 August 1945. Australia notified the Government of the United Kingdom of its adherence to the Agreement on 5 October 1945. The Agreement is still in force. 4. and (7) No. Although there have been debates about the nature and effects of the Charter (including on the extent to which it, and the pronouncements of the International Military Tribunal, reflected or created international law) Austrafia shares the view of those who believe the Charter was created for a specific purpose and that its purpose having been satisfied it has none but a persuasive force. The use of chemical and biological weapons, as weapons in combat (as opposed to the quite separate issue of the use of poison for genocide), was not considered by the International Military Tribunal. 5. The United Nations every year adopts a resolution on chemical and biological weapons. The terms of these resolutions vary, but generally they refer to earlier resolutions and urge the necessity of negotiations on an agreement for a complete ban. Such resolutions could not be described as designed to control or limit the use of chemical and biological weapons in time of war. The one which might be so described is resolution 2603A(XXIV) (see 2 above), adopted on 16 December 1969 by 80 votes to 3 with 36 abstentions. It was a contentious resolution and Australia, which voted against (with the United States and Portugal), took the position that it formulated an interpretation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol not shared by all parties to it and that it was for those parties, not the General Assembly, to interpret its scope and application. Australia at that time voted instead for resolution 2603B(XXIV) adopted by 120 to 0 with 1 abstention- this resolution, without commenting on the international legal status or scope of the Geneva Protocol, nevertheless called for its strict observance and requested the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament to give urgent consideration to all aspects of the problem of the elimination of chemical and biological weapons. Resolution 26038(XXIV) has been referred to in all annual resolutions since 1969 while Resolution 2603A(XXIV) has not. Since 1 969 no negative vote has been registered against these resolutions and since 1974 the resolutions have been adopted by consensus. The United Nations adopted six resolutions on chemical and biological weapons between 1969 and 1974. These, with voting results, were as follows: Apart from two of the 1971 resolutions, these were standard resolutions urging progress on prohibitions of chemical and biological weapons. In 197 1, Resolution 2826, prepared by the USA and USSR, commended to governments for signature the Biological Weapons Convention (see answer to (12) below). Resolution 2827A in the same year was a standard resolution asking the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament to continue negotiations on a chemical weapons agreement as a priority item. Mexico, which had argued that chemical weapons and biological weapons should be dealt with in the one convention tabled first a working paper and then a draft resolution which was subsequently adopted as Resolution 2827B. The text of this resolution (mention of which, unlike Resolution 2827A, has not been re-iterated in successive annual resolutions) is as follows: The General Assembly, Noting that the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons contains an undertaking to continue negotiations in good faith with a view to reaching early agreement on effective measures for the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of chemical weapons and for their destruction, Believing that it is most desirable that some measures of a preliminary nature be adopted immediately, Urges all States to undertake, pending agreement on the complete prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of chemical weapons and their destruction, to refrain from any further development, production or stockpiling of those chemical agents for weapons purposes which because of their degree of toxicity have the highest lethal effects and are not usable for peaceful purposes. (9), ( 10) and (11) The Technical Co-operation Program and the Basic Standardisation Agreement are two separate agreements. An account of Australian involvement in the Technical Co-operation Program was given in the Senate by the then Minister for Supply on 28 November 1968 in answer to a question on notice. The Program's aims are essentially unaltered today and provide for the exchange of information over a wide spectrum of non-nuclear military research and development activities in which each country is free to participate selectively. Among many chosen for Australian participation are chemical and biological defence. The Basic Standardisation Agreement, to which the Australian Army is still a signatory, also has as one of its areas of endeavour the task of considering standardisation potential between armies in the field of defence against biological and chemical weapons. On 21 July 1965 Australia was formally invited by the United States to join in the (then) Tripartite Technical Cooperation Program. No formal Agreement as such exists, the Program being based on a statement of policies, organisation and procedures. Acceptance was approved by **Senator the Hon. Sir Shane** Paltridge, Minister for Defence. It was conveyed to the United States Embassy on 27 August 1965. With Ministerial concurrence the Chief of the General Staff, Lieutenant General R. G. Pollard, formally accepted the invitation to join the Basic Standardisation Agreement on 18 January 1 963. The Agreement was signed by Colonel E. J. H. Howard, Australian Army Representative, Washington. {: type="1" start="12"} 0. Australia is a party to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production of Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction which opened for signature at London, Moscow and Washington on 10 April 1972 and entered into force on 26 March 1 975. Australia signed the convention on 10 April 1 972 and ratified it on 5 October 1977. The other States Parties to the Convention are as follows: Afghanistan, Argentina, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Cape Verde Is., Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, German DR, Ghana, Greece, Congo, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Iceland, India, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Seychelles, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukrainian SSR, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States of America, Venezuela, Yemen PDR, Yugoslavia, Zaire. 1. Australia is taking a prominent role in efforts in the Committee on Disarmament to negotiate a complete prohibition on chemical weapons. It also participated actively in the conference convened in Geneva from 3-2 1 March 1980 to review the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. In January 1979 I told the inaugural session of the Committee on Disarmament that the control of chemical weapons represented an aspect of conventional arms control where practical measures were immediately possible and that the question of a chemical warfare convention was an immediate task for the Committee. Since then the Committee has agreed to make the question one of its priorities for 1980. The Australian representative, **Sir James** Plimsoll, on 5 February outlined to the Committee how it might undertake useful, practical and detailed work this year while recognising the complex and difficult issues involved. The Australian delegation formally circulated a proposal for a chemical weapons workshop to involve experts in the subject and those negotiating a chemical weapons convention. 2. Australia has made reservations to the following international treaties, conventions and agreements governing conduct in wan {: type="a" start="a"} 0. International Convention for adapting to Maritime Warfare the principles of the Geneva Convention of 22 August 1864, done at The Hague on 29 July 1899. The instrument of ratification was deposited by Great Britain on 4 September 1 900. The Convention applies to Australia. The instrument of ratification excluded Article X. 1. International Convention relative to the laying of Automatic Submarine Contact Mines, signed at The Hague on 18 October 1907. The instrument of ratification was deposited by Great Britain 27 November 1909. The Convention applies to Australia with the reservation of the following declaration: 'In affixing their signatures to the above convention, the British Plenipotentiaries declare that the mere fact that this Convention does not prohibit a particular act or proceeding must not be held to debar his Britannic Majesty's Government from contesting its legitimacy '. 2. International Convention respecting Bombardments by Naval Forces in Time of War, signed at The Hague on 1 8 October 1 907. The instrument of ratification was deposited by Great Britain, 27 November 1909. The Convention applies to Australia, under reservation of paragraph 2 Article 1 (Art 1 para 2 'A place may not be bombarded solely on the ground that automatic submarine contact mines are anchored off the harbour'). 3. Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use of War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17June 1925. The Protocol was acceded by Australia on 22 January 1930. Australia's accession is subject to the reservation that 'His Majesty is bound by the said Protocol only towards those Powers and States which have both signed and ratified the Protocol or have acceded thereto, and that His Majesty shall cease to be bound by the Protocol towards any Power at enmity with Him whose armed forces, or the armed forces of whose allies, do not respect the Protocol '. 4. Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in time of War of August 12, 1949. The instrument of ratification was deposited by Australia on 14 October 1958. It was ratified subject to the following reservation and declaration. 'In ratifying the Convention, the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia reserves the right to impose the death penalty in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 68 of the said Convention without regard to whether the offences referred to therein are punishable by death under law of the occupied territory at the time the occupation begins, and declared that it interprets the term "military installations" in paragraph 2 of Article 68 of the said convention as meaning installations having an essential military interest for an occupying Power'. {:#subdebate-88-17} #### Justices of the High Court (Question No. 5364) {: #subdebate-88-17-s0 .speaker-CH4} ##### Mr Holding: asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 19 February 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many days in each of the past 10 years has (a) the Chief Justice of Australia and (b) any other Justice of the High Court of Australia been absent from Australia in connection with his duties as a member of the Judicial Committee of the British Privy Council? {: type="1" start="2"} 0. ) Which Government bears or. which Governments bear the cost of the Chief Justice and Justices performing these duties? 1. If the Australian Government bears the whole or part of the costs, what costs have been incurred by it in each ofthe past 10 years? {: #subdebate-88-17-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The Attorney-General has provided the following answers to the honourable member's questions: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. In the main the Chief Justice and Justices who have attended the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the past ten years have done so during the winter vacation of the High Court and during periods they have travelled privately to England on leave. In these circumstances no precise records have been kept within my department. There have been occasions on which the Chief Justice and Justices have attended the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council whilst travelling overseas on other official duties. Departmental records do not reveal the precise number of days that the Chief Justice and Justices were absent in connection with their duties with the Privy Council. 1. The Australian Government bears the costs of the Chief Justice and Justices sitting on the Committee. 2. Having regard to ( 1) above it is not possible to apportion costs incurred in relation to attendance at the Privy Council. {:#subdebate-88-18} #### Medical Training Costs (Question No. 5388) {: #subdebate-88-18-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 February 1 980: >What was the average cost of training a medical graduate in Australia, through the full period of his or her training course during each ofthe last 5 financial years. {: #subdebate-88-18-s1 .speaker-0I4} ##### Mr MacKellar:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >I am informed that it is not possible to provide an estimate of the average cost of training a medical graduate through the full period of training during each of the last five financial years. However, the Tertiary Education Commission estimates that, in terms of recurrent expenditure by universities, the average cost of producing a medical graduate in a six year course is approximately $45,000 at December 1 979 cost levels. This figure includes the contribution made by universities towards the direct costs incurred by teaching hospitals in the training of medical students in their clinical years. It does not include any allowance for the indirect costs incurred in the provision of many of the normal hospital services as a result of medical teaching. It is difficult to isolate these indirect costs of teaching medical students since teaching functions are closely integrated with the other functions of the hospital. {:#subdebate-88-19} #### Telephone Exchanges: Automatic Recording Equipment (Question No. 5391) {: #subdebate-88-19-s0 .speaker-KJA} ##### Mr Innes: asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 20 February 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Does the Automatic Recording Equipment (ARE) 1 1 being installed in metropolitan telephone exchanges currently have or theoretically possess the capability of (a) storing time elapsed and/or charge information for (i) individual International Subscriber Dialling (ISD) calls and (ii) individual Subscriber Trunk Dialling (STD) calls to enable listing in itemised telephone accounts, and (b) storing time elapsed and/or charge information for individual local telephone calls to enable charging on a time-elapsed basis for local calls. 1. If any or all of these capabilities are theoretical but not installed capacities, what additions must be incorporated to the ARE 1 1 to permit them to be achieved, and what would be the cost in each case. 2. Does Telecom intend to incorporate any or all of the additional equipment; if so, when. 3. Can he give a firm undertaking that local calls will not be charged on a time-elapsed basis for (a) the next S years and (b) the next 10 years. {: #subdebate-88-19-s1 .speaker-GY5} ##### Mr Staley:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) (a) Telecom Australia advises that the ARE 1 1 equipment currently being installed does not inherently have the capability of storing time elapsed or charge information for ISD or STD calls. However, when ARE 1 1 exchanges are connected to suitably equipped charging centres, such as Telecom's 10C trunk exchanges, the two systems working together can generate charge records at the charging centres. The 10C trunk exchanges are computer controlled and although installed in all capital cities except Hobart at this stage are in service only in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. The introduction of this facility at selected capital city exchanges for ISD calls commenced on 12 March 1980, the service being called ISD Call Charge Recording. It is proposed to introduce a similar service for STD Call Charge Recording to enable subscribers to have details of these calls listed in telephone accounts. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. ARE 1 1 exchanges to not have the capability of charging for individual local telephone calls on a time elapsed basis but could be modified to provide this capability. However, no such modifications have been designed or costed. 1. See answers 1 (a) and (b) above. 2. Introduction of call charge recording into the Australian telephone network for ISD has already commenced as mentioned in 1 (a) above and it is planned to commence introduction of the facility for STD in 1984. A more detailed explanation of the factors involved in STD call charge recording is provided at pages 48 and 49 of Telecom's Annual Report for 1978-79. 3. There are no plans at present to enable charging on a time elapsed basis for local calls from ARE 1 1 or any other local exchanges in the Australian network. {:#subdebate-88-20} #### Earthquakes (Question No. 5404) {: #subdebate-88-20-s0 .speaker-CV4} ##### Mr Jacobi: asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 20 February 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1) Is it a fact that the problem of damage to long period structures produced by distant earthquakes has not been satisfactorily explored. 1. 2 ) Is the possibility of damage to long period structures in Darwin due to earthquakes in the Banda Sea noted in the commentary (Clause C3.2) of the SAA Earthquake Code (Australian Standard 212 1-1979). 2. Will the Minister take steps to explore more fully this whole question, particularly with respect to possible damage in Darwin, and in view of the projected extensive engineering projects in the north-west of Western Australia to explore the possible damage to structures in this region. 3. Although it is not customary to provide strong motion instrumentation for structures, such as production platforms and pipelines, is information obtained about the response to these structures during an earthquake vitally important to engineers in the design of earthquake resistant structures. 4. Is the Minister able to state whether it is the practice in places like California for all multi-storey buildings to be provided with these instruments. 5. Is it a fact that detailed information of the seismicity of an area is necessary in order that seismic risk may be assessed as precisely as possible. 6. Is it also a fact that seismicity information can only be obtained with an adequate network of stations but that at the present time coverage in Queensland is less satisfactory than in most other parts of Australia. 7. Can the Minister say whether the University of Queensland plans to increase the number of stations but is unable to do so because of lack of financial support; if so, will the Commonwealth undertake to meet this additional cost. 8. Is the long term operation of permanent seismograph stations under the control of regional centres such as the University of Adelaide and the University of Queensland a problem because of the lack of long term funding. 9. 10) If so, will the Minister investigate the present unsatisfactory nature of the arrangements for operating permanent seismograph stations in Australia and ensure that secure long term funding is available. 10. Are dedicated communication channels allowing recording at a central site more convenient and more satisfactory than recording separately at each of a number of isolated sites. 11. Is it a fact that in many instances it is essential to bring signals from a remote detector to a more accessible recorder, but that the annual rental for telephone lines for distances of hundreds of kilometres is many thousands of dollars per year; if so, will the Minister take appropriate steps to ensure that lines used for the transmission of earthquake data are available at nominal rental. 12. Can the Minister say whether the cost to insurance companies from damage caused by the 1954 earthquake in Adelaide (magnitude 5V4) was approximately $6m; if so, would a similar earthquake at the present time cause damage amounting to $24m. 13. Did an earthquake of magnitude *6Vi* strike the Kingston-Beachport area of South Australia in 1897 producing ground movement more than 10 times as great as the 1954 earthquake; if so, were an earthquake of this magnitude to now occur in Adelaide, would the damage be many times in excess of $24m. {: #subdebate-88-20-s1 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP -The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Study of the effect of distant earthquakes on long period structures is relatively new, however, awareness of this phenomenon has increased in recent years. The Commonwealth Government established its first seismic station in 1 949 and now owns or assists with the operation of 50 seismic stations in all States and the Northern Territory. These stations are located on a priority basis according to estimates of the seismic risk. Susceptible regions are provided with more stations than relatively low risk areas such as Queensland where there are three stations. 1. Commentary Clause C3.2 of the SAA Earthquake Code refers specifically to the need to take into account the long period effects of distant earthquakes on long period structures and Darwin is given as a case in point. 2. The risk to facilities constructed on or near the Northern Australian coastline due to large distant earthquakes in the Banda Sea, is less than that due to lateral forces arising from tropical cyclones which would probably dominate the design. However, further inland, where the tropical cyclone risk is diminished the effects of these distant earthquakes on long period structures may well be of practical importance. 3. Data on ground motion and structure response are highly desirable to assist engineers to design earthquake resistant structures and to assess whether the structures they have designed are performing in accordance with expectations. 4. Accelerographs are installed in all new multi-storey buildings in California but there are many high earthquake risk areas of the world where the installation of such instrumentation is not mandatory. 5. Assessment of seismic risk must necessarily be an approximation. 6. Coverage in Queensland is not as extensive as in other States. However as indicated in (1) above Queensland is considered a relatively low risk area. 7. The operations of the universities and the management of their finances do not fall within my ministerial responsibilities. 8. and (10)1 cannot comment on the universities' or any similar institutions' interval management and finances. 9. Yes. 10. 12) It is essential in many instances to bring signals from a remote detector to a more accessible recorder, and the actual cost of installing and maintaining dedicated land lines is high. Whether the cost should be subsidised by other users is a matter for the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. 11. I understand that the 1954 Adelaide earthquake (magnitude about 5.5 on the Richter scale) cost the insurance companies about £4m (that is $8m). It is not possible to predict the value of damage which an earthquake might now cause. {: type="1" start="14"} 0. The ground movement associated with the 1897 earthquake would have been about 10 times as great as the 1954 earthquake. Again, it is not possible to predict the value of the damage which a similar earthquake might now cause. {:#subdebate-88-21} #### Vietnam Veterans: Agent Orange (Question No. 5421) {: #subdebate-88-21-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 February 1980: >Is he able to state on what occasions Australian servicemen were exposed to the defoliant Agent Orange in Vietnam. {: #subdebate-88-21-s1 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Not fully at this stage. My Department started work on this subject last December and it is proceeding with all speed consistent with thoroughness. The task is a very large one, involving the matching of data about where and when Agent Orange was used by the Americans, with data (which has to be culled from records and can involve voluminous research) about the whereabouts of Australian units and subunits at relevant times. The work is basic to studies such as the one announced on 31 March 1980 by the Minister for > >Veterans' Affairs and will of course be made available to those engaged in that study. {:#subdebate-88-22} #### Vietnam Veterans: Agent Orange (Question No. 5422) {: #subdebate-88-22-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 February 1 980: >What (a) medical research, (b) medical examinations, (c) surveys, and (d) monitoring of information have been instituted to ascertain the extent that exposure to the defoliant Agent Orange or any other defoliant may have adversely affected current members of the Australian Forces who served in Vietnam, or their children. {: #subdebate-88-22-s1 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >I refer the honourable member to the statement made by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs on 31 March 1980 announcing a study relating to the matters alluded to. {:#subdebate-88-23} #### Telephone Directories (Question No. 5433) {: #subdebate-88-23-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 20 February 1 980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many telephone directories in Australia incorporate a section in a language other than English to help the non-English speaking community 1. What submissions were made to incorporate a nonEnglish section in the 1979 Wollongong Telephone Directory which covers a population of which a substantial part was born in countries whose mother tongue is not English. 2. What measures does the Government propose to take to ensure that all future telephone directories will include a section to help the non-English speaking community. {: #subdebate-88-23-s1 .speaker-GY5} ##### Mr Staley:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) To date, a 'Help For The Non-English Speaking Community' section has been included in 14 of the 55 telephone directories published each year. 1. ) No submissions were received by Telecom to incorporate a non-English help section in the 1979 Wollongong directory, but arrangements are in hand, in conjunction with the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, to include this information in the 1 98 1 Wollongong directory. 2. Telecom and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs also have in train a joint national review of migrant information requirements for telephone directories. This review will decide what directories should contain Help For The Non-English Speaking Communites' in future, bearing in mind population shifts and changes. It is expected that this review will be finalised by mid- 1 980. {:#subdebate-88-24} #### Schools Commission Programs (Question No. 5438) {: #subdebate-88-24-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 20 February 1980: >What sums were paid by the Schools Commission under each program for government and non-government schools and under the Special Projects (Innovations) Program for government schools in the Electoral Divisions of (a) Hughes, (b) Cook, (c) Cunningham, and (d) Barton during (i) 1977-78, (ii) 1978-79, and (iii) for the period 1 July 1979 to date. {: #subdebate-88-24-s1 .speaker-CG4} ##### Mr Fife:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Funds for non-government schools made available under programs administered by the Schools Commission in 1979 and to date in 1980 are set out below. Grants are made available on a calendar year basis and information is provided in this way. Payments for the years 1975-78 are set out in the reports which were tabled in the House of Representatives on the dates listed below- > >Report-States Grants (Schools) Act 1972- Financial Assistance granted to each State in 1 974-75-25 May 1 976 > >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 1975-1 December 1976 > >Report-States Grants (Schools) Act 1973-Financial Assistance granted to each State in 1976-6 September 1977 > >Report- States Grants (Schools) Act 1976- Financial Assistance granted to each State- 23 February 1 978 Report- States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1976- 24 November 1978 Report- States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1977- 21 August 1979 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. The Commonwealth Government, through Schools 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 Schools Commission programs in 1979 and 1980: Grants made to government schools in the Electorates of Hughes, Cook, Cunningham and Barton in 1979 and 1980 under the Special Projects (Innovations) Program have been: {:#subdebate-88-25} #### Australia Council (Question No. 5442) {: #subdebate-88-25-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 20 February 1980: >What sums were granted by the Australia Council to (a) individuals, and (b) organisations in each electoral division (i) in 1 979 and (ii) during the period 1 January 1 980 to date. {: #subdebate-88-25-s1 .speaker-YF6} ##### Mr Ellicott:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The Australia Council has provided me with the information requested by the honourable member, and it is set out in the tables attached below. In providing this information the Australia Council has pointed out the tables have been prepared according to the date on which a grant is approved. The tables do not include grants approved prior to 1979 but payable in the period in question; they do however include grants approved in the period in question but payable wholly or in part in future periods. By way of example, the Council has indicated that the figures for 1979 include the full value of three year fellowships approved in that year, although the actual payments are made in 1979, 1980 and 1981. The 1979 figures also include grants to organisations for the calendar year 1980 where these were approved in 1979. > >The Australia Council has also pointed out that grants for National and State arts organisations are included in the electoral division of their office address. {:#subdebate-88-26} #### Overseas Aid (Question No. 5454) {: #subdebate-88-26-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 February 1 980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Is be able to state what is the estimated world average income including estimated market value of non-marketed consumption per person over 1 5 years of age. 1. What is the world average ratio of persons under 1 5 to persons over 1 5 years of age. 2. What are the comparable figures for Australia included in parts ( 1 ) and (2). 