House of Representatives
3 December 1980

32nd Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 32nd Parliament
  3. 1980

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden) took the chair at 2.15 p.m., and read prayers.

page 293

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Travelling Post Office Service

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 protest most strongly against the Australian Postal Commission’s decision to phase out the Travelling Post Office (TPO) in NSW.

The TPO service has given the country people of NSW a reliable and efficient service for many years. To replace this service with a road system would be a backward step which we believe would result in long delays in mail going to and from country centres.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will look favourably on our petition to retain the TPO service in NSW.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Armitage, Mr Cowan, Mr Hicks, Mr Humphreys, Mr Les Johnson, Mr Les McMahon, Mr Mountford, Mr Ian Robinson and Mr Sainsbury.

Petitions received.

Social Security Payments

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 further and your petitioners urge that action be taken to:

  1. Adjust all pensions and benefits quarterly to the Consumer Price Index.
  2. To restore items deleted from the pharmaceutical benefits scheme and to add other necessary items.

And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray, by Dr Klugman and Mr Wallis.

Petitions received.

Family Law Act

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

The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth that allegations have been made by litigants that unjust decisions in relation to ancillary matters are being made at the Family Court of Australia.

We call on the Government to amend section 79 (1 ) of the Family Law Act, to allow all Family Courts to be open and publication of details of proceedings permitted, provided names of parties and other identifying information is prohibited from disclosure.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Les McMahon and Mr Ian Robinson.

Petitions received.

Plant Breeders’ Rights

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government:

  1. Note that legislation establishing plant breeders’ rights in other countries has had serious adverse effects, namely:

    1. Virtual monopoly control of seed production has passed into the hands of a few large international corporations seeking to profit from the exclusive rights over plant genetic materials created by such legislation.
    2. The varieties of seeds available have been restricted mainly to hybrids which will not reproduce truly and will not grow without the aid of artificial fertilizers and pesticides, thus maximising corporate profits without regard for the interests of growers and consumers.
    3. The genetic diversity of crops has been eroded, rendering them vulnerable to disease and other environmental threats.
  2. Recognize that maintenance of the genetic diversity of plant varieties is crucial to the continued well-being of the Australian nation, and take all necessary steps to preserve and promote such genetic diversity as a public resource and to prevent exclusive control over plant genetic materials from falling into private hands.
  3. Defend the vital interests of Australian farmers and gardeners, independent Australian seed companies and their employees, and consumers of Australian farm and garden produce, by rejecting any proposal to legislate for the establishment of plant breeders’ rights in Australia.

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

Petition received.

Rosemount Repatriation Hospital

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of undersigned Australian citizens showeth:

Rosemount Repatriation Hospital has been of inestimable value to eligible repatriation beneficiaries for many years, and the closure or dispersal of the facilities available at the hospital would be a retrograde step.

The proposed decision to close Rosemount Repatriation Hospital through active discouragement by departmental administrative officers of any further referrals by medical officers of patients for medically prescribed occupation therapy is objectionable. Closure of Rosemount Repatriation Hospital would severely disadvantage veterans in Brisbane’s northern suburbs, as well as their relatives and friends who would be required to travel a great distance in order to visit hospitalised veterans at either of the two alternative repatriation hospitals. Closure of Rosemount Repatriation Hospital and transfer of patients to Greenslopes would greatly add to the administrative burden of that repatriation and general hospital. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the government will reverse its announced decision to close the Rosemount Repatriation Hospital.

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

Petition received.

Taxation

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

That the existence of a system of double taxation of personal incomes whereby both the Australian Government and State Governments had the power to vary personal income taxes would mean that taxpayers who worked in more than one State in any year would -

  1. be faced with complicated variations in his or her personal income taxes between States; and
  2. find that real after-tax wages for the same job would vary from State to State even when gross wages were advertised as being the same; and
  3. require citizens to maintain records of income earned in each State.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that a system of double income tax on personal incomes be not introduced.

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

Petition received.

Trans- Australia Airlines

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:

Many Australians depend almost exclusively upon TransAustralia Airlines for the provision of essential air services.

The Federal Liberal Party policy objective of selling TransAustralia Airlines within5 years is contrary to the national interest.