3. What is the estimated number of persons (a) in the world and (b) in Australia receiving less than (i) the world average income, (ii) the estimated world minimum subsistence income, (iti) the income of a supporting parent and one child both dependent solely on Social Security Department benefits in Australia, assuming that one third of the single parent family income goes to the child and (iv) the poverty line income recognised by the Australian Government for persons (A) aged under 15 and (B) aged over 15 years. 4. What is the estimated cost of providing world minimum subsistence income to those not receiving it (a) in terms of current market prices for the cheapest available resources and (b) after use of technical aid now available to maximise self-sufficiency. 5. What percentage of the costs in part (5) could be met by increasing Australia's foreign aid to 0.7 per cent of Australia's gross national product. {: #subdebate-88-26-s1 .speaker-MI4} ##### Mr Peacock:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >World average income is based on the Gross National Product at Market Prices statistics which conceptually should include the value of Non-Marketed consumption. The figures related to the World Statistics have been converted from US to Australian Dollars using the applicable DAC Exchange Rate ( 1 977 $US 1 = SA0.90 17). 1 18 countries out of a total of 178 have per capita incomes below the world average. > >The estimated cost of providing the World Average Income to those not receiving it could be met if those 60 countries who are above the World Average Income increased their Gross National Product by 66 per cent and allocated 40 per cent of it to Foreign Aid Programs. $15,994 million of aid was provided to Developing Countries and Multilateral Agencies by DAC Member Countries in 1978. This figure represents only 0.42 per cent of the estimated cost of ensuring that the 118 countries are in receipt of a per capita income equal to that of the World Average Income. In order to achieve parity it would be necessary to increase the volume of aid 239 times. > >In detail: > >1 ) The world average per capita income was $1,731 in 1977 (latest available statistics). If the population aged 15 years and under is excluded the income would amount to $2,708. > >2 ) World average ratio of persons under 1 5 years of age to persons over 15 years of age is 1:1.8. > >In 1977 Australia's Gross National Product per capita was $6,572 but, if the population under 15 years of age is excluded the income would amount to $8,952. The average ratio of persons under 15 years of age to persons over 15 years of age in Australia is 1:2.8. (4a) Of the total world population of 4047 million it is estimated that 2924 million persons are receiving less than the World Average Income. (4b) No one in Australia either in full time employment or, in receipt of social security, was on an income below that of the world average. Only 190,000 parttime workers in Australia are receiving incomes less than the world average. Figures relating to the estimated world minimum subsistence income are not available. > >The Australian income of a sole parent, with one child both solely dependent on social security benefits was $3,344 per annum. Assuming that one-third of this income goes to the child the remaining two-thirds represents $2,230 per annum (which is well above the world average per capita income of $1,731). There are no 'poverty line ' income figures officially accepted by any Australian Government for either persons over or under 1 5 years of age. > >Figures for world minimum subsistence income are not available but the estimated cost of providing the World Average Income of $ 1 ,73 1 to those not receiving it is $3,823,000 million. > >If Australian Foreign Aid was increased to 0.7 per cent of Gross National Product only 0.008 per cent of the costs in part 5 could be met from this increase. It should be noted however that the World Average Income is not a clear measure of real poverty as costs of living (e.g. the cost of purchasing a standard basket of goods) vary greatly between countries. In many countries the purchasing power of an income of $1,731 would be extremely high. It is also inappropriate to equate development assistance with transfer payments made in domestic social service programs, since effectively applied development assistance contributes positively to self sustaining development. In the case of development assistance the long term rise in income should therefore be greater than the actual amount expended. {:#subdebate-88-27} #### Parliamentary Reform (Question No. 5467) {: #subdebate-88-27-s0 .speaker-CH4} ##### Mr Holding: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 20 February 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has he received representations from the Young Liberals regarding (a) questions on the Notice Paper of both Houses, (b) changes to Parliamentary committees, (c) citizen-initiated referenda, (d) presentation of annual reports to Parliament by Federal Departments and authorities, (e) 'sunset' legislation, (f) private members' bills, (g) free availability of *Hansard* and (h) the decline of Parliamentary authority over executive government. 1. If so, what were the recommendations contained within those representations. 2. Will he ascertain whether the Presiding Officers of the Parliament have received any similar representations regarding parliamentary reform from the Young Liberals. {: #subdebate-88-27-s1 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. to (3) The issues referred to by the honourable member were raised by the Federal President of the Young Liberal Movement in an address to the 31st State Convention of the Queensland Young Liberals on 27 January 1 980. Relations with South Africa (Question No. 5472) {: #subdebate-88-27-s2 .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1 980: >In view of the answer to Question No. 3473 *(Hansard,* 13 November 1979, page 2948) did **Sir Harry** Gibbs, a Justice of the High Court of Australia (a) make his visit to South Africa in 1 979 at the expense of the Australian Government; and (b) use a diplomatic passport on the visit. {: #subdebate-88-27-s3 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. No. 1. Yes. As a Justice of the High Court, **Sir Harry** Gibbs has an entitlement to a diplomatic passport. {:#subdebate-88-28} #### Nuclear Weapons Test (Question No. 5477) {: #subdebate-88-28-s0 .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the statement by **Mr Beadell** in Blast the Bush, that a Canberra bomber was flown through the mushroom cloud of the British nuclear weapons test at Maralinga on IS October 19S3; if so, is he able to state whether this statement is correct. 1. If the statement is correct, can he state (a) how many people were on board during the flight, (b) what subsequent measures have been taken to monitor the health of those people and (c) what were the results of health checks. {: #subdebate-88-28-s1 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) and ( 2 ) I am informed that examination of the historical records shows that the aircraft about which **Mr Beadell** wrote was British, with a British crew. Australian records throw no light on the other matters referred to in the question. {:#subdebate-88-29} #### Insurance Industry: Departmental Responsibility (Question No. 5486) {: #subdebate-88-29-s0 .speaker-CV4} ##### Mr Jacobi: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1 980: >Is it a fact that the Treasury has received repeated requests for amending legislation by Federal Life and General Insurance commissioners and also received criticisms by other concerned authorities and bodies to which it has failed to respond satisfactorily; if so, will he direct that administrative responsibility for all insurance matters (including intermediaries) be transferred from the Department of the Treasury to the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs. {: #subdebate-88-29-s1 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >I do not propose to change the administrative responsibility for insurance matters. With regard to the technical matters raised in the question, I suggest that the honourable member's inquiries should be more properly directed to the Treasurer. {:#subdebate-88-30} #### Parliamentary Committee Reports (Question No. 5518) {: #subdebate-88-30-s0 .speaker-ZE4} ##### Mr Lionel Bowen: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 27 February 1 980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did he inform the House on 25 May 1978 that henceforth, within 6 months ofthe tabling of a committee report, the responsible Minister would make a statement in the Parliament outling the action the Government proposes to take in relation to the report and that if the 6 month period expires during a Parliamentary recess, the ministerial statement will be made at the earliest opportunity in the next Parliamentary sittings *(Hansard,* pages 2465-6). 1. If so, how many Parliamentary committee reports have, within 6 months of their tabling, been the subject of a ministerial statement to Parliament outlining the action the Government proposed to take in relation to them. 2. How many Parliamentary committee reports have been tabled since 25 May 1978. {: #subdebate-88-30-s1 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. In the same statement I made it clear that there would be some committee reports to which this procedure would not be appropriate. Members should appreciate that procedures to implement this undertaking are new and will be reviewed in the light of experience to ensure their effective operation. The Government 's undertaking has broken new ground in the treatment by a Government of the reports of Parliamentary Committees. No previous Government has been prepared to give such an undertaking and in the past this has resulted in many reports and much valuable work of Parliamentary Committees passing unheeded. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. and (3) As at 16 May 1978 153 reports have been tabled since 25 May 1980. Of these: 98 reports either required no response (as they dealt with matters of house management or the processes of Parliament or other matters which by their nature do not require a response) or were subject to separate procedures for a response (e.g. reports of the Public Accounts and Public Works Committees) 35 reports have been responded to (including 7 responded to within 6 months or at the earliest opportunity following expiry of the 6 months period during a Parliamentary recess) 1 1 reports, to which responses have not yet been made, are outside the 6 months period. Members will be aware that Ministers have given interim responses, in the form of either statements or responses to questions, in respect of a number of reports for which a Government response has been overdue 9 reports, to which responses have not yet been made are still within the 6 months period. {:#subdebate-88-31} #### Telephone Systems: Transmission Mode (Question No. 5528) {: #subdebate-88-31-s0 .speaker-KH4} ##### Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 27 February 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has a decision been made by Telecom Australia to convert from the present mode of analogue transmission to digital transmission for telephone systems. 1. If so, {: type="a" start="1"} 0. b ) who made the decision to convert, 1. what is the anticipated date of conversion, and 2. d ) what is the anticipated cost of conversion. 2. Have representations been made against the conversion by any individuals or groups. {: #subdebate-88-31-s1 .speaker-GY5} ##### Mr Staley:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Beginning in the 1978-79 financial year, Telecom Australia commenced the installation of digital transmission systems (PCM 30). The digital systems are being used for expansion of the telephone network in those locations where the use of this form of transmission is more economic than provision of additional analogue facilities. There are no plans to convert existing analogue telephone transmission systems to digital working. 1. By 1982, it is planned to install some 200 PCM 30 systems for traffic growth in Telecom inter-exchange networks. These systems will be installed almost exclusively in Metropolitan networks. No analogue systems are being converted. 2. No. Discussions with the relevant staff organisations, mainly the ATEA and the APTU, have been initiated and are continuing. {:#subdebate-88-32} #### Racial Discrimination (Question No. 5530) {: #subdebate-88-32-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 27 February 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the article *Our Pathetic Blacks* in issue No. 10 of *Trek* magazine published by **Mr F.** J. Y. de Los Palmos 1. Has the Commissioner for Community Relations determined that Australia's anti-discrimination laws do not allow him to take action to counteract the dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority doctrines or racial hatred, despite failure of the publisher to acknowledge repeated complaints. 2. Will the Government strengthen the Commissioner's power and the law accordingly. {: #subdebate-88-32-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. The Commissioner has expressed views on what he sees as a deficiency in current law concerning dissemination of ideas based on racial hatred. 2. The Government is giving consideration to whether amendments are needed to strengthen the Racial Discrimination Act in this particular area and will take the views of the Commissioner for Community Relations into account in that consideration. The Government has also brought the matter before the Ministerial Meeting on Human Rights for examination. {:#subdebate-88-33} #### Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme: Unemployment Benefit (Question No. 5540) {: #subdebate-88-33-s0 .speaker-KSF} ##### Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 27 February 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many business colleges in New South Wales are in receipt of Federal or State Government subsidies. 1. How many students,, now studying in Government subsidised business colleges in New South Wales are (a) in receipt of Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (TEAS) allowances and (b) not in receipt of TEAS allowances. 2. How many students now studying in Government subsidised colleges in New South-Wales, and in receipt of TEAS allowances were formerly in receipt of unemployment benefits. 3. How many students studying in technical colleges in New South Wales who are in receipt of TEAS allowances were formerly in receipt of unemployment benefits. {: #subdebate-88-33-s1 .speaker-CG4} ##### Mr Fife:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) In 1979 there were 25 approved non-government business colleges in New South Wales which were in receipt of Commonwealth Government subsidies. I am not aware of any provision for funding of business colleges by the New South Wales State Government. 1. (a) Official statistics on TEAS beneficiaries relate to students in receipt of assistance at 30 June each year. As at 30 June 1979, 733 grantees who were attending nongovernment business colleges in New South Wales were in receipt of TEAS, (b) Approximately 1,400 students enrolled in approved secretarial courses at non-government business colleges in New South Wales at 30 June 1979 were not in receipt of TEAS benefits. 2. and (4) Statistics have not been kept of the number of students studying in technical colleges and Government subsidised colleges m New South Wales who are in receipt of TEAS allowances and were formerly in receipt of unemployment benefits. {:#subdebate-88-34} #### Spain: Tourist Visas (Question No. 5543) {: #subdebate-88-34-s0 .speaker-CJ4} ##### Mr Shipton:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 28 February 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has a 1961 agreement between Australia and Spain, whereby Spain waived the requirement for Australian tourists to obtain visas, recently been abrogated; if so, which party abrogated it; 1. Do Australian citizens entering Spain now require visas; 2. If so, is he able to state whether the requirement has inconvenienced significant numbers of Australian tourists by preventing them from entering Spain; 3. Has the Spanish Government offered to negotiate a new agreement on this matter with the Australian Government; if so, has his Department responded to the Spanish initiative. {: #subdebate-88-34-s1 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. Spain. 1. Yes. 2. The Spanish authorities state that over 80,000 tourists from Australia visit Spain annually. Several claim to have been inconvenienced when attempting to enter Spain without a visa since 4 October 1 978. 1 am unable to state whether the numbers inconvenienced would reach substantial proportions. Since the Agreement terminated, the Government has made strenuous and continuing efforts to ensure that all bodies concerned with travel are aware of the visa requirement and that correct information is given to travellers. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. Yes. When the Spanish Government advised that it was denouncing the Agreement, it indicated its willingness to enter into discussions with a view to signing a new Agreement with reciprocal provisions. Possible means of facilitating the movement of tourists are under continuing examination. However, the visa system is an integral pan of Australia 's immigration control procedures. {:#subdebate-88-35} #### Social Security: Galbally Report (Question No. 5630) {: #subdebate-88-35-s0 .speaker-JNG} ##### Dr Cass: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 6 March 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) At what stage of (a) development and (b) implementation are the following recommendations made by the Galbally report: 3, 40, 42 for which the Department of Social Security is responsible. 1. What sum has been spent specifically on each of the recommendations in pan ( 1 ) in (a) each financial year since acceptance of the report and (b) the period 1 July to 31 December 1979. 2. 3 ) How much ofthe funds recommended in the report for expenditure on each of the recommendations within the Minister's portfolio has been spent on (a) refugee settlement, (b) refugee programs (c) refugee organisations, (d) other organisations supporting refugees and (e ) employment of staff to help with refugee settlement in (i) each financial year since the report was accepted and (ii) the period 1 July to 31 December 1979. 3. What happens to funds allocated for the implementation of any recommendation, but not spent, in a specific financial year. 4. What (a) specific skills and (b) experiences are required ofthe persons employed on the implementation of the report in dealing with the specific needs of the ethnic communities. 5. What percentage of those employees are from the (a) Italian, (b) Greek, (c) Yugoslav and (d) Arabic ethnic groups and at what level are they employed. 6. What mechanisms of (a) consultation and (b) coordination exist between the Department of Social Security and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. 7. What (a) funds have been provided over and above the recommendations in the report and (b) new programs have been initiated by the Department of Social Security in order to implement the spirit ofthe report. {: #subdebate-88-35-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >This question is being answered by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. {:#subdebate-88-36} #### Ethnic Affairs (Question No. 5638) {: #subdebate-88-36-s0 .speaker-JNG} ##### Dr Cass: asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 6 March 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What specific (a) skills and (b) experience in dealing with and being sensitive to the specific needs of ethnic communities are required of persons employed in the Ethnic Affairs Branch of his Department 1. What (a) numbers and classifications and (b) percentage of the people, staff or advisers working with or within this Branch are from the (i) Italian, (ii) Greek, (iti) Yugoslav, (iv) Arabic, and ( v) other ethnic communities. {: #subdebate-88-36-s1 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) The skills and experience required vary according to the nature of the particular position. Speaking generally, the Branch has recruited persons with skills and experience in social policy formulation and analysis, program evaluation, social research, community liaison, program development and servicing advisory bodies. The staff have an understanding of immigration and ethnic affairs policies and objectives, awareness of the special needs of migrants generally and of particular migrant groups; many are themselves migrants and have language skills. There is a wide range of ethnic backgrounds among staff in the Branch. The Department does not maintain information of the kind sought in part (2) of the question. Some staff might well regard enquiries of this nature as an invasion of their privacy. Employment in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs is in conformity with the general requirement that officers should meet the normal requirements for employment in the Commonwealth Public Service. It is for consideration whether a requirement that a person should or should not be a first generation migrant or should or should not be from a particular ethnic background would be in conflict with the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. There is, in fact, a range of ethnic backgrounds among staff employed in the Branch. Most ofthe staff are graduates in disciplines relevant to the functions of the Branch. Many of the staff are involved in community activities involving the sorts of groups referred to by the honourable member. {:#subdebate-88-37} #### Alcohol Abuse (Question No. 5641) {: #subdebate-88-37-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 6 March 1 980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Will he ask the National Health and Medical Research Council to recommend to Governments that a warning be included on labels of alcoholic foods and drinks to the effect (a) that average intake for average adults of 100 grams of alcohol a day may harm health and may be habit forming, (a) that during pregnancy over 20 grams a day may cause birth defects, (c) that quick intake of 300 to 600 grams may cause death, and stating (a) what proportion of the contents contain those quantities of alcohol and (e) what proportion is likely to produce illegal blood levels for vehicle drivers. 1. Will the Government set an example to the States by requiring such a warning on all relevant labels (a) printed in the Australian Capital Territory after 1 July 1 980, (b) affixed in the ACT after 1 January 1981 and (c) entering the ACT after 1 January 1982. 2. Will the Government require a similar warning on all advertising in the ACT including the broadcast advertising of alcoholic beverages. 3. Has his Department instituted an alcoholism diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation program for employees; if not, why not. 4. Can he say whether any other Department has instituted such a program. 5. Can he also say whether the United States of America Armed Forces spend $35m annually on control of alcohol abuse evident in some 30 per cent of personnel with a recovery rate around 75 per cent; if so, what are the comparable figures for Australia. {: #subdebate-88-37-s1 .speaker-0I4} ##### Mr MacKellar:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The National Health and Medical Research Council (N.H. & M.R.C.) is currently considering certain proposals for the labelling of alcoholic drinks with the alcohol content. I will request Council to consider the five proposals made by the honourable member. 1. and (3) The recommendations of the N.H. & M.R.C. will be sent to States and Territories as soon as Council's considerations have been completed. At that stage it will be possible to decide what action will be taken. 2. and (S) Within the context of its response to the Report from the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare entitled 'Drug Problems in Australia- an Intoxicated Society?', as announced in a Ministerial Statement in the Senate on 19 March 1980 (Senate *Hansard,* 19 March 1980, pages 79S and following), the Government has adopted a specific policy on alcohol and alcohol abuse which wil employ preventive and curative measures to combat the harmful effects which alcohol abuse has on personal health and community well-being. In particular, I refer to the Government's response to Recommendation 9 of the Senate Committee's Report. The Director-General of Health, as the occupational health authority in respect of Commonwealth employees, issued a statement on Commonwealth Occupational Health Policy on Alcohol and Drug Dependence in November 1978. This statement supplemented Guidelines for Handling Problems of Alcohol Misuse in the Australian Public Service, also issued in November 1978, by the Public Service Board. These Guidelines are intended to assist departments and authorities to develop policies and procedures in the identification and sympathetic and effective handling of staff affected by alcohol misuse. A further guidelines paper on alcohol and drug misuse is being prepared by the Joint Council of the Australian Public Service. A number of alcohol intervention programs have been developed in various areas of Qantas, Telecom and the Offices of the Navy and Air Force. {: type="1" start="6"} 0. No, but I am aware of evidence given before a United State Congressional Committee on 27 July 1978 by the Deputy Secretary of Defence in which it was stated that $US34m was being spent on drug abuse prevention and treatment in the Armed Forces. It should be noted, however, that this amount was not being spent on control of alcohol abuse alone. Current figures are not available. Expenditures on the control of alcohol abuse in the Australian Defence Forces are not identifiable as a specific item. There are no detailed statistics on the incidence of alcoholism detected by Medical Officers in any of the Services. {:#subdebate-88-38} #### Unemployment Benefits (Question No. 5642) {: #subdebate-88-38-s0 .speaker-FH4} ##### Mr Humphreys: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 18 March 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Are unemployment benefits recipients required to go to rehabilitation centres for reasons other than a physical disability at any stage during their receipt of benefits. 1. If so, (a) is continuation of benefits conditional upon attendance at the rehabilitation centres, (b) to what personnel at the centre is the recipient directed, and (c) what is the nature of the visit. {: #subdebate-88-38-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) Section 135n of the Social Services Act includes provision for the Director-General or his delegates to cancel or suspend a person's unemployment benefit unless he submits himself for medical, psychological or other like examination and, if appropriate, undertake a program of rehabilitation. Successful rehabilitation is dependent on a positive attitude by the person concerned and it would be a waste of specialised resources to compel a person to participate in a rehabilitation program in which he was not interested. For this reason it is not the practice to require unwilling persons to avail themselves of a rehabilitation service. I am advised that Central Office of the Department has no recent record of a beneficiary being required to attend a Rehabilitation Centre as a requirement for unemployment benefits. {:#subdebate-88-39} #### Army Reserve (Question No. 5653) {: #subdebate-88-39-s0 .speaker-JVS} ##### Mr Neil: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 18 March 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What is the cost of service in the Army Reserve for (a) 26 days, (b) 36 days and (c) SO days per annum for (i) a private soldier, (ti) each rank of non-commissioned officer and (iti) each rank of officer at rank up to and including colonel. 1. What is the average cost of 1 man serving in the Army Reserve for 1 year under the present arrangements. 2. In each case referred to in part ( I ), what proportion of cost is devoted to (a) salary and payments in the nature of salary, (b) ration, uniforms, medical and similar costs, (c) personal equipment, (d) maintenance of major capital equipment, and (e) other matters. {: #subdebate-88-39-s1 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The assessed cost of service in the Army Reserve for each member holding the ranks private to colonel inclusive for 26 days, 36 days and SO days per annum including support cost of $422, $584 and $8 1 1 respectively, is as follows: {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The average cost of one man serving in the Army Reserve for one year under the present arrangements is $ 1 ,600. 1. (a) The assessed costs attributable to salary and payment in the nature of salary are as follows: {: type="a" start="b"} 0. The following ration, uniform and medical and similar costs are based on an all rank average and on attendance of 36 days. The assessed costs shown for 26 days and SO days have been projected from the 36 day costs: {: type="a" start="c"} 0. Information relating to personal equipment is not readily available in the form sought but is included in (b) above. 1. Information relating to maintenance of major capital equipment is not available in the form sought. The following indicate costs for replacement equipment and stores other than that included in (b). {:#subdebate-88-40} #### Freedom of Information (Question No. 5674) {: #subdebate-88-40-s0 .speaker-CH4} ##### Mr Holding: asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 19 March 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has an inter-departmental committee (IDC) been established to review the Report on Freedom of Information legislation by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. 1. If so, (a) who are the members of that IDC, (b) what are their designations and salaries and (c) which Departments do they represent. 2. How many meetings of the IDC had been held up to 14 March 1980. 3. Had the IDC reported to the Attorney-General by 14 March 1 980; if so, what was the substance of the report. 4. If no report has been received, when will the ICD report. 5. Will any report and/or recommendations by the IDC be made public. {: #subdebate-88-40-s1 .speaker-YF6} ##### Mr Ellicott:
LP -- The Attorney-General has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Government did not establish an interdepartmental committee to review the Report to which the question refers. After closely considering the Report, I have put proposals before the Government as to the response the Government should make to it. Before I did so, my Department sought the comments of a number of Departments on the Report. This was in accordance with the normal practice that Departments directly affected by policy proposals are consulted before the Minister concerned puts those proposals before the Government. 1. , (3), (4), (5) and (6). See answer to ( 1 ). {:#subdebate-88-41} #### International Flight Paths (Question No. 5687) {: #subdebate-88-41-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 March 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Is he able to provide any information on any effects on flights paths followed by international airlines, including Qantas, caused by recent events in (a) Iran and (b) Afghanistan. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. If changes to previous flight paths have become necessary can he indicate what effect these have had on Qantas (a) journey dmes and (b) expenditure. {: #subdebate-88-41-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. (a) and (b) To date events in Afghanistan and Iran have not affected Qantas operations, except that on a voluntary basis the three Qantas QF7 services per week from' Bombay to London avoid the southern part of Iran due to congestion and communications problems. I am not able to provide any information on the implications of evens in Iran and Afghanistan insofar as they affect the operations of international airlines of other countries. 1. (a) and (b) The weekly penalty incurred by these voluntary diversions is 1 SO nautical miles at a cost of $ 1 ,200. Pharmaceutical Benefits for the Disadvantaged (Question No. 5708) {: #subdebate-88-41-s2 .speaker-KSF} ##### Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 26 March 1980: >Has his Department examined the feasibility of providing those patients classified as disadvantaged with a health benefits card which would allow them to obtain free prescription services. {: #subdebate-88-41-s3 .speaker-0I4} ##### Mr MacKellar:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The Government has sympathy for those people in the community who are disadvantaged and regularly looks for ways by which the disadvantaged may be assisted. All aspects of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme including the one referred to are constantly being examined and monitored. {:#subdebate-88-42} #### Immigration: Tradesmen (Question No. 5715) {: #subdebate-88-42-s0 .speaker-KSF} ##### Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 26 March 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many tradesmen with qualifications acceptable in Australia have immigrated to Australia under the Numberical Multi-factor Assessment System (NUMAS) scheme since its inception in January 1979. 1. What is the numerical breakdown by industry of these tradesmen. {: #subdebate-88-42-s1 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 6,336 tradesmen with qualifications acceptable in Australia arrived from January 1979 to February 1980. However, statistics on arrivals since January 1979 do not separate migrants selected under NUMAS from those who applied under policy prior to 1 January 1979. They also include tradesmen arriving from New Zealand under the trans-Tasman free flow arrangements. 1. Statistics on the numerical breakdown by industry are not available. The following table shows the number of tradesmen in each skilled occupational category who arrived from January 1979 to February 1980: {:#subdebate-88-43} #### Immigration: Numerical Multifactor Assessment System (Question No. 5717) {: #subdebate-88-43-s0 .speaker-KSF} ##### Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 26 March 1980: >How many persons have (a) applied to immigrate to Australia, and (2) been rejected as immigrants under the Numerical Multifactor Assessment System (NUMAS) scheme since its introduction in January 1979. {: #subdebate-88-43-s1 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Preliminary statistics indicate that for the period January 1979 to March 1980: > >212,810 persons have formally applied to immigrate to Australia, and > >Statistics are not maintained of results of processing according to the nature of the migrant selection system. Those persons who applied prior to 1 January 1979 (i.e. have submitted the prescribed application forms. This does not include much larger numbers of persons who have enquired about migration to Australia) were processed and approved under the system applying at the date of application. In the period in question the results of application processed irrespective of selection system were: > >Applications withdrawn/cancelled / lapsed (persons)- 31,743. > >Applications rejected (persons)- 94,449. > >Applications approved (persons)- 58,093. > >It should be noted that figures for approvals, applications lapsed, cancelled and withdawn, rejected in any one period do not necessarily relate to the number of applications lodged in that period. {:#subdebate-88-44} #### Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (Question No. 5718) {: #subdebate-88-44-s0 .speaker-KSF} ##### Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 26 March 1 980: >Is a review currently being undertaken into the allowance payable to students under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme. {: #subdebate-88-44-s1 .speaker-CG4} ##### Mr Fife:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Allowances payable under all student assistance schemes, including the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (TEAS) are being reviewed in the context of the 1 980-8 1 Budget. {:#subdebate-88-45} #### Artillery (Question No. 5723) {: #subdebate-88-45-s0 .speaker-5J4} ##### Mr Scholes: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 26 March 1980: >Has a decision been made on replacements for the 1 155mm and 105mm artillery, due to enter service in 1980 (as indicated on page 22, para 73 of the Australian Defence White Paper presented to the House on 4 November 1976); if not, when will consideration be completed. {: #subdebate-88-45-s1 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member 's question is as follows: >There are two errors in the honourable member's question > >replacement is not be be made of the present Army S.S inch medium gun by a 155mm gun; > >the White Paper made reference to the introduction into service of howitzers and medium guns "by the early 1980s" not "in 1980" as the honourable member suggests. > >Concerning the replacement of the S.S inch medium gun, I refer the honourable member to my press statement of 12 May 1 980 which announced, together with other details, that negotiations on procurement ofthe US M198 155 mm Howitzer to replace the S.S inch gun would begin in the near future. > >Studies and overseas developments in the period since the 1976 Defence White Paper have led to the judgment that Army's present 105mm guns will be readily sustainable and effective for considerably longer than was then expected. The time is now approaching however that, despite this greater life expectancy, actions will be necessary to ensure that opportunities for Australian production can be adequately developed. My Department is pursuing these questions now. Anti-tank Weapons (Question No. 5726) {: #subdebate-88-45-s2 .speaker-5J4} ##### Mr Scholes: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 26 March 1980: >What action has been taken on the announced proposal for provision of anti-tank weapons for entry into service in 1981 (as indicated in the Australian Defence White Paper (page 22, para 71) presented to the House on 4 November 1976). {: #subdebate-88-45-s3 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >I refer the honourable member to the answer supplied to question 5 756. Incident at Sydney Airport: Radio-active Material (Question No. 5736) {: #subdebate-88-45-s4 .speaker-CH4} ##### Mr Holding: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 26 March 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to newspaper reports that a Pan American Airways Boeing 747 cargo jet was involved in a landing drama at Mascot Airport, Sydney, on Friday 21 March 1980 (the *Sydney Morning Herald and* the *Daily Telegraph,22* March 1980). 1. Is he able to state whether the aircraft was (a) having problems with its nosewheels and (b) carrying radio-active material. 2. If the aircraft was carrying radio-active material, (a) what radio-active materials were contained in the cargo, (b) what quantities of each were involved, (c) is his Department or any authority under his control carrying out an inquiry into the incident, (d) what were the findings of any inquiry held and (e) what safety precautions were taken by airport or airline groundstaff, fire and other emergency staff to ensure that (i) general safety and emergency procedures were followed and (ii) radio-active material did not escape from its containers. 3. What (a) air navigation laws apply to the air carriage of radio-active and (b) types of containers for radio-active materials are required by air navigation laws. {: #subdebate-88-45-s5 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. I am aware of the newspaper reports to which the honourable member has referred. 1. (a) and (b) The aircraft concerned, a Boeing 747 operating as Pan American Flight 871 reported severe nosewheel shimmy had occurred during the take-off at Nadi and that there could be some difficulty with the landing at Sydney. It also reported that it was carrying radio-active materials in its cargo. In the event the aircraft made a normal landing at Sydney. 2. (a) and (b) The aircraft was carrying radio-active materials described in the Air Waybill as: {: type="i" start="i"} 0. Cobalt 57 solid 0.108 curies index 0.S yellow label II packed in lead container, 1. Six pieces marked 5 PO 2 10 radio nuclide. Three pieces 0.01 MCi, 0.036 MCi. Index not applicable to this group. Yellow label I. {: type="a" start="c"} 0. An investigation is being carried out into the incident. 1. The investigation has revealed that there was no damage to the nosewheel and that the radio-active materials were being carried in complete compliance with the relevant regulations. 2. (i) and (ii) The Atomic Energy Commission, Lucas Heights, to whom some of the radio-active materials were consigned, was alerted and they sent representatives to the airport to deal with any problems which might arise in respect of the radio-active materials. In addition, three ambulances, nine fire brigade units, police (including the *police* rescue squad) and an airport medical team were in attendance when the aircraft landed. The containers used to carry radio-active materials are designed to withstand damage in accidents. 3. (a) In Australia, radio-active materials are carried in accordance with the requirements of Air Navigation Orders Part 33 which require compliance with the rules of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radio-active Materials. These regulations are also applicable throughout the world and packages of radio-active materials cannot be accepted for carriage by air unless they comply fully with the regulations. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Containers used for the carriage of radio-active - materials must meet the specifications laid down in the IAEA Regulations. Self-extinguishing Cigarettes (Question No. 5747) {: #subdebate-88-45-s6 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 27 March 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to reports that several fire associations are campaigning in the United States of America to encourage manufacturers to produce and market self-extinguishing cigarettes that self-extinguish within 3 minutes of the first puff. 1. In view of the number of fires caused by cigarettes, and the resultant cost to the community, has his Department considered proposals to encourage the production of selfextinguishing cigarettes. {: #subdebate-88-45-s7 .speaker-KSB} ##### Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. The Commonwealth Fire Board is concerned primarily with fire protection in Commonwealth departments and authorities. The Board has, however, sought information from the United States of America on research into selfextinguishing cigarettes undertaken by fire associations and other bodies there. Under the Trade Practices Act safety standards for consumer products may be established. When the relevant information is received from the United States it will be passed on to the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs for referral to the Commonwealth/State Consumer Products Advisory Committee, the body which considers and advises my colleague the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs on those matters. {:#subdebate-88-46} #### Radar and Navigation Equipment (Question No. 5753) {: #subdebate-88-46-s0 .speaker-5J4} ##### Mr Scholes: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 27 March 1980: >When will the (a) locating radar, (b) surveillance radars, (c) navigational equipment and (d) sensors proposed on page 23 para 75 of the Australian Defence White Paper, presented to the House on 4 November 1 976, be available to the Army. {: #subdebate-88-46-s1 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a), (b), (d) Selection of the mortar locating equipment and surveillance radars and sensors has been narrowed down to major contenders. Evaluation of competing equipments is planned to be carried out in the next twelve months. It is presently planned that the mortar locating equipment and the surveillance radars and sensors will enter service in 1984-85. Because of equipment priorities, Army does not now propose acquisition of a gun locating radar in the Program period. {: type="a" start="c"} 0. The Army has re-assessed its priorities for the type of navigational equipment referred to and does not now propose acquisition of this equipment in the Program period. Anti-tank Weapons (Question No. 5756) {: #subdebate-88-46-s2 .speaker-5J4} ##### Mr Scholes: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 27 March 1980: >What stage has been reached in proposed acquisition of (a) short, (b) medium and (c) long range anti-tank weapons referred to on page 22, para 71 of the Australian Defence White Paper presented to the House on 4 November 1 976. {: #subdebate-88-46-s3 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The advent of composite armour on tanks recently introduced into service by several nations has degraded the effectiveness of current anti-armour weapons to such an extent that major nations are now applying increased effort to the development of the next generation of anti-armour weapons. > >As a consequence of these technological developments, it has been decided that the Army should postpone consideration of any major acquisition of an anti-armour capability until the new weapon systems become available. > >Consideration is, however, being given to a limited antiarmour capability based on currently available weapons. These proposals are intended to satisfy shorter term requirements and to bridge the gap until the new generation weapons become available in the late 1980s. They will be given wider consideration in my Department in the very near future. {:#subdebate-88-47} #### Training of Nurses (Question No. 5759) {: #subdebate-88-47-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 27 March 1 980: >Will he support funding for tertiary college training of nurses in central and/or north Queensland as requested by the Queensland Government. {: #subdebate-88-47-s1 .speaker-CG4} ##### Mr Fife:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The question of funding for basic nurse education courses in colleges of advanced education is under active consideration by the Government I expect to announce the Government's decisions in the near future. {:#subdebate-88-48} #### Television Services to Remote Areas (Question No. 5773) {: #subdebate-88-48-s0 .speaker-KWZ} ##### Mr Wallis: asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 3 1 March 1980: >In view of the relocation of the coal mining township of Leigh Creek, SA, has he made any decision to take the opportunity of the relocation of the township to upgrade the existing delayed video television transmitter to the remote areas program utilising the Intelsat satellite along the lines of my submission to him 1 4 months ago. {: #subdebate-88-48-s1 .speaker-GY5} ##### Mr Staley:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >My Department recently submitted to me the following recommendations for the provision of service to Leigh Creek:- > >The old township (as distinct from the new township of Leigh Creek South) will continue to receive the existing repeater-type television service for at least twelve months, that is, the time required to complete the relocation. > >The new township of Leigh Creek South will be provided with an interim television translator service relayed from the existing repeater station. This will be replaced with a permanent service upon completion of the relocation. > >The recent decision relating to the relocation of the airport has compounded the difficulty of finding a permanent site for the new translator. When a suitable site is found, the Postal and Telecommunications Department will submit a detailed recommendation on the television service to be provided for the new township. > >The Department will be liaising with the Electricity Trust of South Australia on the question of funding the final installation. It is intended that the programme for the service will be obtained via Intelsat IV. {:#subdebate-88-49} #### Montreal Olympic Games (Question No. 5781) {: #subdebate-88-49-s0 .speaker-QH4} ##### Mr Kerin: asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 1 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Was a report commissioned following the performance by Australia 's athletes at the Montreal Olympic Games; if so, (a) what was the title of the report and (b) what were its (i) contents and (ii) recommendations. 1. Has any action been taken on the report; if so, what action. {: #subdebate-88-49-s1 .speaker-YF6} ##### Mr Ellicott:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) There was no special report commissioned following the ' performance by Australia's athletes at the Montreal Olympic Games. However, there was a review of health and welfare programs being undertaken at that time. The Government requested the Task Force undertaking the review to consider and advise it on the role the Commonwealth should take in assisting sport. This Task Force on Co-ordination in Welfare and Health in its first report Proposals for Change in Administration and Delivery of Programs and Services (paragraphs 160-172) considered support for international sport and national sporting bodies. The report identified tasks in sports development which the Task Force felt were the responsibility of the Commonwealth. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The report was used in the development of the Government's Sports Development Program which was introduced in 1977-78 with an appropriation of Sim and which, in 1 979-80 allocated $2m for sport. The report also supported the recommendations in the report of the Australian Sports Institute Study Group which was tabled in the Parliament on 29 April, 1 976. The Government announced in January this year, the establishment of the Australian Sports Institute which is scheduled to open in Canberra early in 1981. Aborigines at Maralinga: Exposure to Radiation (Question No. 5782) {: #subdebate-88-49-s2 .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 1 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to statements reported in the Perth *Daily News* of 27 December 1976 by **Mr Patrick** Connolly, a former Royal Air Force Corporal who served at Maralinga, SA, that many Aboriginal people walked across restricted areas contaminated by radiation, that when found there, they were detained and put through a decontamination process that lasted 2 to 3 days and that RAF personnel were always bringing them in. 1. Can the Minister say whether Aboriginal people were detained for decontamination at the Maralinga Range; if so, how many persons were detained. 2. Were any measures taken to monitor the subsequent health of these persons; if so, what measures were taken. {: #subdebate-88-49-s3 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP -The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Yes: I have read the report in the Perth *Daily News* of 27 December 1976. 1. See reply of the Minister for National Development to Question No. 2827 *(Hansard,* 22 February 1979, page 337). While the Maralinga Range was in operation, Aboriginals approaching the Range were intercepted by ground patrols and arrangements made for their return to their communities. Examination of Commonwealth records to date has identified only one instance of Aboriginals entering a contaminated area during operation of the Maralinga Range. This occurred in May 19S7 and involved a group of four Aboriginals camping overnight near one ofthe test sites. They were discovered the following day and examined by Australian radiation safety officials who detected minor contamination which was removed by washing. It was concluded that there was no possibility of any radiation injury having occurred. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. No. Atomic Weapons Tests at Maralinga and Emu (Question No. 5783) {: #subdebate-88-49-s4 .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 1 April 1980: >How many Australians participated ( 1 ) as members ofthe armed services; (2) as Commonwealth Police; and (3) in other capacities in British atomic weapons tests and subsequent experiments and clean-up operations at Maralinga and Emu, South Australia, between 1953 and 1967. {: #subdebate-88-49-s5 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP -The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >I am advised that the number of Australians, Service and civilian, who were employed at Maralinga and Emu between 1953 and 1967 in support of the British test programs and subsequent clean-up varied according to whether testing was in progress or the Range was being kept on a care and maintenance basis. At its highest during the 1956 trials the Australian support population at Maralinga was 371. The more typical Australian support population during the test campaigns was 220 to 250. Between campaigns, 40 to 50 personnel were required to maintain support facilities. > >It would not be possible to establish the precise overall number of Australians who were employed as Maralinga and Emu without a search of many thousands of individual service records, but on the basis ofthe above figures it would appear unlikely that the total number of individuals involved reached 2000. Operation Brumby at Maralinga (Question No. 5784) {: #subdebate-88-49-s6 .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 1 April 1980: >Did any Australian (a) serviceman; or (b) civilians participate in the 1 967 Operation Brumby clean-up of areas and facilities contaminated with plutonium and other radioactive isotopes at the Maralinga Range in South Australia. {: #subdebate-88-49-s7 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP -The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >I am advised that Operation Brumby was carried out by the British Royal Engineers and Australian personnel provided support as they did while the Maralinga Range was in use. See answer to Question 5783. Atomic Weapons Tests in South Australia (Question No. 5785) {: #subdebate-88-49-s8 .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Have any claims for compensation been received by his Department alleging that disease or disability resulted from employment at the British atomic weapons tests and subsequent experiments and cleanup operations in South Australia; if so, how many. 1. In each case, what was the (a) date the claim was received by his Department and (b) cause of death or the nature of the disability. 2. In how many cases was it alleged that radiation exposure resulted in death or disability. 3. Which claims have been determined and in each case what was the determination. {: #subdebate-88-49-s9 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Seven claims for compensation received by my Department have been identified as relating to conditions allegedly contracted as a result of the British atomic tests held in Australia. In addition a claim was referred to my Department for certain information relating to a claim lodged by the widow of an ex-officer of the Bureau of Customs, Department of Business and Consumer Affairs. It is possible that there could have been other claims, but if so they have not been readily identifiable as relating to the atomic testing. 