Sale of Trans-Australia Airlines would inevitably result in:

  1. the creation of a private monopoly of major airline services in Australia;

    1. higher domestic air fares.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will reject outright any proposal to sell Trans-Australia Airlines.

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

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 respectfully showeth that:

  1. Present income tax laws are unfair to single income families.
  2. All marriages should be recognized 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. byMrWallis.

Petition received.

Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Research Association

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

The humble Petition of the Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Research Association of Australia and their supporters respectfully showeth that funds for medical research into epidermolysis bullosa are no longer being made available from the Federal Government to the medical research team at the University of New South Wales, enabling them to continue medical research into epidermolysis bullosa.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that these signatures contained on these forms will serve to make it known that we expect these funds to be forthcoming in the very near future, and your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray. by Mr Kerin.

Petition received.

Addison Road Community Centre

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

The Petition of certain citizens of N.S.W. respectfully showeth our concern - The Addison Road Community Centre, Marrickville, is under threat, because for nearly five years, the Ethnic and Community based groups which run activities in the Centre have been unable to secure any longterm lease. This means that this unique multicultural Centre, situated on ten acres of land in the heart of the city is being constantly thwarted in its attempts to develop. Not only does it provide a valuable community service in Marrickville it also has a large area of open space which is rare in the inner city.

Application has been made to the Department of Sport & Recreation for a $50,000 grant to up grade their community hall, Hut 24.

Unless a long-term lease is negotiated the Centre is not eligible for Capital Funding. We urge relevant Federal and State Departments to act immediately to come to agreement on the sale of the land and the signing of a long-term lease with the Addison Road Community Centre.

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

Petition received.

Education

To the Right Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. A petition of the undersigned citizens, residents within the Federal electorate of North Sydney respectfully showeth:

Our dismay at the reductions in the total expenditure implemented in 1980 and proposed for 1981 and in particular on government schools and colleges.

Our concern at the immediate and long-term effects such reductions are having and will have, upon the educational needs and welfare of the children and students within public schools, Technical and Further Education Colleges, Colleges of Advanced Education and Universities.

Our further concern that education, which is a major element in the public sector of the Australian economy has been consistently down-graded from a position of importance in the development of the National economy as a whole.

Our affirmation that Australia’s own development depends upon the development of its most important natural resource, our children, and that education must be restored to a position of major priority for this task by this and all future Federal Governments.

We call upon the Federal Government to immediately restore and increase substantially its allocation of resources to education in government schools and colleges in order to achieve these ends.

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

Petition received.

page 295

CHILDREN’S SERVICES

Notice of Motion

Mr MOUNTFORD:
Banks

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

That this House is of the opinion that additional funds should be provided to enable all necessary children’s services to be carried out to compensate for the 40 per cent reduction in real terms of funds provided since 1975.

page 295

PENSIONS AND BENEFITS

Notice of Motion

Dr THEOPHANOUS:
Burke

– I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 7,I shall move:

That this House condemns the Government for its failure to recognise that inadequate pension and benefit levels, coupled with rising unemployment, have meant that many families and individuals are presently facing severe financial hardship and, therefore, calls on the Government to-

increase pensions and benefits to at least the Henderson poverty line; and

introduce quarterly indexation of all pensions and benefits.

page 295

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 295

QUESTION

INTEREST RATES

Mr WILLIS:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– I refer the Treasurer to his statement to the House last night in which he said: .. the Government has concurred with a proposal to increase by 2 per cent the interest ceilings for overdrafts drawn to a limit of $100,000. Secondly, the Government has approved an increase of one per cent in the lending rate charged by savings banks for loans of under $100,000 for owneroccupied housing.

Does this mean that the interest rate on home loans by trading banks will rise by 2 per cent, not the one per cent for the savings banks? If this is the case, why did the Treasurer not reveal that fact last night and why has he chosen to discriminate against home buyers who use trading bank finance?