1. , (3) and (4) Details of the individual claims are as follows: Claim 1- Received from window 30 August 1971. Condition claimed was for 'carcinomatosis, exposure to radioactive dust'. Allegedly attributable to exposure to radioactive dust in the Woomera area. Claim was disallowed by the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation on S May 1972, based on specialist medical opinion. An application for Judicial Review was lodged in February 1973 and as a result of the presentation of a further specialist medical opinion the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation revoked his previous determination of 5 May 1972 and determined in the claimant's favour on 2 April 1974 that the death of her husband resulted from a disease, namely carcinomatosis, due to the nature of his employment by the Department of Defence (Army Office). Claim 2- Received on 13 March 1972. Condition claimed was for 'nervous disorder- anxiety neurosis'. Allegedly attributable to anxiety, tension and living conditions whilst engaged on decontamination duties at Maralinga. Liability was accepted by the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation on 13 July 1973, in respect of 'chronic phobic anxiety state resulting from aggravation of a pre-existing agoraphobic syndrome '. Claim 3- Received on 6 June 1972. Condition claimed was for 'malignant melanoma of the back'. Allegedly attributable to radiation exposure at Maralinga. Disallowed by the Commissioner for Employees ' Compensation on 26 November 1 975 on the basis of specialist medical opinion. Claim 4- Received on 18 August 1977. Condition claimed was for 'chronic myeloid leukaemia'. Allegedly attributable to exposure to radiation whilst on seagoing duties 100 km off Monte Bello Island. Disallowed by the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation on 30 November 1979 on the basis of specialist medical opinion. Claim 5- Received on 4 May 1978. Condition claimed was for 'gout'. Allegedly attributable to exposure to radiation at Maralinga. Disallowed by the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation on 31 August 1979, on the basis of specialist medical opinion. Claim 6- Received on 19 March 1980. Condition claimed is for 'hurtble cell carcinoma of thyroid gland'. Allegedly attributable to exposure to radiation whilst on flying duties at Woomera. Claim being investigated. Claim 7- Received from widow on 27 March 1980. Condition claimed is for death resulting from 'cancer of the oesophagus'. Allegedly attributable to exposure to radiation whilst at Woomera. Claim being investigated. Claim 8- Received from widow by Department of Business and Consumer Affairs- Bureau of Customs on 25 June 1979 (Referred to my Department for certain information). Condition claimed is for death resulting from hepatic failure ( 1 week), carcinoma rectum, liver secondaries and bronchopneumonia'. Allegedly attributable to exposure to radiation whilst employed as Sub-collector of Customs at Onslow in 1956. Claim being investigated. Aborigines at Maralinga: Exposure to Radiation (Question No. 5786) {: #subdebate-88-49-s10 .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 15 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to statements reported in the Perth *Daily News* 27 December 1976 by **Mr Patrick** Connolly, a former Royal Air Force Corporal who served at Maralinga, S.A., that many Aboriginal people walked across restricted areas contaminated by radiation, and when found there, they were detained and put through a decontamination process that lasted 2 to 3 days and that R.A.F. personnel were always bringing them in. 1. Has the Department of Aboriginal Affairs investigated these claims; if so, what are the results of the investigations. 2. Is there any evidence which suggests that Aboriginal people have suffered disease or disability as a consequence of exposure to radiation resulting from British atomic weapon tests in South Australia. {: #subdebate-88-49-s11 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 have now read the report in the Perth *Daily News* of 27 December 1976. 1. See reply of the Minister for National Development and Energy to Question No. 5782. 2. No. But I have written to the South Australian Minister for Health asking whether there is any such evidence and the Minister has announced that a review of the medical records for 1973-1979 for people living in the remote reserves, Yalata and the North- West Reserve, had shown no abnormal incidence rates for birth deformities or cancer. However, the South Australian Health Commission is setting up an investigation in the remote reserves directed at denning any trend of increased incidence of radiationrelated diseases. Warnings on Packages (Question No. 5792) {: #subdebate-88-49-s12 .speaker-JNG} ##### Dr Cass: asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 1 April 1980: {: type="a" start="l"} 0. Has his Department taken any action to alert immigrants to the dangers of using products which contain (a) poisonous substances, (b) explosives, (c) asbestos and (d) dangerous mixtures, and any other dangerous substances; if so, what action. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Has his Department taken any steps to make other Departments aware of the need for bi- or multi-lingual warnings on packages. {: #subdebate-88-49-s13 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. (a) and (d) In past years the Department has issued warnings to immigrants about posionous and dangerous substances. These have included recorded talks on safety for radio and information for publication in the ethnic press. Aspects of safety, including warnings about poisons, are covered in initial settlement program courses for newly arrived immigrants. In the near future, my Department will publish an orientation/information manual for immigrants attending English courses under the Adult Migrant Education Program. This manual has 20 sections on aspects of life in Australia. In one section, on safety, it gives information on poisonous products, including poisons found in and around the home, important rules to remember concerning poisonous products and what to do in a poisons emergency. The manual has been translated into 10 languages and will be available at migrant education centres in hostels and community centres. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Advice on industrial safety is included in the new orientation/information manual provided under the Adult Migrant Education Program. This, in part, tells immigrants to make sure that they know and understand safety warning signs in work areas and to contact the safety officer or union if they have any problems or questions about the signs they see. 1. Immigrants have not been alerted directly by my Department to the dangers of using products containing asbestos. However, the wide publicity given to the reported harmful effects of contact with asbestos in ethnic newspapers and the media in general should ensure that the Australian public is informed. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. My Department has been in communication with other Departments on matters relating to toxic substances: on specific proposals about labelling and in general discussion about the main issues. 1. In particular, discussions have been held between my Department and the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs about the possibility of introducing multi-lingual warnings and instructions for consumer products. 2. It is anticipated that more use ofthe ethnic media (including radio and television) will be made in the future to inform the migrant community about toxic substances. In this activity my Department would be influenced by the Poisons Schedule (Standing) Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council which has as its terms of reference . . . to enquire into scheduling, labelling, packaging and advertising in the public media, of drugs, poisons and other substances hazardous to human health in the States and Territories and to make recommendations to the Council through the Public Health Advisory Committee. My Department has already formulated certain proposals about bilingual labelling of prescribed medicines dispensed in Australia. 3. My Department is ready to advise industry and assist wherever possible in the preparation and translation of instructions concerning the safe use of toxic and other dangerous chemical substances. Commonwealth Employment Service Office at Toronto, New South Wales (Question No. 5793) {: #subdebate-88-49-s14 .speaker-KJO} ##### Mr James: asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 1 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Were there approximately 2000 school leavers in the area from Fennels Bay to Morisset, NSW, in 1 979. 1. If so, will he consider the establishment of a Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) Office at Toronto, NSW. 2. If a CES Office will not be established at Toronto will he consider ( a ) broadening the services offered at the nearest offices in Broadmeadow, NSW or (b) establishing a shortterm CES sub-branch in Toronto until the urgent needs of those unemployed in the area can be alleviated. {: #subdebate-88-49-s15 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) No. There were approximately 600 school leavers in the area from Fennels Bay to Morisset in 1 979. 1. and (3) It is planned to establish an office in the area during 1981-82. {:#subdebate-88-50} #### Export of Uranium (Question No. 5824) {: #subdebate-88-50-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 2 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Did he say (a) in a statement issued on 1 8 July 1 979 that the Government had decided that the export of uranium would be permitted from Australia without a requirement that Australian ownership be retained until it was converted to a form suitable for fuel fabrication or enrichment and (b) that this change of policy had resulted from a judgment in the Westinghouse anti-trust case in the United States of America. 1. If so, was this change of policy announced after the bilateral safeguards agreement with the USA had been signed. 2. Does the changed policy invalidate or modify the bilateral safeguards agreement, its interpretation or implementation; if so, in what respects. {: #subdebate-88-50-s1 .speaker-MI4} ##### Mr Peacock:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. (a) Yes. See also my statement of 23 August 1979 *(Hansard* pages 536-40). {: type="a" start="b"} 0. My statements of 18 July and 23 August 1979 said that: The Government's decision was taken before an antitrust suit by Westinghouse *Electric* Corporation for treble damages had proceeded to judgment in the United States against certain Australian companies. As a result of the judgment, the requirement that Australian uranium remain in Australian ownership would have placed shipments of uranium overseas by those Australian companies at risk of seizure in execution of the judgment. This requirement of the Government's safeguards policy had therefore created unnecessary difficulties unrelated to the field of safeguards. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Yes. The agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy was signed in Canberra on 5 July 1 979. 1. No. As stated in my reply to I (b), the decision to remove the requirement that Australian ownership of uranium concentrates- yellowcake be retained until converted to a form suitable for fuel fabrication or enrichment, had created unnecessary difficulties unrelated to the field of safeguards. {:#subdebate-88-51} #### Transfer of Prisoners (Question No. 5843) {: #subdebate-88-51-s0 .speaker-FH4} ##### Mr Humphreys: asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 2 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Further to the Attorney-General's reply to my question No. 4843 *(Hansard,* 22 November 1979, page 3493), what is the result of negotiations undertaken concerning the scheme for the transfer of prisoners between the States and Territories. 1. When will a decision be made concerning my suggestion that arrangements should be made to allow for a foreign person serving a sentence of imprisonment, including imprisonment in default of a line for a breach of Australian laws while fishing in the Australian Fishing Zone, to be transferred to his home country for the purpose of serving the sentence in that country. {: #subdebate-88-51-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Since the answer to Question No. 4843 was provided, negotiations have continued between the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory for a scheme for the transfer of prisoners within Australia. While substantial agreement has been reached on points of principle, it will be some time before the necessary legislation will be enacted. 1. In my answer to Question No. 4843, 1 indicated that the conclusion of arrangements for the transfer of prisoners with other countries will have to await the outcome of the negotiations for a scheme for the transfer of prisoners within Australia. Proposals for the development of arrangements for the transfer of prisoners between Commonwealth countries were discussed at the Commonwealth Law Ministers Meeting held in Winnipeg in 1978 and again at the Law Ministers Meeting in Barbados from 28 April to 2 May 1 980. At the latter meeting Ministers endorsed in principle the suggestion that a scheme for the transfer of prisoners should be developed and have, as its basis, the consent of the countries involved, and in particular, the consent of the prisoner himself. Ministers also agreed that the process of consultation should continue through the Commonwealth SecretaryGeneral and on a regional basis. While it would be preferable, for practical reasons, to await the outcome of the consultations on an arrangement for the transfer of prisoners within Australia, the Commonwealth is quite prepared to engage in negotiations with other countries interested in concluding transfer schemes with Australia, particularly other Commonwealth countries and our immediate neighbours in the South-East Asian and Pacific areas. Late in 1978 preliminary discussions were held with visiting Canadian officers on the principles on which a scheme for the transfer of prisoners between our two countries could be based. Subsequently discussions with New Zealand were intitiated. I propose that those discussions should continue. {:#subdebate-88-52} #### Pensions for Aged Immigrants (Question No. 5860) {: #subdebate-88-52-s0 .speaker-JNG} ##### Dr Cass: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 2 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an editorial which appeared in the Italian newspaper *II Globo* in both Italian and English on 17 March 1980, relating to pensions for aged immigrants. 1. If so, what has been the cost per year for the last three years for which figures are available for pensions in the various categories for immigrants from (a) the United Kingdom and (b) New Zealand. 2. What is the value of pensions brought to this country by immigrants from (a) Italy, (b) the UK and (c) New Zealand. 3. What would be the cost of extending to Italian immigrants now in Australia the privilege extended to immigrants from the UK and New Zealand. 4. What would be the cost of exending the provisions of the UK and New Zealand agreements to all immigrants of pension age in Australia. {: #subdebate-88-52-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. Expenditure on pensions paid to immigrants from the United Kingdom and New Zealand is not recorded separately. However, at 30 June 1979, there were 212,960 pensioners in Australia receiving age, invalid or widow's pension and supporting parent's benefit who were born in the United Kingdom. The corresponding total for persons born in New Zealand was 11,950. At 30 June 1979 there were 15,308 former United Kingdom residents (excluding wife pensioners) and 303 former New Zealand residents (including wife pensioners) receiving Australian social services pensions under the reciprocal agreements on social security with the United Kingdom and New Zealand. 2. Statistics relating to the value of pensions brought to Australia by immigrants are not available. However, at 30 June, 1 979, some 45,000 social security pensioners were also in receipt of UK pensions. Corresponding figures for pensioners in receipt of Italian pensions are not available. New Zealand pensions are payable in Australia on a temporary transfer basis only. There were 15 such pensions being paid at 30 June 1979. 3. It is not possible to estimate with any accuracy the costs of extending to Italian immigrants the pension conditions applying to United Kingdom and New Zealand immigrants, as information is not available about the income distribution of such immigrants. 4. It is not possible to estimate the cost of extending to all immigrants of pension age in Australia the pension conditions applying to United Kingdom and New Zealand immigrants, again because information is not available about the income distribution of such persons. {:#subdebate-88-53} #### Social Security Payments to Overseas Residents (Question No. 5861) {: #subdebate-88-53-s0 .speaker-JNG} ##### Dr Cass: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 2 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What (a) type of payments and (b) sums were paid to persons residing outside Australia in (i) 1977-78, (ii) 1978-79 and (iti) the period 1 July 1979 to31 March 1980. 1. 2 ) What was the country of birth of the recipients. {: #subdebate-88-53-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The type of payments and sums paid to persons residing outside Australia (a) in (i) 1977-78, (ii) 1978-79 and (iti) the period 1 July 1 979 to 3 1 March 1 980 were: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Includes amounts paid under general portability provisions and under reciprocal agreements to Australian residents in the United Kingdom and New Zealand. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Statistics showing the country of birth of persons in receipt of these payments are not available. The following tables show the country of residence of persons in receipt of portable pensions and benefits paid overseas at 31 March 1978 and 1979. Similar statistics for 1980 are not yet available. It is proposed that they be published in the DirectorGeneral's Annual Report for the financial year ended 30 June 1980. {:#subdebate-88-54} #### Nuclear Powered Warships (Question No. 5872) {: #subdebate-88-54-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 15 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Did the Prime Minister, when tabling in the House the report *Nuclear powered warships- Visits to AustraliaEnvironment considerations- Report, dated May 1976* on 4 June 1976 state that, in relation to such visits, appropriate arrangements concerning environmental safeguards would be applied in consultation with State Governments by a group of officials led by officials of the then Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development and that such arrangements would be undertaken as necessary, before visits took place *(Hansard,* page 3040 ). 1. Did the report recommend that general conditions to be applied to these visits should be that (a) visits were for crew rest and recreation, and not for fuel handling or repairs to reactor plant necessitating breach of reactor containment, {: type="a" start="b"} 0. visits were subject to arrangements concerning liability and indemnity and to assurances comparable with those given in the United States of America standard statement, 1. movement of vessels would have to take place during daylight hours under conditions where visibility was not less than three quarters of a mile, (d) navigational controls on other shipping would be applied during the time that nuclear powered ships were entering or leaving port, (e) there would have to be a capability to move the vessel to a remote anchorage within 24 hours if an accident should occur, (f) tugs would have to be available within one hour of request, and (g) a safety organisations meeting specified requirements would have to exist in the port being visited. 2. Have recommendations referred to in part (2) (a) to (f) been implemented in each case of a visit by a nuclear powered warship to 31 March 1980; if so, (a) is it proposed that their implementation will continue for all future visits, and (b) when did action to have them implemented commence. 3. Has the recommendation referred to in part (2) (g) been implemented fully; if so, when was implementation commenced; if not, in what respect, and at what ports, has its implementation been incomplete. 4. Did the report also state that the acceptance of nuclear warships under the proposed conditions should be limited to those with reactor power levels less than 100 MW (thermal) and that the acceptance of vessels with larger reactor units would need to be assessed separately in the light of available technical information of guarantees on their safety. 5. Is the general restriction on the acceptance of warships to those with reactor power systems less than 100 MW (thermal) still in force; if not, (a) for what reasons, (b) under what circumstances, (c) and in which instances has this restriction been lifted. {: #subdebate-88-54-s1 .speaker-KVY} ##### Mr Thomson:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) Yes. 1. Yes, although with regard to (f), RAN or RAN contracted vessels have been or will be on stand-by in the ports concerned to meet the requirement for towing facilities. {: type="a" start="a"} 0. The Government continues to regard the conditions stated in the report tabled in June 1976 as being those under which short visits to Australian ports by nuclear powered warships can occur. 1. Action to implement the general conditions of visits has been completed prior to each visit. 2. Yes. A radiation monitoring organisation and a safety organisation were established in co-operation with State Authorities prior to the first visit to each port and has been re-activated for all subsequent visits. 3. and (6) Yes. {:#subdebate-88-55} #### Commonwealth Property: Fire Safety Arrangements (Question No. 5875) {: #subdebate-88-55-s0 .speaker-EH4} ##### Mr Howe: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 15 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the criticisms made in the Protective Security Review Report by **Mr Justice** Hope, presented to the House on15 November 1 979, of the present fire safety arrangements for the protection of Commonwealth Government property and staff. 1. Will his Department initiate the thorough and impartial examination of these arrangements recommended by **Mr Justice** Hope; if so (a) when will the examination take place and (b) how will it be conducted. {: #subdebate-88-55-s1 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. The Department of Administrative Services, in association with the relevant departments, is examining the criticisms made by **Mr Justice** Hope of the fire safety arrangements. The Government will be giving serious and prompt attention to the results of the examination and undertaking any necessary remedial action. For the Ethnic Media' (Question No. 5878) {: #subdebate-88-55-s2 .speaker-JNG} ##### Dr Cass: asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 15 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Are press releases regularly produced and circulated to (a) the Parliamentary Press Gallery, (b) Members of Parliament and (c) various community organisations by (i) his office and (ii) his Department. 1. Are the same press releases also posted to the members of the ethnic press; if so, what is the purpose of the publication *For the Ethnic Media.* 2. What does this publication cost to (a) produce and (b) circulate. 3. Who (a) produces and (b) circulates this publication. 4. On what basis and on whose advice are articles and news items selected for this publication. 5. Will the columns of this publication be made available for Members of the Opposition in the Commonwealth Parliament. 6. Is it considered that ordinary press releases would not be understood by members of the ethnic media. {: #subdebate-88-55-s3 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. (a)(i)and(ii)Yes. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. (i) Members of Parliament receive Ministerial press releases in the daily collations prepared by the Ministerial Document Service. 1. (ii) A monthly collation of Miniterial and departmental news releases is forwarded on request to Members' electorate offices. 2. (i) and (ii) Monthly collations in (b) (ii) are distributed to various community organisations. 1. 2 ) Yes. The purpose of the publication is to provide to the ethnic media- particularly to ethnic newspapers, which have limited staff resources- a summary of Commonwealth Government announcements and information of interest to Australia's ethnic communities. Although only three pages. *For the Ethnic Media* covers a variety of Commonwealth Government activities. In April 1980, for example, it included announcements by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Resources, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Social Security, the Attorney-General, the Minister for Transport, the Minister for Health and the Department of the Capital Territory as well as by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. ) The cost of *For the Ethnic Media* was given in Answer to Question 566 1 (see House of Representatives *Hansard,* 1 3 May 1980, page 2678). 1. (a) and (b) The Information Unit of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. 2. The items are selected on an assessment of their interest to ethnic communities by journalists of the Information Unit of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. 3. It is not intended to include statements by Members of the Opposition in the Commonwealth Parliament. The fundamental purpose of providing objective reports of facts, policies and changes in policies would be lost if *For the Ethnic Media* were reduced to a forum for the exchange of political views. 4. No. {:#subdebate-88-56} #### Steel Castings for Fire Tenders (Question No. 5885) {: #subdebate-88-56-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 15 April 1980: >What is the (a) specific description, (b) use and (c) cost per unit of the steel castings for ULFT Mk3 fire tenders to be machined by Precision Tool Engineering (MFG) Pty Ltd at a total cost of $2,184 referred to under contract TS Q82/79 notified, on page 97 of the *Commonwealth of Australia Gazette* of 26 February 1980. {: #subdebate-88-56-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is follows: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Clutch backing plates steel; (b) to replace aluminium backing plates in the power divider of the ULFT Mk3; (c) $118.35- the costs incurred by the Department are being recovered under warranty from the vehicle manufacturer. {:#subdebate-88-57} #### Digital Time Injection Equipment (Question No. 5887) {: #subdebate-88-57-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 15 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What is the specific function or purpose of the digital time injection equipment purchased under contract Cl/78/93 notified on page 94 of the *Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 16* February 1980. 1. Where is the equipment to be located. 2. When is the equipment to begin operation. 3. How are the tasks to be performed by the equipment purchased under contract Cl/78/93 at present accomplished. 4. 5 ) What are the names and addresses of the unsuccessful tenderers for the contract. {: #subdebate-88-57-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. To facilitate accurate recording of the times at which all events occurring in Air Traffic Control and Flight Service Operations areas take place. The equipment records a coded dme signal onto the airport voice logging recorders which register all operator's incoming and outgoing voice programmes. Use of this equipment permits the establishment of a time-relationship between air safety incidents and an operator's actions. The equipment can also be used as a time reference for operators ' clock displays, and it permits station time to be synchronised with Greenwich Mean Time. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Radio equipment rooms of Flight Service and Air Traffic Control Centres throughout Australia. The initial purchase of equipment will cover requirements at the following locations: Brisbane, Cairns, Mt Isa, Longreach, Proserpine, Mackay, Townsville, Sydney, Canberra, Bankstown, Coffs Harbour, Dubbo, Wagga, Melbourne, Essendon, Hobart, Avalon, Launceston, Adelaide, Darwin, Mt Gambier, Ceduna, Parafield, Perth, Carnarvon, Cocos Is., Geraldton, Karratha. 1. The first equipment delivered under this contract is expected to begin operation in May 1 980. 2. The tasks to be performed by this equipment are currently accomplished by magnetic drum recording machines and electro-mechanical Master Clocks, which have been in service for many years and are reaching the end of their economic life. 3. 5 ) ( a) John Morris Australia Pty Ltd, Chatswood, NSW. {: type="a" start="1"} 0. b ) Scientific Devices Australia Pty Ltd, Elwood, Victoria. {:#subdebate-88-58} #### Nurse Education and Training (Question No. 5889) {: #subdebate-88-58-s0 .speaker-00ATA} ##### Mr Hodges: asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 1 6 April 1 980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Government taken decisions on the recommendations contained in the Sax Report on Nurse Education and Training presented to the House on 25 October 1978; if so, which recommendations are to be implemented. 