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

– The announcement that I made last night related to an increase in the ceiling on amounts charged by trading banks. So the answer to the honourable member’s question is yes. The interest rate ceiling on loans provided by trading banks has been increased by 2 per cent. I regret if the honourable member for Gellibrand was left in any doubt about the effect of the Government’s announcement. I would have thought it was quite clear that the trading bank interest rate ceiling is to go up by 2 per cent. Let me make it clear, as the honourable gentleman gives me the opportunity to do, that the announcement made and the decision of the Government was that the ceiling should be increased. As I said last night, and as I repeat, it is not carte blanche for an across the board rise of 2 per cent in all interest rates charged by trading banks in respect of loans of under $100,000. They have been given a considerably greater degree of flexibility and freedom. As I indicated last night, the Government would look to the banks to exercise appropriate judgment, discretion and, where necessary, restraint in that additional freedom and flexibility.

page 295

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE: DC3 AIRCRAFT

Mr SHACK:
TANGNEY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. I refer to the fact that the Royal Australian Air Force is in the process of phasing out of service all of its DC3 Dakota aircraft. Does the RAAF still intend, as reported, to use two of these aircraft for bombing targets? Has the Minister considered my representations that at least one of these aircraft should be preserved at the Air Force Association museum at Bullcreek in Western Australia?

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

– Yes, I am very much aware of the honourable member’s representations on this issue which have been put to me with considerable vigour. The honourable gentleman will be aware that in this country we have developed a cluster bomb unit known as Karinga. In order to secure realistic evaluation trials with this weapon it is quite essential that it be tested against targets which command realism. First up, it was thought that, in order to see what form the penetration of small bomblets into various systems would take, we would be required to consider using old aircraft or the bodies of aircraft no longer used. Following the honourable gentleman’s representations and the representations of the Premier of

Western Australia I discussed the issue with the Chief of Air Staff, Air Marshal McNamara, and it would appear that we will be able to find other targets which will still command the characteristics of realism. The honourable member’s representations will meet with a favourable response.

page 296

QUESTION

LOY YANG POWER STATION

Mr WEST:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister for Industrial Relations. In view of the Minister’s criticism of the proposed settlement between the Victorian Government and the Loy Yang construction workers, does he also condemn the Victorian Government’s proposed subsidy to the Alcoa Portland aluminium smelter of 0.5c a kilowatt hour or about $2,000m over the life of the project? If not, why does the Government endorse huge subsidies to transnational companies and always condemn improved wages and conditions for workers?

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Industrial Relations · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– I do not think I could have made a statement in clearer or more unequivocal terms than that in which I outlined what I thought of the Loy Yang settlement. I reiterate all that I said on Friday, Saturday and in the House yesterday. So far as the other matter that the honourable member raises with me is concerned, he knows as well as everybody else that it has nothing to do with me whatsoever.

page 296

QUESTION

URANIUM MINING

Mr TAMBLING:
NORTHERN TERRITORY, NORTHERN TERRITORY

– Is the Minister for Trade and Resources aware of a report in today’s Australian Financial Review that the first export of uranium from the Nabarlek mine in the Northern Territory had been made last month in a so-called secret operation? Has any such shipment been made? Is there any truth in a suggestion in the same newspaper that the Nabarlek mine operators and the Aboriginal people in the area were in dispute over the transport of uranium?

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

– The article in the Australian Financial Review has been brought to my attention, and I must say that it is in accordance with some of the nonsense one sees written in that newspaper from time to time. I happen to have made a public announcement at the time shipments were to take place, so I can hardly say that there was any great secrecy about the matter. I made the announcement in a speech delivered in Canberra, which received some publicity. To try to make a furphy about the uranium being smuggled out of the country is quite unbelievable. The shipment was made in accordance with the rules and regulations relating to approval of exports, and it was part of early contracts which

Queensland Mines had entered into with a Japanese utility.

As to a dispute about the transport of uranium and building a story around the fact that some of it has to be flown from Nabarlek to Darwin, that is in accordance with seasonal conditions. During the wet season the uranium cannot be transported by road and so it will be flown out.

page 296

QUESTION

INTEREST RATES

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– The Treasurer will recall that in his statement last night on interest rates he said in respect of interest rate controls: is a matter which should properly be addressed by the Campbell Committee when it reports.