1. Have discussions on the report and its recommendations been held between the Commonwealth and the States; if so, have any major differences emerged. 2. Has his attention been drawn to a reported answer to a question in the Queensland Parliament by the Queensland Health Minister, **Sir William** Knox, stating that the Queensland Government had endorsed the proposals of the report regarding the offering of basic nurse education programs in Colleges of Advanced Education for implementation as soon as the Commonwealth Government, through the Tertiary Education Commission, has made the necessary funds available. 3. Has the Government received requests for funds for these programs; if so, when will a decision be made. {: #subdebate-88-58-s1 .speaker-CG4} ##### Mr Fife:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 expect to announce the Government's decisions on the recommendations of the Sax Report on Nurse Education and Training in the near future. 1. State Ministers for Health and Education have provided comments on the Report and its recommendations. The Advanced Education Council of the Tertiary Education Commission has not held detailed discussions with the States on the future of basic nurse education in colleges of advanced education. The Council has taken the view that it would be premature to hold such discussions until the Government's decisions are known. 2. and (4) Requests by Queensland or any other State for funds for additional basic nurse education courses in colleges of advanced education will be considered when the Government has taken decisions on the recommendations of the Sax Report. {:#subdebate-88-59} #### Agent Orange (Question No. 5892) {: #subdebate-88-59-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 16 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has Agent Orange, or components of Agent Orange, been imported into Australia since 1965. 1. If so, (a) who was responsible for importing these substances and (b) what was the (i) date and (ii) origin of the imports. 2. Were the substances involved analysed for his Department when they were imported; if so, (a) by whom and (b) what were the results of these analyses. {: #subdebate-88-59-s1 .speaker-K9L} ##### Mr Garland:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) My understanding is that 'Agent Orange' is a United States military term for a particular mixture of two herbicides prepared for use by the United States Armed Services. There is no record of any product of that name being imported into Australia. The substances known as 2-4-5,T and 2-4.D, which were ingredients of 'Agent Orange', have been imported into Australia from dme to time and also have been, and still are, manufactured here. 1. Data on imports supplied by the Australian Bureau of Statistics but excluding names of importers because of confidentiality restraints is as set out in the following table. Positive identification of imports is available only for importations of these components since 23 September 1972. Products imported which may or may not have contained these components have not been included. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. An analysis has not been performed on an imported product described as Agent Orange. However, in 1971 a shipment of 2, 4, 5 Trichlorophenoxyacetic Acid Butyl Ester was analysed by the Australian Government Analytical Laboratory for tariff classification purposes at the request of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs. It was reported by the AGAL as chemically defined as 2,4,5 Trichlorophenoxyacetic Acid Butyl Ester and was correctly entered for Customs tariff purposes. {:#subdebate-88-60} #### International Botanical Congress (Question No. 5893) {: #subdebate-88-60-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 16 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his attention been drawn to plans that the International Botanical Congress is to be held in Australia in 1981. 1. If so, can he say whether, in accepting an invitation to host the Congress, the host country is required to guarantee free access to all scientists who wish to attend, regardless of their nationality or country of origin. 2. Is he able to indicate whether the USSR hosted the previous Congress; if so, did it scrupulously observe this requirement and admit nationals of countries not recognised by the Soviet Government. 3. Will he give an assurance that the Australian Government will place no restrictions on the acceptability of scientists to attend the 1981 Congress based on their nationality or country of origin; if so, how does this relate to the current ban on scientific interchange with the USSR. {: #subdebate-88-60-s1 .speaker-KVY} ##### Mr Thomson:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. No. The Australian Academy of Science will host the 198 1 Congress under the auspices of the International Union of Biological Sciences, a member of the non-governmental International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU). ICSU has a basic policy of non-discrimination which affirms 'the rights of scientists throughout the world to adhere to or associate with international scientific activity without regard to race, religion, political philosophy, ethnic origin, citizenship, language, or sex '. The host institution is expected to do all in its power to adhere to ICSU's policy but is not required to guarantee free access to all scientists wishing to attend. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The USSR hosted the last Congress in Leningrad in 1975. 1. The Australian Government is not prepared to guarantee, several months in advance, free access to all scientists wishing to attend the Congress. (As indicated in my reply to Question No. 2 above, the host institution is not itself required to offer such a guarantee.) Any applications for visas submitted by Soviet citizens wishing to attend the Congress will be considered on their merits in terms of the Australian Government's policies at the time. {:#subdebate-88-61} #### Conciliation and Arbitration Appeals (Question No. 5897) {: #subdebate-88-61-s0 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 16 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many appeals to the Full Bench of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission against awards, decisions, orders or refusals to make an order made by a member of the Commission, were made in the last 3 years. 1. ) How many of these appeals were upheld. {: #subdebate-88-61-s1 .speaker-KVM} ##### Mr Street:
Minister for Industrial Relations · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The following table details the number of appeals lodged, determined, upheld or partially upheld. The figures for the number of appeals determined include a number of appeal cases carried over from previous years. {:#subdebate-88-62} #### Taxation Deduction for Funeral Expenses (Question No. 5898) {: #subdebate-88-62-s0 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 16 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did the Mathews Committee on Inflation and Taxation in its report presented to the House on 26 May 1975 recommend that the maximum allowable deduction for funeral expenses be indexed. 1. Was the sum involved $100 in 1975-76; if so, is it still the same. {: #subdebate-88-62-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Yes, in para 6. 14 of the Report which is submitted to the previous Government in May 1975. However, in its immediately following Budget the then Government effected a major change in the basis of the personal income tax system as a result of which, inter alia, most of the concessional deductions (including that relating to funeral expenses) became, effectively inoperative for the large majority of taxpayers. 1. Yes. {:#subdebate-88-63} #### Taxation Deduction for Superannuation Contributions and Life Assurance Premiums (Question No. 5899) {: #subdebate-88-63-s0 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 16 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Did the Mathews Committee on Inflation and Taxation in its report presented to the House on 26 May 1975 recommend that the maximum allowable deduction for superannuation contributions and life assurance premiums be indexed. 1. ) Was the sum involved $ 1,200 in 1975-76; if so, is it still the same. {: #subdebate-88-63-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) In para 6.8 of the Report which it submitted to the previous Government, the Mathews Committee said that if the Government wished to reduce the real values of the life insurance and superannuation and education expenses concessions, it should do so explicitly, rather than let them be reduced through inflation. The Committee went on to say that after setting them at their appropriate real values, it would then be logical to maintain the real values and indexation was a way of doing this. It is of course relevant that in its immediately following Budget the then Government effected a major change in the basis of the personal income tax system as a result of which, inter alia, most of the concessional deductions (including that relating to superannuation contributions and life assurance) became, effectively, inoperative for the large majority of taxpayers. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Yes. {:#subdebate-88-64} #### Taxation Deduction for Rates and Taxes (Question No. 5900) {: #subdebate-88-64-s0 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 16 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did the Mathews Committee on Inflation and Taxation in its report presented to the House on 26 May 1975 recommend that the maximum allowable deduction for rates and taxes on a taxpayer's principal residence be indexed. 1. Was the sum involved $300 in 1975-76; if so, is it still the same. {: #subdebate-88-64-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) In para 6.9 of its Report of May 1 975 to the previous Government, the Mathews Committee noted that arguments had been put for abolition of the concessional allowance for private rates and land taxes. It went on to say that if the Government wished to remove or phase out the concession gradually, it was preferable to do so explicitly, rather than rely on inflation. If, however, the then current real value of the concession were thought appropriate, the Committee considered it would be logical for the ceiling on the concession to be indexed. However, in its immediately following Budget the then Government effected a major change in the basis of the personal income tax system as a result of which, inter alia, most of the concessional deductions (including that relating to rates and taxes) became, effectively, inoperative for the large majority of taxpayers. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Yes. {:#subdebate-88-65} #### Taxation Deduction for Education Expenses (Question No. 5901) {: #subdebate-88-65-s0 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 16 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Did the Mathews Committee on Inflation and Taxation in its report presented to the House on 26 May 1975 recommend that the maximum allowable deduction for education expenses for the taxpayer and each dependant be indexed. 1. Was the sum involved $250 in 1975-76; if so, is it still the same. {: #subdebate-88-65-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) In para 6.8 of the Report which is submitted to the previous Government, the Mathews Committee said that if the Government wished to reduce the real values of the life insurance and superannuation and education expenses concessions, it should do so explicitly, rather than let them be reduced through inflation. The Committee went on to say that after setting them at their appropriate real values, it would then be logical to maintain the real values and indexation was a way of doing this. It is of course relevant that in its immediately following Budget the then Government effected a major change in the basis of the personal income tax system as a result of which, inter alia, most of the concessional deductions (including that relating to education expenses) became, effectively, inoperative for the large majority of taxpayers. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Yes. {:#subdebate-88-66} #### Telecom Australia Bank Account (Question No. 5903) {: #subdebate-88-66-s0 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 16 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his attention been drawn to reports that (a) Telecom Australia has moved its New South Wales account from the Commonwealth Trading Bank *to the ANZ* Bank and (b) the estimated turnover on this account was $600m annually. 1. If there is any substance in the reports can he state what would be the net annual cost (loss) to the Commonwealth Trading Bank of this transfer. {: #subdebate-88-66-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -The answer to the honourable member 's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) (a) Telecom Australia has advised that it has transferred its Head Office drawings account in New South Wales from the Commonwealth Trading Bank to the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group. (b) I am unable to comment on the level of the turnover through the account concerned; statutory authorities are not required to publish detailed information of that nature. 1. This raises a matter falling within the area of bankercustomer relationships and because of the confidentiality of such relationships it would not be appropriate to seek information of this nature from the Commonwealth Trading Bank. Commonwealth Property in Hornsby and Kur-ing-gai Areas (Question No. 5906) {: #subdebate-88-66-s2 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Minister for Adminis trative Services, upon notice, on 16 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What real estate property is owned by the Commonwealth Government in the (a) Shire of Hornsby and (b) Kur-ing-gai Council area, New South Wales. 1. What is the present use of the property in each case. {: #subdebate-88-66-s3 .speaker-KSB} ##### Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (l)and(2) Hornsby Shire Beecroft- Cnr Beecroft Parade and Hannah Street- Post Office Berowra- Lot15, Crowley Road- Telephone Exchange Lot 5 1 , Goodwyn Road- Line Depot Berowra Waters- Berowra Waters Road- Small Country Automatic Exchange Birralee- Cnr Chilcott Road and McCallum's AvenueSmall Country Automadc Exchange Brooklyn- Bridge and William Streets- Post Office Dangar Island- Riverview Avenue- Cable Landing Site Dural- 967/969 Old Northern Road-Telephone Exchange Quarry Road (Part Portion 723)-VHF Station Epping-Cnr Cambridge and Oxford Streets- Post Office Fiddletown- Cnr Nollands and Peebles Roads- Small Country Automatic Exchange Galston- Lots 1 and 2 Mid Dural Road- Line Depot Lots 1 and 2 School Road- Telephone Exchange Glenorie- Cnr Grea and North Roads and Harrisons Lane- Telephone Exchange Hornsby- Cnr Pacific Highway and Coronation Street- Post Office and Telephone Exchange Cnr Manor Road and Rosamund Street- Hospital Rehabilitation Centre Lot 9 (Off) Rosamund Street-Rifle Range 43 King Street- Telephone Engineering Centre Cnr Pacific Highway and Leonard Street- Army Training Depot (Disposal Pending) MtColah- 597/601 Pacific Highway-Post Office Cnr Kuruiggai, Berowra and Myal Roads- Army Training Depot Mt Kur-ing-gai- 761 Pacific Highway- Telephone Exchange Pennant Hills- 7 Loftus Street- Line Depot Cnr The Crescent and Railway Street- Telephone Exchange 383/403 Pennant Hills Road-New Telephone Exchange Site 106 Yarrara Street-Post Office Thornleigh-290 Pennant Hills Road-Post Office Waitara- 108 Pacific Highway-Post Office Kur-ing-gai Municipality Gordon-741 Pacific Highway-Post Office Killara- 62 Koola Avenue- House Cnr Locksley Street and Werona Avenue- Post Office 637 Pacific Highway- Telephone Exchange Lindfield- Lot 3, Eton Road- Film Studios 290/300 Pacific Highway-Post Office Bradfield Road and Lady Gance Drive- National Standards Laboratory Pymble- 83 Grandview Street-Post Office 10/12 Bungalow Avenue- Telephone Exchange Cnr Pacific Highway and West Street- Army Training Depot and Line Depot Pymble West- Lot 1, Gillian Parade- Outer Locator Beacon Roseville- Cnr Hill Street and Roseville Avenue- Post Office and House St Ives-235 Mona Vale Road-Post Office Turramurra- Bobbin Head Road- Lady Davidson Hospital 39 Parkinson Avenue- House 1 7 Rohine Street-Post Office Wahroonga- 33 Coonanbarra Road- Telephone Exchange 20 Coonanbarra Road- Post Office 4 Warwilla Avenue- Postal Depot Wahroonga North- 2 Scullin Place- House Warrawee- 55 Hastings Road- 'Kooyong' Entomology Field Station {:#subdebate-88-67} #### Scientific and Technical Research and Development (Question No. 5910) {: #subdebate-88-67-s0 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 16 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Government (a) established a national information office to store and disseminate scientific and technical information, (b) provided taxation and other incentives to individuals and companies seeking to develop new techniques and products and (c) made an annual science statement to the Parliament indicating trends in research and development, as recommended by the OECD, in line with undertakings given by the then Minister for Science in December 1975. 1. If not, why not. {: #subdebate-88-67-s1 .speaker-KVY} ##### Mr Thomson:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. The question of a National Information Office has been and is being examined in the context of several recent and current inquiries. A resolution has not yet been reached. That there is no governmental agency called a 'National Information Office' does not, however, mean there is no activity in this field. For example CSIRO is responding to more than one quarter of a million questions each year, from all sections of the Australian community, through its information offices in Melbourne and Sydney and its Divisions across Australia. All CSIRO Divisions are concerned with maintaining close relations with others active in their fields, whether in universities, industry or elsewhere, to improve information and technology transfer. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Taxation incentives for these purposes exist under Section 73a of the Income Tax Assessment Act. A report and recommendations on Tax incentives for Research and Development are being prepared by the Australian Science and Technology Council ( ASTEC ) and are nearing completion. 1. Yes. {:#subdebate-88-68} #### Oceanographic Research Vessel (Question No. 5912) {: #subdebate-88-68-s0 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 16 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Will the Government make a decision concerning the purchase of an oceanographic research vessel in view of Australia's new 200 mile marine economic and the urgent need for comprehensive oceangraphic research; if so, when. 1. Even if ordered immediately, would an oceanographic research ship take approximately 2 years to build. 2. Will he recommend that any oceanographic research vessel be built in Australia. {: #subdebate-88-68-s1 .speaker-KVY} ##### Mr Thomson:
NCP/NP -- The answers to the honourable member's questions are as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) In a press statement on 1 5 April 1 980 the Prime Minister advised that the Commonwealth Government is to establish a Marine Science Centre in Hobart at a cost of about $25m including $9m for a research vessel. The research vessel to be constructed would be capable of performing multi purpose oceanographic research and able to range around the Australian continent. 1. Yes. 2. Tenders will be called in October/November 1980 for the construction of an Oceanus class oceanographic research vessel both in Australia and overseas. All tenders received will be carefully considered prior to the placing of a firm contract. {:#subdebate-88-69} #### High Court of Australia: Judges' Staff (Question No. 5915) {: #subdebate-88-69-s0 .speaker-KSF} ##### Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 16 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What staff are available to Judges of the High Court of Australia. 1. ) What wage is each staff member entitled to receive. 2. What was the cost of (a) air fares, (b) travelling allowance and (c) expense claims for each staff member in (i) 1978-79 and (ii) the period 1 July 1979 to31 March 1980. {: #subdebate-88-69-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The Chief Justice has an Associate (Class 7), two Personal Secretaries, and a Tipstaff, as his personal staff; each Justice other than the Chief Justice has an Associate (Class 6), a Personal Secretary, and a Tipstaff, as personal staff. 1. Associate Class 7-517,31 1-$18,347; Associate Class 6-$ 15,766-$ 16,799; Personal Secretary-$12,542-$13,21 1; Tipstaff-$ 10,309-$ 10,733. 2. (a) Air fares in respect of Associates cost $17,523 in 1978-79 and $17,053 in the period from 1 July 1979 to 31 March 1980. Air fares in respect of Personal Secretaries cost $9,7 1 6 and $ 1 1 ,2 1 4 in the above two periods; air fares in respect of Tipstaves cost $10,827 and $1 1,829 in the above two periods. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Travelling allowance in respect of Associates cost $26,239 in 1978-79 and $22,521 in the period from 1 July 1979 to 31 March 1980. In these two periods, travelling allowance in respect of Personal Secretaries cost $8,547 and $ 1 3,288 respectively, while travelling allowance iri respect of Tipstaves cost $ 1 4,826 and $ 1 8,454 respectively. 1. Other expenses totalled $53 in 1 978-79 and $ 1 73 in the period from 1 July 1979 to 31 March 1980, in respect of all personal staff. {:#subdebate-88-70} #### Immigration Information (Question No. 5920) {: #subdebate-88-70-s0 .speaker-KSF} ##### Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 16 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many cables requested by immigration applicants for the purpose of obtaining information, have been sent since the introduction of immigration service charges on 1 November 1979. 1. How many answers to these cables have been received. 2. What is the average time lapse between a cable being sent and an answer being received. 3. What explanation is there for situations in which one or more cables are sent, and no reply is received. {: #subdebate-88-70-s1 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 700 cables were sent during the period 1 November, 1979, to 30 April, 1980. 1. It is not possible to indicate precisely how many answers have been received. Many cables do not require a specific reply, rather they provide information to an overseas post which facilitates the early processing of a particular case. For cables requiring an answer replies have been received within the general time-frame set out in (3 ). 2. The average time-lapse between a cable being sent and an answer being received is a little more than one week. 3. As indicated in (2) many cables do not require a reply. In other cases action or replies can be delayed for significant periods of time because of difficulties in arranging for and /or conducting interviews with persons in remote areas, or in cases where there are unusual processing problems associated with such matters as medical checks or assessment of trade qualifications. {:#subdebate-88-71} #### Public Service: Nationality and Citizenship Requirements (Question No. 5922) {: #subdebate-88-71-s0 .speaker-FH4} ##### Mr Humphreys: asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 17 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Are requirements for (a) employment and (b) permanency in terms of nationality and citizenship status consistent in Departments of the Australian Public Service. 1. If not, will he undertake to have the Public Service Act amended to specify minimum eligibility requirements in the matters of nationality and citizenship covering all Commonwealth employing bodies. {: #subdebate-88-71-s1 .speaker-0I4} ##### Mr MacKellar:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Under section 34 (a) of the Public Service Act a person is not eligible for appointment to the Australian Public Service as an officer unless he or she is a British subject. Temporary employees are not required to meet this nationality requirement. The provisions are consistent across all departments and those statutory authorities whose staff are employed under the Public Service Act. I would note that the nationality requirement in the non-Public Service Act area of Australian Government employment varies. Some statutory authorities have a British subject requirement, with or without a power of waiver vested in the Minister. Others, including the Postal and Telecommunications Commissions, do not have any nationality requirement. 1. The Government has under attention the possibility of amendment of section 34 (a) of the Public Service Act and options for change include no nationality requirement or an Australian citizenship requirement. The matter is a complex one, however, and the Government needs to weigh carefully matters such as the desirability of consistent arrangements across the whole arena of Commonwealth employment, equity for various groups in the community and the recruitment needs ofthe Australian Public Service. 411 Supply Company Depot at Gladstone, South Australia (Question No. 5932) {: #subdebate-88-71-s2 .speaker-KWZ} ##### Mr Wallis: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 7 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the present situation regarding plans announced on 4 September 1979 to close the 411 Supply Company Depot at Gladstone, S.A. 1. ) When is it anticipated that the closure will take effect. 2. Have any arrangements been made regarding the future employment of civilian employees on the (a) salaried and (b) wages staff as a result of any closure of this depot; if so what are they. {: #subdebate-88-71-s3 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) and ( 2 ) It is now planned that 4 1 1 Supply Company at Gladstone will close in early 1981. Ammunition stocks at Gladstone will be redeployed from the end of 1980 following completion of essential technical and security work on the buildings to be occupied at Penfield. 1. With the exception of one employee who will retire prior to the closure of the Gladstone depot, all other civilian employees will be offered alternative employment. Where relocation is involved, removal and transfer expenses and, where applicable, allowances under Public Service Regulation 97 will be met from Departmental funds. Enlistments in Defence Force (Question No. 5934) {: #subdebate-88-71-s4 .speaker-5J4} ##### Mr Scholes: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 7 April 1 980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many persons applied to enlist in the (a) Australian Regular Army, (b) Royal Australian Navy and (c) RAAF Reserves during each of the last 3 years. 1. How many applicants were accepted with respect to each service in each year. {: #subdebate-88-71-s5 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (l)and(2)- {:#subdebate-88-72} #### Ammunition for Leopard Tanks (Question No. 5936) {: #subdebate-88-72-s0 .speaker-5J4} ##### Mr Scholes: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 7 April 1 980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What is the current level of reserve stock of ammunition for Leopard tanks. 1. Have satisfactory arrangements been made for continuing supplies of ammunition. 2. Has the production of this ammunition in Australian munitions factories been studied; if so, with what results. , {: #subdebate-88-72-s1 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The Army has yet to undertake capital procurement of reserve stocks of ammunition for Leopard (i.e. operational reserves rather than stocks for training). However, holdings of various natures of ammunition used to support training could be used in an operational situation. The level of such holdings is not related to contingency requirements but rather to the requirement to establish and maintain proficiency in tank gunnery. The actual quantities of ammunition held is classified information. 1. Yes. 2. Yes. The requirement is for five (5) types of operational and two (2) types of practice round. Local pro- duction capability is being established for the two practice and one of the operational types. Design development is proceeding in local production of two further types of operational round. {:#subdebate-88-73} #### Australian Broadcasting Commission: Political Interviews (Question No. 5940) {: #subdebate-88-73-s0 .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr Armitage: asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 21 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) On what particular Australian Broadcasting Com- , mission television and radio programs were (a) the Premier of New South Wales, (b) Ministers of the NSW Govern- - ment, (c) the Leader of the Opposition in NSW, and (d) the Leader of the National Country Party in NSW interviewed in 1979. 1. At what times were the programs broadcast or televised. 2. 3 ) What was the total length of time of each interview. {: #subdebate-88-73-s1 .speaker-GY5} ##### Mr Staley:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. to (3) The information sought by the honourable member is shown on the following table: {:#subdebate-88-74} #### Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet: Canberra Staff (Question No. 5944) {: #subdebate-88-74-s0 .speaker-SD4} ##### Mr Cadman:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1 980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many officers of his Department are assigned to respond to and prepare evidence for (a) Parliamentary committees, (b) the Commonwealth Ombudsman and (c) the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. 1. What is the total number of staff of his Department based in Canberra. {: #subdebate-88-74-s1 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) No staff are assigned on a full-time basis to respond to and prepare evidence for Parliamentary committees, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Such duties would be undertaken as required by staff handling the relevant subject matter. 1. 459 at21 April 1980. {:#subdebate-88-75} #### Department of Industrial Relations: Canberra Staff (Question No. 5949) {: #subdebate-88-75-s0 .speaker-SD4} ##### Mr Cadman: asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many officers of his Department are assigned to respond to and prepare evidence for (a) Parliamentary committees, (b) the Commonwealth Ombudsman and (c) the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. 1. What is the total number of staff of his Department based in Canberra. {: #subdebate-88-75-s1 .speaker-KVM} ##### Mr Street:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1) No officers are assigned to full-time duties to respond to and prepare evidence for (a) Parliamentary committees, (b) the Commonwealth Ombudsman and (c) the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. As particular matters arise from time-to-time, officers of the Department are required to discharge these functions. 1. At 31 March 1980, 75 staff" of the Department of Industrial Relations were based in Canberra. {:#subdebate-88-76} #### Department of Foreign Affairs: Canberra Staff (Question No. 5951) {: #subdebate-88-76-s0 .speaker-SD4} ##### Mr Cadman: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many officers of his Department are assigned to respond to and prepare evidence for (a) Parliamentary committees, (b) the Commonwealth Ombudsman and (c) the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. 1. What is the total number of staff of his Department based in Canberra. {: #subdebate-88-76-s1 .speaker-MI4} ##### Mr Peacock:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) No officers of my Department are assigned full-time to respond to or prepare evidence for Parliamentary Committees, the Commonwealth Ombudsman or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Depending on the subject officers in various parts of the Department prepare material for these bodies in the course of their normal work. 1. 1,263. This number includes 326 officers of the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. {:#subdebate-88-77} #### Department of Defence: Canberra Staff (Question No. 5952) {: #subdebate-88-77-s0 .speaker-SD4} ##### Mr Cadman: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many officers of his Department are assigned to respond to and prepare evidence for: (a) Parliamentary Committees, (b) the Commonwealth Ombudsman and (c) the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. 1. What is the total number of staff of his Department based in Canberra. {: #subdebate-88-77-s1 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The Department of Defence does not have positions exclusively devoted to the activities referred to. The following are conservative approximations of the number of manhours involved over the period 1979-80: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. 13,000 man-hours peryear; 1. 2,500 man-hours peryear; 2. negligible, but may increase when the Administrative Appeals Tribunal exercises jurisdiction over Freedom of Information matters. 1. 6,620 excluding the Joint Services Staff College and the Joint Services Medical Centre. {:#subdebate-88-78} #### Aid to Vietnam (Question No. 5972) {: #subdebate-88-78-s0 .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1 980: >Will he provide more current and complete information on aid to Vietnam than that provided in the answer to pan (2) of question No. 3269 *(Hansard,* 3 May 1979, page 1889). {: #subdebate-88-78-s1 .speaker-0I4} ##### Mr Mackellar:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >In addition to those OECD and Western donors listed under 2 (a) of question No. 3269, it has subsequently been ascertained that the Federal Republic of Germany (ceased 1975) and the EEC provided aid to Vietnam prior to 25 December 1978. Under 2 (b) (i), Canada and New Zealand also have suspended aid to Vietnam. The United Kingdom has decided to suspend its aid program to Vietnam, but will proceed with the delivery of four cargo ships, due to be handed over later this year, because it would be too costly to cancel the contracts. > >No time has been set by Japan, Switzerland and the Federal Republic of Germany for the recommencement of their presently dormant aid programs to Vietnam. > >With regard to 2 (b) (ii), no other additional OECD and Western donors have advised a decision to cease providing aid to Vietnam at the completion of current programs. Norway has recently decided, however, to decrease the level of its aid to Vietnam. In addition, available information suggests that French aid is continuing, only at a low level. {:#subdebate-88-79} #### Upgrading of Airports (Question No. 5973) {: #subdebate-88-79-s0 .speaker-KJA} ##### Mr Innes: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1 980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Will funds be allocated for the upgrading of the airport at (a) Norfolk Island, (b) Maroochydore, Qld, (c) Albury, NSW and (d) Tamworth, NSW; if so, when. 1. Is any pan of the cost of the reported $6m upgrading commitment for Norfolk Island airport to be recovered from foreign airline operators under his Department's cost recovery program; if so (a) what percentage and (b) over what period is this recovery expected to be made. {: #subdebate-88-79-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. (a) The Government has announced its intention to upgrade Norfolk Island Airport to medium jet standard. Detailed proposals for this upgrading are currently being prepared, but until the Government has considered them, it is not possible to indicate a definite commitment of funds for the work, (b) (c) (d) My department is currently studying various proposals for the upgrading of the three aerodromes. However, until detailed proposals have been developed and considered by the Government, it is not possible to indicate when funds will be allocated for the work. 1. The Government has yet to consider the extent to which the cost of the upgrading will be attributed to industry for cost recovery purposes. However, in the case of costs arising from the upgrading which the Government decides are to be attributed to the industry, all users of the airport, including foreign owned operators, will be subject to charges according to use. {:#subdebate-88-80} #### Vietnam: Use of Defoliants (Question No. 5988) {: #subdebate-88-80-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 April 1 980: >Was information given to the Prime Minister and other former Ministers for the Army and Ministers for Defence (a) during and (b) since Australia's military action in Vietnam to the effect that Australians serving there were subjected to mutagenic or other hazards due to toxic defoliants and their components, contaminants and derivatives dispersed in the air, water, soil and food species in Vietnam; if so, what was this information. {: #subdebate-88-80-s1 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >No, information was not given and has not been given to those Ministers to the effect that Australians serving in Vietnam were subjected to mutagenic hazards. I refer the honourable member to the statement made by the Minister for Veterans ' Affairs on 3 1 March 1980, announcing a study of the possible effects that herbicides and other chemicals may have had on Vietnam veterans. National Consultative Council on Social Welfare (Question No. 5989) {: #subdebate-88-80-s2 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 22 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Did the National Consultative Council on Social Welfare in its 1st report, presented to the House on 1 April 1980, state that (a) low income families with children were subject to increasing poverty levels under the tax welfare system, (b) payments for children by the Department of Social Security should be indexed and financed by taxation of incomes above $16,608, (c) a greater differential in payments should be made for the 4th child, (d) emergency relief payments and emergency accommodation and meals are areas of need increasingly left to voluntary bodies with declining resources, (e) meals and accommodation subsidies for the homeless should be updated and indexed, (f) less than half the community has a reasonable knowledge of social welfare services, especially those in most need of them, (g) there is a need for (i) Departmental representatives in remote areas and (ii) a national human services information system, (h) the National Employment and Training Program, the Community Youth Support Scheme, the Education Program for Unemployed Youth, the Special Youth Employment Training Program and other youth employment schemes need integrating with general employment schemes and evaluation in full consultation with interested bodies before more youth projects are undertaken, (j) the Voluntary Youth Community Support Scheme Task Force rejected proper consultation and (k) social change projects should not be dominated by a Department concerned mainly with manpower. 1. If so, what has been done in response to these views. {: #subdebate-88-80-s3 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The National Consultative Council on Social Welfare did make reference in its 1st Report to matters raised by the honourable member. 1. As indicated when tabling the report on I April, the National Consultative Council on Social Welfare is an effective mechanism for cooperation and interchange of ideas with groups in the Social Welfare field. Those matters affecting Government policy will be considered. Matters of an administrative nature which lie within the responsibilities of my portfolio, have been, and will continue to be, kept under review. {:#subdebate-88-81} #### Overseas Property Purchases (Question No. 5995) {: #subdebate-88-81-s0 .speaker-QH4} ##### Mr Kerin: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Are Australians travelling overseas not allowed to take more than $ 1 0,000 out of the country in any 6 months period without special approval; if so, (a) when was the limit last changed and ( b ) what is its purpose. 1. Must an Australian wishing to remain an Australian resident but wanting to buy property overseas (for example, a house for an aged parent) supply such details as (a) the name and address of the present owner of the property, (b) the location of the property, (c) a description of the property, and (d) confirmation that, on resale, the proceeds will be remitted back to Australia, in order to be allowed to take the required money out of Australia. 2. If so, (a) what is the purpose of these requirements and (b) do these requirements put Australians at a disadvantage in overseas property markets. 3. Will he have this matter reviewed. {: #subdebate-88-81-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) For the convenience of the public the Reserve Bank of Australia, which administers exchange control, has authorised the Australian trading banks, as its agents for exchange control purposes, to approve travel funds within certain limits. Currently, the banks may approve up to $10,000 per person for stays overseas of six months or more, and lesser amounts for shorter periods. Applications to go beyond these limits are referred to the Reserve Bank and approval is readily given for all amounts needed to cover prospective overseas travelling expenses having regard to the purpose, duration and circumstances of journeys. {: type="a" start="a"} 0. The trading banks' delegated limits were last changed in 1976, when they were increased from $4,000 in any twelve month period to the present limits of up to $10,000 for any one journey of six months or more. 1. The requirement that applications for travel funds above certain thresholds are referred to the Reserve Bank is to help guard against unacceptable capital transfers taking place in the guise of travelling expenses. 1. and (3) The Reserve Bank generally requires that the details in (a), (b) and (c) in part (2) of the honourable member's question in order to assist in establishing the bona fides of any proposed purchase of real estate. Approval for such a purchase can be granted in accordance with the Government's policy on portfolio investment overseas- my statement in the House on 31 March 1980 refers- or, in special cases, such as the purchase of real estate for an aged parent, outside that policy if necessary. It is a general requirement that, if the property is sold, the proceeds be repatriated to Australia unless, with approval, they are used ibr other purposes acceptable under exchange control policy. The Reserve Bank advises that it has approved many applications on the foregoing basis and is not aware of applicants being disadvantaged by the need to provide the information before the funds are remitted from Australia. The Bank also attempts to accommodate special situations that are brought to its attention. 2. Exchange control policies are kept under continual review and, as my recent statement on portfolio investment indicates, are modified as necessary. The whole matter of exchange control is currently under the notice of the Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System. Pending the outcome of that Inquiry there seems to be no need to modify at this stage, the arrangements mentioned above. {:#subdebate-88-82} #### Vietnam: Use of Chemicals (Question No. 5998) {: #subdebate-88-82-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did Australian forces serving in Vietnam use defoliants, herbicides and pesticides; if so, were these toxins. 1. Were they used in (a) quantities greater than those required for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes or ( b ) ways calculated to avoid lethal effects. {: #subdebate-88-82-s1 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) Australian forces serving in Vietnam used a number of pesticides, which included both herbicides and insecticides, in ways calculated to have lethal effects on vegetation and insects which threatened the safety and the health of Australian servicemen. {:#subdebate-88-83} #### Answer to Question No. 4763 (Question No. 6000) {: #subdebate-88-83-s0 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 23 April 1 980: >In view of the answer to question No. 4763 (which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 27 September 1979) that the information was not available *(Hansard,* 22 April 1980, page 2 1 30), why did it take 7 months to provide an answer. {: #subdebate-88-83-s1 .speaker-0I4} ##### Mr MacKellar:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >My predecessor in his letter of 5 November 1979 advised the honourable member as follows: > >I refer to Question on Notice No. 4763 (which you asked on 27 September), concerning statistics on the number of general practitioners and medical specialists who frequently charge above Schedule fees, and related analyses. > >This information is not available from the current departmental analyses of the data of Medical Benefits claims. I have been advised that until developmental analyses are tried, the Department cannot be certain whether the data can be analysed to produce the type of information you sought. However, I have asked that such developmental analyses be tried as soon as the Department has brought on-line the more conventional analyses. > >One of the more conventional analyses produces statistics of the number of services, for which the fee charged is equal to, or less than the Schedule fee- these figures are referred to as level of observance statistics. > >I have forwarded to you a copy of tables showing preliminary figures that have recently been issued. ' > >It subsequently proved to be taking longer than had been expected to bring on-line the more conventional statistical analyses. Accordingly the answer appearing in *Hansard of* 22 April 1980 (page 2130) was provided because the information sought would not become available in the foreseeable future. {:#subdebate-88-84} #### Answer to Question No. 5307 (Question No. 6002) {: #subdebate-88-84-s0 .speaker-CH4} ##### Mr Holding: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 23 April 1 980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his attention been drawn to comments by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition made following his ministerial statement to the House on the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation- Principal conclusions (concerning the fact that a relevant question, No. 5307, had not been *answered) (Hansard,* 19 March 1980, pages 918-9). 1. If so, when can I expect an answer to question No. 5307, which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 19 February 1980. {: #subdebate-88-84-s1 .speaker-MI4} ##### Mr Peacock:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. The answer to question No. 5307, being a lengthy one, took longer than usual to prepare. It has been printed in *Hansardof22* May 1980. {:#subdebate-88-85} #### Telecom Australia: Underground Cable Repairs (Question No. 6004) {: #subdebate-88-85-s0 .speaker-L0J} ##### Mr Sainsbury: asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 23 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What sum did Telecom Australia collect from persons for (a) damaged underground cables which required repair by Telecom and (b) all damaged Telecom property repaired by Telecom in 1978-79. 1. What were the costs of (a) labour and (b) materials for those repairs. {: #subdebate-88-85-s1 .speaker-GY5} ##### Mr Staley:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Telecom advises- > >(a) $2,061,850 > >$2,506,239 > >The separate costs of labour and materials for all of the 3,652 and 4,737 jobs involved respectively under ( 1 ) (a) and (1) (b) are not accumulated in Telecom's accounting system. However, analysis of a random sample indicates that labour costs constitute approximately 75 per cent of the overall total costs. The majority of the remaining costs represent materials. {:#subdebate-88-86} #### Immigration: Arrival and Departure Statistics (Question No. 6006) {: #subdebate-88-86-s0 .speaker-JNG} ##### Dr Cass: asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 23 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1) What were the (a) countries of last residence and (b) number of settlers who arrived in Australia in (i) 1978/79 and (ii) each month from July 1979 to March 1980 inclusive. 1. How many persons departed from Australia in each of the same periods. 2. 3 ) How many persons were admitted under the {: type="a" start="a"} 0. family reunion 1. b ) Numerical Multifactor Assessment System 2. refugee and 3. special and other (specified) categories in 4. 1978/79 and {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. each month from July 1979 to March 1980 inclusive. 3. How many persons admitted under these categories specified in part (3), (a) were eligible for and (b) received assisted passage to Australia. 4. How many of the settlers last resident in New Zealand who arrived in Australia in (a) 1978/79 and (b) each month from July 1979 to March 1980 inclusive (i) wished to settle in Australia (A) permanendy and (B) temporarily and (ii) departed from Australia. {: #subdebate-88-86-s1 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
LP -- Much of the information requested by **Dr Cass** is either not available or cannot be easily extracted. I will provide him directly as soon as possible with that information which is reasonably available and have it incorporated in *Hansard* at a later date. {:#subdebate-88-87} #### Pensioner Health Benefits (Question No. 6008) {: #subdebate-88-87-s0 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 23 April 1 980: >Is the estimated cost of $ 10m per annum for the provision of medical services for the estimated 113 000 dependent children and students entitled to pensioner health benefits given in the answer to question No. 4980 *(Hansard,* 2 1 April 1980, page 2040) calculated on the basis of the average number of medical services for (a) mainly adult pensioners or ( b) children and students. {: #subdebate-88-87-s1 .speaker-0I4} ##### Mr MacKellar:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. and (b) The estimated cost of $10 million per annum for the provision of medical services is a net cost, which allows for various assumed increases in costs and offsets. The assumptions include estimated general utilisation rates for Pensioner Health Benefit (PHB) pensioners and dependants, as well as the net increased cost per service at the PHB rate, and various savings. Sales Tax on Sporting Equipment and Clothing (Question No. 6012) {: #subdebate-88-87-s2 .speaker-OD4} ##### Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 29 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What rate of sales tax is imposed on (a) sporting equipment including tennis racquets, balls, etc and (b) sports clothing, including football boots and jerseys, sandshoes, etc. 1. What was the total revenue from sales tax on (a) sporting equipment and (b) sports clothing in (i) 1975-76, (ii) 1976-77, (iii) 1977-78 and (iv) 1978-79. {: #subdebate-88-87-s3 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) (a) The rate of sales tax imposed on sporting equipment including tennis racquets and balls is 1 5 per cent. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Sports clothing- including football boots, jerseys and sandshoes- is exempt from sales tax, but protective headwear, protective pads, guards, gloves and mittens used for sport and recreation are not. 1. (a) and (b) Sales tax paid or payable in respect of sales sporting equipment is not recorded separately. Reliable estimates of the sales tax revenue from sporting equipment for each of the years concerned are therefore not available. However, based mainly on information from sales tax returns that have been classified by broad business type, it has been estimated that sales tax payable in 1977-78 on equipment for gymnastics, athletics, sports and outdoor games (including arms and ammunition but excluding boats, bicycles and other sporting or recreational vehicles) was an amount of about $20m. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet: Employees Born Overseas (Question No. 6013) {: #subdebate-88-87-s4 .speaker-JNG} ##### Dr Cass: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 29 April 1 980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many persons born overseas (indicating country of birth) are employed by his Department. 1. How many of these persons are employed on a (a) temporary and (b) permanent basis and in what classifications are they employed. 2. How many bi-lingual and multi-lingual staff members are employed by his Department in counter situations and/or close contact with members of the public. 3. Does his Department have translating facilities; if so, (a) what languages are involved and (b) how many persons are working in the area and what are their classifications. 4. If his Department does not have interpreting and translating facilities, what arrangements are made for performing these tasks. {: #subdebate-88-87-s5 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) and ( 2 ) Collective statistics on employees ' countries of birth are not maintained and I am not prepared to authorise the use of the extensive resources which would be involved in manually extracting the information required from appointment records. 1. None. The staff of my Department, because of the nature of its functions, does not have across-the-counter or other close contact with the general public. 2. and (5) My Department does not have staff engaged full-time on translating duties but those who are fluent in a foreign language translate less complex texts. Twenty-three foreign languages are covered in this way. When more complex interpreting and translating requirements arise, the services of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs are utilised. {:#subdebate-88-88} #### Part Time Ethnic Schools (Question No. 6041) {: #subdebate-88-88-s0 .speaker-JNG} ##### Dr Cass: asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 29 April 1 980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Is he able to state how many 'Saturday' and 'Sunday' schools are conducted by various communities in Australia. 1. How many of these schools (a) applied for and (b) were granted Government funding in the period from 1 January 1978 to 28 April 1980. 2. Were any applications for funding rejected; if so, (a) how many and (b) on what grounds. 3. Are Schools Commission grants the only means by which Commonwealth assistance is made available to these schools; if not, what other means are used. {: #subdebate-88-88-s1 .speaker-CG4} ##### Mr Fife:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. In 1976 the Committee on the Teaching of Migrant Languages in Schools estimated that there were approximately 600 'Saturday' and 'Sunday' schools (part-time ethnic schools) in Australia. There has been no nation-wide survey conducted since but all the indications are that the number of such schools has increased markedly, especially among the Greek and Italian communities, and that currently they would number about 1,000. 1. and (3) Not being normal day schools, part-time ethnic schools are not registered by State Education Departments. They are consequently not eligible to apply for Commonwealth financial assistance towards their operating and capital costs, and no applications for such funding have been made. 2. Some part-time ethnic schools may have received funds from the Schools Commission under its Innovations Program which provides funds for particular educational innovation projects. In view of the very large number of applications for Innovations Program funds on a nation-wide basis since 1978, information on applications by part-time ethnic schools ibr such project funding is not readily available. {:#subdebate-88-89} #### Slaughter of Dolphins (Question No. 6042) {: #subdebate-88-89-s0 .speaker-FH4} ##### Mr Humphreys: asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 29 April 1 980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Will the Government lodge a protest against the slaughter of dolphins by Japanese fishermen in Japanese waters during the course of its negotiations with Japanese authorities over access to Australia 's 200 mile fishing zone. 1. Will the Government seek assurances that no action of this kind will be taken by (a) foreign or (b) Australian fishermen in waters controlled by Australia. {: #subdebate-88-89-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Government has already approached the Japanese Government on this matter- see answer to question without notice asked in the Senate and recorded on page 1798 of the Senate *Hansard* of 23 April 1980. 1. The Whale Protection Bill introduced into the Parliament on 23 April 1980 applies to all persons in the 200 mile Australian fishing zone and to Australians, Australian boats and Australian aircraft in all marine waters beyond that zone. The legislation provides for a prohibition on the killing of cetaceans which includes whales, dolphins and porpoises within the Australian fishing zone. {:#subdebate-88-90} #### Chilean Migrants (Question No. 6046) {: #subdebate-88-90-s0 .speaker-FH4} ##### Mr Humphreys: asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 29 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many Chileans (a) migrated to Australia and (b) arrived in Australia using visitors' visas in each year from 1975 to 1979. 1. How many of those who arrived using visitors' visas (a) applied for and (b) received permanent resident status. {: #subdebate-88-90-s1 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) (a) Settler arrivals- Chilean citizens: Calendar year 1975, 1,636 persons; 1976, 1,954; 1977, 1,551; 1978,826; 1979 (P), 603. {: type="A" start="P"} 0. = Preliminary. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Overseas Visitors- Chilean citizens: 1975, 304; 1976, 365; 1977, 422; 1978, 570; January to June 1979,203. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Applications lodged and approved for resident status: {:#subdebate-88-91} #### Statutory Authorities: Appointments (Question No. 6050) {: #subdebate-88-91-s0 .speaker-K9O} ##### Mr Peter Johnson:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · LP asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 29 April 1980: >Further to the answer to Question 5542 *(Hansard,* 16 April 1980, page 1850) and the perceived difficulties that arose in answering the question, can he state (a) to which existing statutory authorities and (b) from what dates, appointments will be necessary, in the normal course of events, in the period 1 May 1 980 to 30 April 1981. {: #subdebate-88-91-s1 .speaker-0I4} ##### Mr MacKellar:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Departments have supplied information on statutory positions (a) vacant as at 1 May 1980 and (b) where the term of office of the current appointee expired or is due to expire between 1 May 1 980 and 30 April 198 1 . {:#subdebate-88-92} #### Sickness and Accident Insurance (Question No. 6055) {: #subdebate-88-92-s0 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 30 April 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Can the Minister say whether insurance companies place age limits on their sickness and accident policies. 1. ) If this is the case, are provisions made under Commonwealth or State legislation for self-employed persons who wish to work beyond the age of 60 and are ineligible for workers' compensation; if so, what are these provisions. {: #subdebate-88-92-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) I am not aware of the practices of individual private insurance companies or State Government insurance offices in regard to the age limits (if any) which they may impose upon sickness and accident policies offered by them. Pursuant to the Social Services Act 1947, sickness or special benefit could be payable to self-employed persons in the event of temporary incapacity for work, and in other circumstances age or invalid pension could be payable. I am not aware of any provisions in State legislation designed to provide sickness and accident insurance for self-employed persons who wish to work beyond the age of 60. {:#subdebate-88-93} #### Vietnam: Use of Chemicals (Question No. 6070) {: #subdebate-88-93-s0 .speaker-QH4} ##### Mr Kerin: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 May 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Were drums of 24D and245T tipped out or sprayed on the perimeter wires of the Australian Task Force compound at Nui Dat, South Vietnam, in 1968-69; if so, how many. 1. Were500 gallon water tankers, normally used for the transport of domestic and drinking water, used in these operations. 2. Can he say whether other (a) herbicides, (b) insecticides and (c) other chemicals were used in the immediate vicinity of the Nui Dat headquarters during any time of Australia 's involvement in South Vietnam; if so, what are the details. {: #subdebate-88-93-s1 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member 's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Repeated searches have uncovered no record of any operational use in Vietnam by Australia of any herbicide containing 2-4-5.T. The other substance, 2-4.D, was one of the ingredients of the herbicide known as Tordon SOD. Record has been found of the purchase of some 13 x 45 gallon drums of Tordon SOD for use in Vietnam by the Army. Tordon was sprayed around the perimeter of the Task Force area. 1. There is no record that any tanker, having been used to transport pesticides, was used subsequently to transport domestic water. Given the safety instructions in force, the proposition is inherently unlikely. 2. Numerous chemicals, including herbicides, insecticides, disinfectants, detergents, repellants, water purifiers, camouflage cream, and pharmaceuticals were in routine use at Nui Dat. The ones mentioned were used for the greater comfort, better health or enhanced safety from the enemy of Australian servicemen. {:#subdebate-88-94} #### Multiple Sclerosis (Question No. 6074) {: #subdebate-88-94-s0 .speaker-CH4} ##### Mr Holding: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 1 May 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Have Federal grants been made in each of the last 5 financial years to assist in the provision of services and amenities to sufferers of multiple sclerosis; if so, (a) how many and (b) what was the (i) nature and (ii) amount of each of the grants. 1. Were any applications for grants for this purpose refused in this period; if so, what are the details. 2. Has any allocation of funds to the Department for this purpose remained unspent in this period; if so, what are the details including the (a) reasons the allocation was not spent and (b) relevant appropriation line number. {: #subdebate-88-94-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Yes, however there are no Commonwealth funding programs directed solely to organisations catering exclusively for people with multiple sclerosis. In regard to my Department the main potential source of funding is through the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act. There are currently three voluntary organisations funded under the provisions of that Act which cater either exclusively or to a large extent for sufferers of multiple sclerosis. The details requested for these organisations for 1974-75 to 1978-79 are given in the table below. 1. Yes, at least two applications for assistance through the Handicapped Persons Welfare Program could not be approved within the overall funding priorities. The programs were not considered to be eligible for funding under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act and were therefore not recommended for assistance. 2. There is no individual funding allocation for this or any other diagnostic Group under the Handicapped Persons Welfare Program. In each of the past5 years expenditure has fallen short of the appropriation covering this program by varying amounts. There are many reasons for variations between appropriations and actual expenditure: the final expenditure results in any year being largely dependent upon the progress made in approved projects and the submission of claims for payment from organisations in respect of approved commitments. {:#subdebate-88-95} #### Royal Australian Air Force Boeing 707 Aircraft: Training of Stewards (Question No. 6076) {: #subdebate-88-95-s0 .speaker-5J4} ##### Mr Scholes: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 May 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Is the training of RAAF stewards currently completed without training on Boeing 707 aircraft; if so, do stewards not trained for these aircraft serve on them. 1. If this is the case, is the situation (a) contrary to standard procedures and accepted safety guidelines and (b) of serious concern to RAAF personnel. 2. Was a training course for stewards recently cancelled because of a lack of applicants for the course. {: #subdebate-88-95-s1 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Flight stewards currently serving on Boeing 707 aircraft have all undergone a full course of training appropriate to the aircraft before the start of full-time flying duties with No 37 Squadron, the operating unit. On the occasions needed, supplementary flight steward crews for Boeing 707 operations are drawn from a pool of flight stewards at No 34 Squadron, all of whom have at least received training in emergency procedures for the aircraft. The training of these flight stewards has been carried out by QANTAS and the RAAF. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. See (1) above. 1. A flight steward course was scheduled to start on 28 January 1980, but it was postponed because of lack of applicants at that time. Also, TAA which now conduct the steward phase of the course was unable to conduct this training until 28 April 1980. The course is now underway with eight students and is expected to finish on 18 July 1980. {:#subdebate-88-96} #### Wood Chip Industry (Question No. 6085) {: #subdebate-88-96-s0 .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr Cohen: asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 13 May 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What was the (a) price range for chips (f.o.b.) considered suitable by the Government when considering the licence application for the North Coast Woodchip Export Scheme and (b) actual price obtained by the exporting company for the chips from its customer. 1. What economic analyses have been done by State or Federal Departments on the export scheme. 2. Were these analyses used when considering the granting of the export licence; if so, (a) which analyses were used and ( b) will he make them available to the Parliament. 3. Has the Western Australian Woodchip company, WA Chip and Pulp Co. Pty Ltd made application to the Federal Government for an increase in its export licence; if so, what is the (a) size of the increase being requested and (b) current licence size. 4. From which source does the company intend to obtain its pulpwood. 5. What has been the volume of chips exported annually since the operation began. 6. Will he have an Environmental Impact Statement prepared for this application. 7. What has been the annual pine planting rates suggested for Australia by the FORWOOD Conference, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and Federal Departments. 8. What has been Australia's actual total pine planting rate since 1970. {: #subdebate-88-96-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP -The answer *to the* honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. (a) Exporters of woodchips are expected to achieve sale prices at least comparable with other suppliers to the same market, subject to considerations of quality and transport costs to the market. There is no prescribed suitable price range for chips. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. The actual prices obtained by individual exporters are considered to be commercially confidential. The Company involved in the North Coast Woodchip Export scheme is required to obtain each year, the Government's approval of the proposed export price for that year. The prices which were indicated by the Company for the early years of exports were considered reasonable but no firm judgments can be made now of price levels in the years ahead. 1. The Forestry Branch of my Department is not aware of any economic analyses having been done by State or Federal Departments on the North Coast Woodchip Export scheme. 2. Not applicable. See answer to 2 above. 3. Yes. {: type="a" start="a"} 0. The increase sought is in two pans- an initial 150,000 green tonnes and a further 200,000 green tonnes. 1. b ) 750,000 green tonnes. 4. The Company intends to obtain increased supplies of woodchips for the initial 150,000 green tonnes from jarrah sawmill residues and for the further 200,000 green tonnes from sawmill residues, forest residues, land clearing operations and private pine plantations. 5. In 1 973 the Company was granted approval to export up to 750,000 green tonnes of woodchips annually. Due to depressed world market conditions since operations commenced, exports have been substantially less than the approved volume. The Company expects to export the full entitlement in 1980. The actual level of exports by individual companies is regarded as commercially confidential information. 6. Responsibility for environmental assessment of woodchip export proposals rests with the Commonwealth Minister for Science and the Environment. Following consultation with the WA environment authorities, it was determined that for the initial 1 50,000 tonnes of woodchips in the first years, no environmental impact statement will be required. This determination was made on the basis of the initial 150,000 tonnes component being derived solely from sawmill residues and on the understanding that justification for any continuation of this initial component will form part of the Environmental Review and Management Program (ERMP) the Company has been asked to prepare and submit to the WA Government by January 1982. The ERMP will also cover the additional 200,000 tonnes of woodchips which together with the 150,000 tonnes component comprise the Company's total increased export application. The need for an environmental impact statement under Commonwealth environmental legislation to cover the additional 200,000 tonnes will be considered when the Company has completed and submitted the ERMP for examination. 7. The FORWOOD Conference recommended that the total area to be planted annually (new planting plus replanting) should be 28,500 hectares from 1975 onwards. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics suggested that to achieve self-sufficiency in sawlogs and pulpwood by the year 2005 an annual planting rate between 1976 and 1980 of 1 8,2 1 6 hectares would be required. Their study made no recommendations concerning the level of planting beyond 1980. My Depanment is not aware of any annual pine planting rates suggested by other Federal Departments or authorities. {: type="1" start="9"} 0. The total Government and private plantings have been as follows: {:#subdebate-88-97} #### Canberra Population Statistics (Question No. 6089) {: #subdebate-88-97-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 13 May 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his attention been drawn to reports in the *Canberra Times* of 1 May 1980 indicating (a) a significant loss of population and family size in the Canberra North area, ACT, and (b) an average new household size of 2.4 persons since 1976 compared to an average household size of 3.1 in Canberra at 1 May 1980 and 3.4 in 1976. 1. Can he say whether population loss in other regional centres is primarily due to young unemployed persons moving to metropolitan areas where there are more diverse employment and training opportunities; if so, does Canberra's experience differ from this. 2. Do the population figures conflict with the view that lower numbers of registered unemployed in Canberra are due to an anticipated private enterprise boom and moves of public offices to Canberra, as he suggested to the House on 30 April 1980 *(Hansard,* pages 2412-3). {: #subdebate-88-97-s1 .speaker-YF6} ##### Mr Ellicott:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. and (3) There is no conflict between the North Canberra population trends and my public statements on the Canberra employment situation The declining population in parts of North Canberra is not a reflection of trends in the ACT economy, but is largely a consequence of normal demographic processes in the ageing population of an established area. For example, such factors are involved as higher levels of age related mortality, and grown up' children leaving their parents' dwellings to form their own households in other dwellings elsewhere. Many of these people have simply moved to newly developing areas of the ACT. This process is not comparable with population migration which may occur in regional or provincial centres that do not have employment or training opportunities for young people. {:#subdebate-88-98} #### Aeronautical Research Laboratories (Question No. 6092) {: #subdebate-88-98-s0 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 13 May 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did his Department advertise in the *Weekend Australian* of 3-4 May 1980 for a 'principle research scientist ' in the Aeronautical Research Laboratories. 1. What kind of principles will be researched. {: #subdebate-88-98-s1 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1) Yes. The Advertising Authority prepared in the Aeronautical Research Laboratories did in fact incorrectly refer to a 'Principle Research Scientist', though as a matter of principle my Depanment attempts to observe correct spelling. The advertisement was placed in two newspapers- the *Age,* which corrected the spelling mistake before publication, and the *Weekend Australian,* which did not. 1. The Principal Research Scientist will be concerned with research involving the principles of combustion systems associated principally with aircraft, marine and industrial engines. {:#subdebate-88-99} #### Taxation: Overseas Owned Oil Companies (Question No. 6094) {: #subdebate-88-99-s0 .speaker-CV4} ##### Mr Jacobi: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 14 May 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What success has the Commissioner of Taxation had in applying section 136 of the Income Tax Assessment Act (relating to business carried on in Australia but controlled by overseas interests) to the income of overseas owned oil companies. 1. Did the Taxation Board of Review some years ago consider the application of section 1 36 to an overseas-owned oil company in a case lasting nearly 2 years; if so, (a) what success did the Commissioner have in refuting the claims made by the company concerning the landed costs of oil, which were allegedly inflated and ( b ) was the decision of the Board substantially against the Commissioner. 2. Has the position on this matter improved in recent years, enabling the Commissioner to collect an amount of income tax from overseas-owned oil companies; if not, will he seek the amendment of section 136 to strengthen its provisions. 3. If he will seek the amendment of section 136, when will the necessary action commence. {: #subdebate-88-99-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Commissioner of Taxation has advised that; because of the secrecy provisions contained in the Income Tax Assessment Act, he is unable to provide specific information. 1. The case referred to was set down for hearing on 17 October 1961 and occupied fifty-two sitting days. The hearing was completed on 27 February 1962 and decision handed down on 20 March 1963. In that case the Commissioner determined amounts of taxable income pursuant to section 136 ofthe Income Tax Assessment Act in excess of the amounts of taxable income disclosed in the company's income tax returns. The Taxation Board of Review did not uphold the major adjustments made by the Commissioner in respect of the landed costs of oil imported from one source affiliated with the company. Smaller adjustments were confirmed in respect of imports from other affiliated sources. Details are available in the published report of the Board's decision-Case N69 13 TBRD 270. 2. and (4) Amendments to the income tax law in 1977 have given the Commissioner specific power to limit deductions for the cost of trading stock to the amount for which the article could be purchased in an arm's length transaction. Other matters relevant to the effectiveness of section 136 are being examined, including a revision of section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. {:#subdebate-88-100} #### Taxation: Employees (Question No. 6095) {: #subdebate-88-100-s0 .speaker-CV4} ##### Mr Jacobi: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 14 May 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Do employees who are subject to taxation instalment deduction currently pay approximately 83 per cent of all income tax assessed to be paid by individual taxpayers. 1. If so, does the Government propose to take action to implement a more equitable system of taxation which would ensure that the wealthy pay a larger share of tax and that the percentage of taxation currently paid by employees is reduced. {: #subdebate-88-100-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The latest available statistics (Taxation Statistics 1977-78, Parliamentary Paper No. 162/1979) show that for income year 1976-77, tax instalment deductions totalled $9,018,925,000 or 83.9 per cent of total net tax assessed ($10,750,124,000). 1. Whether the payment of tax is made via PA YE or the provisional tax arrangements, the tax assessed is calculated on the same progressive personal income tax scale. A basic principle of our income tax system is that tax should be levied on the basis of the ability of an individual to pay. In the first instance, ability to pay depends on total income from all sources be they wages, salaries, profits, dividends or interest. The mode of payment of tax affects neither the ability of an individual to pay nor the incidence of the personal income tax. The Government is constantly reviewing the operations of the tax system to ensure it is as equitable as possible. Moreover, we are committed to reducing the burden of taxation, as and when we can responsibly do so. {:#subdebate-88-101} #### Answers to Parliamentary Questions (Question No. 6100) {: #subdebate-88-101-s0 .speaker-CH4} ##### Mr Holding: asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 14 May 1 980: >When can I expect an answer to questions Nos. 5326 and 5332, which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 19 February 1980. {: #subdebate-88-101-s1 .speaker-ID4} ##### Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The answer to these questions appeared in *Hansard* on 15 May 1980, page 2876. {:#subdebate-88-102} #### Answers to Parliamentary Questions (Question No. 6102) {: #subdebate-88-102-s0 .speaker-CH4} ##### Mr Holding: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 14 May 1980: >When can I expect an answer to questions Nos. 5339, 5340 and 5342 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 19 February 1980? {: #subdebate-88-102-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >As many of the questions asked by the honourable member relate to matters which are the responsibility of the Queensland Government, I referred his question to my > >Queensland Ministerial colleague. The Minister has provided me with some information but I am awaiting additional information from him and the Queensland Minister for Health. When this information is available I shall reply to the honourable member's questions. {:#subdebate-88-103} #### Uranium Mining (Question No. 6107) {: #subdebate-88-103-s0 .speaker-K5O} ##### Mr Corbett:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 14 May 1980: >Has the Government received any report from the Uranium Advisory Council on sequential development of uranium mining as foreshadowed in the Council's First report, presented to the House on 13 September 1979; if so, what was the Council 's advice on the matter. {: #subdebate-88-103-s1 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >On 21 November 1979 the Uranium Advisory Council wrote to me in the following terms: > >In the First Annual Report of this Council I mentioned that the question of sequential development of uranium mining was under examination by a Council sub-committee. > >Sequential development is already occurring. The' combined effect of environmental impact statement requirements, approvals for foreign investment and negotiations with the aboriginal people can be expected to ensure that development of projects, particularly of projects in the Northern Territory, will occur in sequence. > >Such being the case, Council at this stage does not recommend disturbing the status quo by introducing further controls over uranium projects. The Council will, however, continue to monitor economic, social and environmental factors which impinge upon development. > >The ACTU representative drew attention to the fact that the ACTU oppose further development of uranium and therefore oppose sequential development in any form. ' {:#subdebate-88-104} #### Ranger Uranium Project (Question No. 6108) {: #subdebate-88-104-s0 .speaker-K5O} ##### Mr Corbett: asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 1 4 May 1 980: >Has he requested further advice from the Uranium Advisory Council on environmental, safety and other controls and regulations in respect of the Ranger project as foreshadowed in his statement of 13 September 1979 *(Hansard,* page 1087); if so, what was the Council's advice. {: #subdebate-88-104-s1 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >On 22 August 1979 the Uranium Advisory Council provided advice at my request on the possibility of the Commonwealth Government's disposing of its interests in the Ranger uranium project. The text of that advice was incorporated in *Hansard* on 13 September 1979 (pages 1086-1087). In its advice the Council considered that one of the possible effects of any disposal of the Government's interests in Ranger could be a reduction in public confidence in environmental, safety and other controls and regulations concerning uranium development including those governing the sale of the product. On 19 September 1979 I asked the Council to examine this aspect and advise if it sees any particular difficulties in this area. The Council provided advice on this matter on 24 October 1979. The text of the advice is as follows: > >I am replying to your letter of 19 September 1979, in which you referred to this Council's view, as conveyed to you in my letter of 22 August, that any disposal of the Commonwealth Government's interests in the Ranger project could result in a reduction in public confidence in environmental, safety and other controls and regulations concerning uranium development, including those governing the sale of the product. You asked if the Council would closely examine this aspect and advise you if it sees any particular difficulties in this area. > >The possible effects on Australian public confidence of a Government decision to dispose of its interest in Ranger, as postulated in my letter under reference, emerged as part of a broad consensus after lengthy discussion in the Council. The Council had primarily in mind the likely reaction to such a decision within the Australian community in the broad. The Council was not considering in this context the reactions ofthe Australian mining industry which it recognised were likely to be of a different order. > >The matter was further discussed during the Council's October meeting. > >Members feel, with differing degrees of emphasis, that such a decision by the Government might be expected to stimulate the growth of domestic criticism of, and active opposition to, uranium mining and export, based on public persuasion or supposition that withdrawal by the Government from its managerial and equity participation in the Ranger project would lead to a weakening in the rigorous application of controls over safety standards, environmental potection (including sociological effects on the local aboriginal population), internationally agreed safeguards governing the end use of the product and also the conditions and terms of export contracts. As a corollary to this, the Council considers that the Government may best preserve and increase its expertise and its capability to enforce all necessary controls by maintaining a direct involvement in the Ranger project. > >Over and beyond the specific aspects mentioned, there is a general feeling in the Council that any move by the Government to divest itself of its interest in Ranger would have an adverse effect on public confidence so far as uranium development is concerned. > >Council members have noted that there appears to be greater public confidence in the nuclear power industry in Western countries such as the United Kingdom and France, where there is direct Government involvement in the industry, than there is for instance in the USA. ' > >The honourable member will recall that, in announcing on 18 December 1979 that the Government would divest of its interests in the Ranger project and that it wished to accept the offer submitted on behalf of Energy Resources of Australia, I said the Government saw no need for its continued involvement in the actual mining operations at Ranger when these could be undertaken by reputable private interests. I also made it clear that the assignment process would ensure that the Government's obligations to the aboriginal people in respect of the Ranger project would not be affected by the Government's decision and that the environmental requirements of the project would be fully carried out; similarly the Government's policies in relation to mining, marketing and safeguards matters would not be affected. {:#subdebate-88-105} #### Cyprus (Question No. 6111) {: #subdebate-88-105-s0 .speaker-4I4} ##### Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP y asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 14 May 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Is he able to state what has been the United Nations stance on the invasion of Cyprus by Turkish forces in 1 974. 1. How has Australia voted in the UN on resolutions on this matter in each year since 1974. 2. Did Australia change its voting position in 1979; if so, why. {: #subdebate-88-105-s1 .speaker-MI4} ##### Mr Peacock:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Since the events of 1974 the United Nations has sought to promote a peaceful solution to the situation in Cyprus. The United Nations has called for the withdrawal of all foreign armed forces from Cyprus, has expressed full support for the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity, unity and non-alignment ofthe Republic and has advocated negotiations, under the auspices of the Secretary-General between representatives of the two communities. In this regard the United Nations has endorsed the principle that the negotiations should be conducted freely on an equal footing between the parties directly concerned with a view to reaching, as early as possible, a mutually acceptable agreement based on their fundamental and legitimate rights. 1. -- 2. From 1974 to 1978 Australia voted in favour of all General Assembly resolutions on Cyprus. At the 34th session (1979) Australia abstained. Our vote did not represent any change in position. Rather, it expressed our concern that the resolution contained provisions that could impinge on the Secretary-General's impartial "good offices" role and unnecessarily complicate his already difficult and delicate task. Indeed, it was the view of the Government that some proposals in the resolution, including references to the establishment of a new UN ad hoc Committee on Cyprus, could distract attention from the central role of the inter-communal negotiations and risk jeopardising the potential for progress offered by the prospect of their early resumption. {:#subdebate-88-106} #### Sale of War Toys (Question No. 6112) {: #subdebate-88-106-s0 .speaker-4I4} ##### Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 14 May 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to reports that the International Year of the Child National Committee of Non-Government Organisations has proposed the (a) withdrawal from sale and (b) final banning ofthe sale of war toys in Australia. 1. 2 ) What is the Government 's attitude towards the availability, advertising and sale of war toys to Australian children. {: #subdebate-88-106-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. (a) Yes. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Yes. 1. The Minister for Social Security has been advised by the IYC National Committee of Non-Government Organisations that from their inquiries to the Australian Toy Traders Association it is believed that no war toys are made in Australia. The International Year of the Child National Committee of Non-Government Organisations has informed the Commonwealth Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs of their view. As a result, I understand this information was referred on to the Commonwealth-State Consumer Products Advisory Committee. Representations on Immigration Matters (Question No. 6113) {: #subdebate-88-106-s2 .speaker-4I4} ##### Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 14 May 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the practices of (a) the New Settlers Federation and (b) certain lawyers who charge for purportedly making representations regarding immigration matters and who as a last resort refer people to their local Members of Parliament. 1. If so, will he undertake a press campaign in the ethnic media (a) urging people to contact his Department or their local Member direct regarding immigration matters, and (b) advising that this service is free. {: #subdebate-88-106-s3 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. I refer the honourable member to the statement made by the then Minister for Labor and Immigration, the present member for Hindmarsh, on 30 October 1974, and statements by the honourable member for Banks and the Hon. M. J. R. MacKellaron 2 June 1977. It is an unfortunate fact that some people, usually prohibited immigrants, pay money to the so-called fighting fund of the New Settlers Federation for no worthwhile purpose. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs already draws attention to policies and services it provides through counselling and information provided for prospective migrants overseas, through the initial settlement program being develped in line with the Galbally Report and more directly, from time to time, through paid advertising including advertising in the ethnic press. I shall give serious consideration to the sort of campaign the honourable member has proposed, taking account of the findings of the recently completed Migrant Information Needs Survey. Teachers Smoking in Class (Question No. 6114) {: #subdebate-88-106-s4 .speaker-4I4} ##### Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 14 May 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Victorian *Cancer News,* No. 92, that the Victorian Education Department has no regulation that prevents teachers smoking in front of a class. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Is there a regulation preventing teachers smoking in front of classes in schools in Canberra. {: #subdebate-88-106-s5 .speaker-CG4} ##### Mr Fife:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No. 1. There is no specific ACT Schools Authority regulation preventing teachers smoking in front of classes. However, an administrative circular, issued by the Chief Education Officer of the ACT Schools Authority, 6 July 1976, stated: Such of the Administrative instructions in the NSW Handbook (instructions and information for the guidance of teachers) as have not been superseded or amended, and remain applicable to the conduct of ACT schools, remain in force. In doing so they continue to set a norm or 'common law' of procedures within which principals and teachers have available the support and protection of their education system. The NSW Education Gazette of 24 April 1980 indicated a new section 'Smoking in Schools', to be inserted into the Teachers Handbook. The instruction makes it clear that teachers are not permitted to smoke in the presence of pupils whether in classrooms, halls or playgrounds, or in other places inside and outside the school where an aspect of the school program is being undertaken with pupils. This addition will be notified to ACT Schools in the ACT Schools Bulletin, S June 1980. {:#subdebate-88-107} #### Public Duty and Private Interest (Question No. 6116) {: #subdebate-88-107-s0 .speaker-ZE4} ##### Mr Lionel Bowen: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 14 May 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Did he state on 29 April 1 980 in the House that in relation to judges, the decision as to whether a conflict of interest situation arises is one for the individual to make. 1. If so, is he able to indicate which legal authorities are (a) consistent with and (b) contrary to this view. 2. Is he further able to indicate on what occasions during the last 10 years Justices of the High Court have (a) disqualified themselves or (b) made a declaration of interest where interests held by them may conflict with the adjudication of matters before them. 3. Does his statement of 29 April preclude the possibility of any kind of declaration of interest by Federal judges in a register of interests available to the public. {: #subdebate-88-107-s1 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What I said in the House on 29 April 1 980 on this matter is set in *Hansard.* I was dealing with suggestions that had been made concerning the propriety of the Chief Justice of Australia sitting as a member of a Full Court of the High Court of Australia in certain appeals to that Court. In such a case it is clearly a matter for the judge to make a decision on the question whether he should sit. In other circumstances it will still be a matter for the judge to make that decision in the first instance, but a remedy may be available to a dissatisfied litigant either by way of appeal from the order ultimately made in the proceedings or by making application to a superior court for the issue of a prerogative writ. 1. I am advised that the most recent decision consistent with this view is the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in Barton v Walker, decided on 28 November 1979. The High Court of Australia refused special leave to appeal from that decision on 21 February 1980. My advisers are not aware of any legal authority which, when properly understood, is inconsistent with the view I have expressed. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The information sought is not available to me. 1. As indicated in my statement to the House on 29 April 1980, the Committee of Inquiry concerning Public Duty and Private Interest concluded that there was no discernible need for any extension of existing rules relating to conflict of interest situations and members of the judiciary. In line with the recommendations of that Committee, the Government has indicated *(Hansard,* 22 November 1979, page 3374; 21 May 1980, page 3026) in relation to other categories of officeholders that it does not propose to adopt the approach of having a general register of interests. {:#subdebate-88-108} #### Shale Oil Development: Gladstone Area (Question No. 6117) {: #subdebate-88-108-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 15 May 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Minister been informed of proposed prospecting for oil shale in the Nagoorin area of the Byrne Valley near Gladstone, Queensland, under authority to prospect No. 2268M and application to prospect No. 7 of 1980; if so (a) when and (b) by whom. 1. Will the Government consider the impact of oil shale development in the area, especially on rural industry and town water supplies, and seek an environmental impact study independent of that commissioned by any prospector. 2. Will the local authorities and communities affected be kept informed and fully involved in discussion ofthe impact of any development. {: #subdebate-88-108-s1 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP -The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) I am aware from public reports of activities in this area by a subsidiary of Mining Houses of Australia Ltd. However, I am not aware of any related development plans at this stage. If the companies concerned firm up plans for development in the future action would then be considered by the Commonwealth in accordance with the terms of the Environment Protection Administrative Procedures. {:#subdebate-88-109} #### Shale Oil Development: Rundle Project (Question No. 6119) {: #subdebate-88-109-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 15 May 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Government accepted substantially the recommendations of the Ranger Uranium and Fraser Island environmental inquiries initiated by the Labor Government in 1975. 1. Is the proposed Rundle, Queensland, shale oil development of a comparable potential environmental impact as the developments referred to in part ( 1 ). 2. Will the Government initiate a similar investigation of the Rundle proposals. {: #subdebate-88-109-s1 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP -The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. and (3) See answer to Question No. 5987 (House of Representatives *Hansard,* page 2954 of 20 May 1 980 ). {:#subdebate-88-110} #### Unemployment Benefit: Opal Miners (Question No. 6125) {: #subdebate-88-110-s0 .speaker-KWZ} ##### Mr Wallis: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 1 5 May 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What guidelines have been laid down by the Department of Social Security in relation to the eligibility of the unemployed to obtain benefits at the opal mining centres of Coober Pedy and Andamooka, South Australia. 1. In view of the fact that many of the unemployed have had some connection with opal mining and consequently are classified as self-employed, what steps must an applicant take under South Australian mining legislation before coming eligible for unemployment benefits. {: #subdebate-88-110-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. To be eligible to receive unemployment benefit the Social Services Act requires that a person must, among other things: be unemployed; be capable of undertaking and be willing to undertake suitable paid work; and have taken reasonable steps to obtain such work. 1. ) A person who is self-employed as an opal miner would not meet the above requirements of the Act and, therefore, he would be ineligible for unemployment benefit. There are not specific steps which a person who is engaged in opal mining must take, under South Australian mining legislation, before becoming eligible for unemployment benefit. To be eligible for benefit the applicant would have to satisfy the Director-General that he was no longer self-employed as an opal miner that he was capable of and willing to undertake suitable paid work and that he was taking reasonable steps to obtain such work. {:#subdebate-88-111} #### Aboriginal Housing: Bungala Estate (Question No. 6126) {: #subdebate-88-111-s0 .speaker-KWZ} ##### Mr Wallis: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 15 May 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Did the last Labor Federal Government initiate plans for the erection of 53 homes for Aborigines at Port Augusta, South Australia, known as the Bungala Estate. 1. Were road works, kerbing and playing areas established to service that estate. 2. Were 14 homes commenced and completed during the period of the Labor Government's office in 1975, and have no further homes been commenced on the estate since 1 975. 3. If so, and in view of the funds aleady expended on roadworks, kerbing, etc., will the Minister complete the original plans for 53 homes at the estate. {: #subdebate-88-111-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -- The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1), (2) and (3) Yes. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. It is not at present intended to complete the original plans for53 homes. The Bungala program was established in 1973-74 to meet the expressed and researched needs of Davenport Aboriginal residents and to facilitate their eventual transfer to quality rental homes within the town of Port Augusta. Shortly after the completion of the first 14 homes the group expressed a wish instead to transfer directly to Port Augusta housing. I am informed that this situation has not altered and that there is no evidence to suggest that there is a requirement for further housing to be built at Bungala for the present. {:#subdebate-88-112} #### Aboriginal Overseas Study Awards (Question No. 6131) {: #subdebate-88-112-s0 .speaker-CH4} ##### Mr Holding: asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 20 May 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. When was the Aboriginal Overseas Study Grants program commenced. 1. What funds have been allocated for this program in each financial year since its inception. 2. How many applications for grants were made in each of those years. 3. How many of those applications were (a) granted and (b) refused. 4. 5 ) What were the reasons for refusal in each case. 5. How many (a) Aboriginal and (b) non-Aboriginal persons are responsible for making recommendations and administering this program and what are their substantive Public Service classifications. {: #subdebate-88-112-s1 .speaker-CG4} ##### Mr Fife:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The first awards under the Aboriginal Overseas Study Awards Scheme were granted in1975. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. A maximum of ten awards are available each year. In 1975, the first year of the Scheme's operation, nine awards were granted. In all other years ten awards have been made. 1. The Scheme is a competitive one with a maximum of ten awards available each year. Successful applicants are selected on their merits in relation to selection criteria of the following kind: Awardees should be leaders, or potential leaders, in the Aboriginal community who, after a period of overseas study, would be better able to assist in the development of their community. Applicants are assessed on the basis of their background and experience, their capacity for absorbing and then imparting knowledge gained overseas, and the relevance of their proposed study program to their present and future employment or community service. The knowledge or experience gained overseas should be additional to that which would be available in Australia. {: type="1" start="6"} 0. A Selection Committee is responsible for making recommendations to me regarding awards to applicants. There are four members of the Committee, three of whom are Aborigines. The Chairman, who is non-Aboriginal is an Assistant Secretary in the Department of Education. The member representing the Department of Aboriginal Affairs Clerk, Class 7, in that Department. The members representing the National Aboriginal Conference and the National Aboriginal Education Committee are not Commonwealth Public Servants. The officer administering the scheme in the Department of Education is a Clerk, Class 7, and he is non-Abonginal. {:#subdebate-88-113} #### Uranium Mining: Social Impact on Aborigines (Question No. 6139) {: #subdebate-88-113-s0 .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 20 May 1980: >Will the Minister make available to Members Appendix 1 of the Report to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs on the Social Impact of Uranium Mining on the Aborigines of the Northern Territory by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies which the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs presented to the Senate on 22 November 1979, without Appendix 1 attached. {: #subdebate-88-113-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -- The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >No. The document referred to is a confidential communication between the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies and the Department of Science and the Environment and I understand that neither body has agreed to the release of the document. {:#subdebate-88-114} #### Means Test Free Pensions for Quadriplegic Patients and Quadruple Amputees (Question No. 6141) {: #subdebate-88-114-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 May 1980: >Will the Minister provide the same means test free pension for quadriplegic patients and quadruple amputees as is provided for blind persons. {: #subdebate-88-114-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's Question: >This is a policy matter which would require consideration by Government. It would not be appropriate for me to comment upon it. {:#subdebate-88-115} #### Australia-Japan Tuna Longline Fishing Agreement (Question No. 6144) {: #subdebate-88-115-s0 .speaker-FH4} ##### Mr Humphreys: asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 20 May 1 980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Are negotiations on the Australia-Japan tuna longline fishing agreement well advanced. 1. Has the Australian Fishing Industry Council received a detailed briefing on the Government's attitude to renegotiation of the agreement. 2. Has his attention been drawn to reports of widespread interest in the agreement; if so, will the government consider extending representation at the talks to other organisations, such as fishermen's bodies. 3. Is the Government, in negotiations on the 1980-81 agreement, seeking amendments of any of the provisions included in the present agreement; if so, what amendments are sought. {: #subdebate-88-115-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The current tuna longline agreement with Japan expires on 31 October 1980. Negotiations on a new agreement are scheduled to commence in July. 1. Discussions were held on 23 April 1980 between Commonwealth and State officials and representatives of the Australian Fishing Industry Council Federal Executive concerning industry's views on matters to be taken up during negotiations with Japan on a new tuna longline agreement. 2. Yes. Consideration is being given to the matter by the Government. 3. The Government's position for the negotiations has not been determined. {:#subdebate-88-116} #### Political Asylum (Question No. 6156) {: #subdebate-88-116-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 May 1 980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1) On what basis was Miss Giersch recently granted political asylum in Australia. 1. Did he have evidence that Miss Giersch was persecuted in the German Democratic Republic prior to granting her the right to remain in Australia; if so, what was the evidence. 2. Did he have firm evidence to form the view that Miss Giersch would have been persecuted if she was not granted asylum and returned to her socialist home country; if so, what was the evidence. {: #subdebate-88-116-s1 .speaker-MI4} ##### Mr Peacock:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Normally I do not make public the reasons for any decision on an asylum application because of the possible consequences for relatives of the applicant who may still be in the applicant's home country. In this case I will only say the following in response to the honourable members specific questions: > >Miss Giersch was granted asylum because I was satisfied that she had a well-founded fear of persecution should she be returned to the German Democratic Republic. > >and (3) The evidence in support of her claim was amongst the strongest put forward by any applicant for asylum in recent years. {:#subdebate-88-117} #### Australia-Japan Fishing Agreement (Question No. 6168) {: #subdebate-88-117-s0 .speaker-MH4} ##### Mr Jull: asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 2 1 May 1 980: >Is he able to state how many martin have been taken by Japanese operators in each month since the Australia-Japan Fishing Agreement came into operation in 1 979. {: #subdebate-88-117-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The following information was obtained from Japanese operators through the radio reporting system established under the Agreement with the Government of Japan. {:#subdebate-88-118} #### Social Security Beneficiaries: Alleged Surveillance (Question No. 6185) {: #subdebate-88-118-s0 .speaker-KH4} ##### Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 22 May 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the article in the *Sunshine- Western Suburbs Advocate* of 12 March 1980 entitled ' Needy are spied upon ' wherein it is alleged by **Mr G.** Heaviside Administrator of the Sunshine Christian Community Services that clients of the Sunshine Social Security Office are often being spied on by private detectives in plain cars who record the clients' movements on movie film and that he witnesses this daily. 1. Is there any substance in **Mr Heaviside** 's allegation that this matter is related to the directive of May 1979 by **Mr Lanigan,** Director-General ofthe Department of Social Security to staff of the Department which set out 15 ways for Departmental officers to assess and detect whether or not a person claiming social service benefits was in fact entitled to them. 2. Has there been intimidation and harassment of pensioners (a) in the Sunshine area, Victoria, and (b) elsewhere in Australia, as a result of the Lanigan directive. {: #subdebate-88-118-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >I am advised by the Director-General that my department was not involved in any activities of the kind described. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet: Staff Ceilings (Question No. 6194) {: #subdebate-88-118-s2 .speaker-4I4} ##### Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 22 May 1980: >Have any positions in his Department remained unfilled due to the imposition of the Government's staff ceilings policy in each of the last 3 years; if so, how many have remained unfilled in each year. {: #subdebate-88-118-s3 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >I am informed that it is not possible to state the number of positions vacant because of the application of staff ceilings. The difference between the number of positions (establishment) and the number of positions occupied in individual departments and authorities is attributable to a variety of factors. For example, at any dme positions may well be unfilled due to losses of staff from the Service, or to normal internal promotion and transfer procedures. Some base grade staff (e.g. Clerks Class 1, Clerical Assistants Grade 1) are generally appointed to the Service as 'unattached' officers- such staff are transferred to positions as positions become available. Under current working arrangements each department also has a central pool of vacant positions, termed 'reserve establishment', available for allocation as required in the light of changes in workload. There is no direct relationship between the staff ceiling and the number of positions vacant. {:#subdebate-88-119} #### Children's Services Program (Question No. 6217) {: #subdebate-88-119-s0 .speaker-KH4} ##### Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 22 May 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to reports that a number of Victorian neighbourhood children centres are (a) running at a deficit and (b) actually facing closure within a few weeks due to shortage of funds. 1. Is it a fact that (a) under the centre based funding formula, centres are receiving only the same amount of support that they received in 1976 when the formula was introduced. 2. Is the formula under review; if so, when will he be in a position to announce any upgrading of the formula. 3. Has he received requests to receive a deputation from the Neighbourhood Children Centres Association of Victoria representing centres who are badly affected by funding shortages; if so, will he accede to requests to meet a deputation. 4. If he will receive a deputation, when will he receive it. {: #subdebate-88-119-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1) to (5) I am aware of the reports relating to the financial problems of some small neighbourhood child care centres in Victoria. In respect of one centre I have approved a one-off emergency grant and, pending a more detailed review of the funding arrangements which apply under the Children's Services Program, have also agreed to a modification of the formula under which these neighbourhood centres are funded. As a result, an increased rate of subsidy will now be payable when centres are operating at full capacity for extended hours. A request was received from the Neighbourhood Children Centres Association of Victoria to receive a deputation but in view of the action which has been taken there would no longer appear to be a need for this and the organisation has been notified accordingly. Organised Crime {: #subdebate-88-119-s2 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -On 11 October 1979 *(Hansard,* page 1905) **Mr Jacobi** asked me as Minister representing the Attorney-General the following question without notice: >The Minister representing the Attorney-General would have noted the recent speech of the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police on the inadequacy of the present criminal law enforcement system in Australia. Is the Minister aware of the alarming increase in organised and serious crime in Australia and the international problems caused by overseas organised crime operating in this country and Australian organised crime operating overseas? Will the Minister give urgent consideration to the establishment of a national crime commission to monitor crime on a national level and to provide advice to governments about measures to overcome the problem and the resources needed to do that? Will he raise this suggestion at the next meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General? At the time the honourable member asked the question I made some general observations on the matter and indicated that I would refer to the Attorney-General, amongst other things, the question whether the Australian Institute of Criminology might fulfil a role in this area. The Attorney-General has now provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >In addition to the initiatives referred to in the answer I gave to a question without notice asked by **Senator Puplick** on 19 September 1979 *(Hansard,* pages 782-3), I am informed that the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police recently announced that he and the Commissioners of the State and Northern Territory Police Forces had agreed to the establishment in Canberra of a national crime intelligence bureau. Th