I ask: Why did the Government pre-empt the Campbell Committee by announcing the complete abolition of controls on deposit rates for both savings and trading banks? Since the abolition of controls in these areas will mean higher bank deposit rates, will this in turn force credit unions and building societies to raise their deposit rates if they are to stay in business? Will this in turn further add to the cost burden of home and personal finance for Australian families? If the Treasurer denies this, will he be good enough to explain how it would be avoided?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

– Last night I indicated, as I have on earlier occasions, that the broad issue of whether there should be controls as a whole on lending and other operations of banks is something that can, will and should be addressed when the report of the Campbell Committee is available. Whilst I have generally taken the view that major changes in the financial system probably ought to await the recommendations of the Campbell Committee, on the simple principle that having set up a body of people of considerable responsibility and expertise the Government ought at least to pay it the courtesy of waiting until it reports, that does not mean that there should be a total moratorium on decisions taken by the Government as far as the structure of the financial system is concerned. To suggest that our decision to free the banks so far as controls on their deposit rates is concerned represents a preempting of the Campbell report is totally to misunderstand the situation and to get it entirely out of proportion.

The question to be addressed in the wake of the Campbell report is whether there ought to be controls at all. That is something that is properly to be addressed, along with a lot of other considerations relating to the position of banks and other financial institutions in our community. Last night’s announcement means that there will be greater flexibility. As the honourable gentleman knows, at present many building societies in Australia are under no restrictions at all so far as the deposit rates they may offer are concerned. Last night’s decision means only that the banks’ deposit rates will be put in an equivalent position to those of the building societies. The decisions the banks make will be matters for their commercial judgment and will ultimately be dictated by market forces, which is quite properly the situation.

page 297

QUESTION

KIM DAE JUNG

Mr DOBIE:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I refer the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the growing unrest and concern being expressed both internationally and by members of this House about the fate of the Korean Opposition Leader, Kim Dae Jung. Is the Minister aware of any decision being handed down by the Korean Supreme Court on the appeal against the death sentence imposed upon him? In the event of this appeal being rejected and Kim Dae Jung being executed, will the Minister advise the House of what effect this could have on Australia’s relationships with the Republic of Korea?

Mr STREET:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · LP

– The Government continues to be seriously concerned about the death sentence imposed on the Korean Opposition Leader, Kim Dae Jung. Of course, we hope that that sentence will be changed. As the honourable member notes, Mr Kim has now appealed to the civilian Supreme Court. That court has not yet handed down its judgment. If the court upholds the sentence it will remain for President Chun to confirm or alter it. For the moment, therefore, the matter is sub judice. So far as the Government is concerned, the position–

Mr Young:

– How can it be sub judice when it is in Korea?

Mr STREET:

– It is; it is a matter of fact. The Government’s position was made clear by my predecessor last September. That statement made it clear that the basis of warmth which has existed in Australia’s relationship with Korea would be seriously affected if Mr Kim were executed. We have sought to impress the seriousness of that statement, not as a threat but as a matter of fact, upon the Korean Government. I emphasise that we have done so on a number of occasions and at the highest level. We have been monitoring the appeal process closely. We will make further representations to the Government of Korea should that become necessary.

page 297

QUESTION

SCHOOL FUNDING

Mr MILTON:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

– Can the Minister for Education confirm that the expressed fears of the Australian Council of State School Organisations that government policy is directed to reducing government schooling to the point where it is seen as the minimum alternative for those who can afford no better will not be realised and that the Government will ensure that government schools are not disadvantaged as a result of proposed increased funding for non-government schools over the next three years?

Mr FIFE:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I can give the honourable member the assurance that he has sought. The fact of the matter is, of course, that government schools within the States are primarily the responsibility of the State governments. The Commonwealth’s role is to provide topping up funds by way of grants for both recurrent purposes and capital purposes. The Commonwealth, through the Schools Commission, also provides funds for a range of special projects. The Prime Minister, in his policy speech, announced some new initiatives for non-government schools. I referred to some of them in answer to a question asked of me last week. He also announced that in 1981 the Commonwealth would maintain its support for government schools at the same real level of funding as that for 1980. It is significant to point out in providing this information to the honourable member that the Government, in maintaining the same real level of support in 1981 as in 1980, is doing so at a time when there is a decline in enrolments. In effect, it means that on a per student basis the Commonwealth will really be making a slightly greater contribution in 1981 than it is making in 1980.

I repeat that the prime responsibility for the government schools within the States rests with the State governments. Of course the State governments have recourse to their own funds and also to funds that come to them by way of tax reimbursements. The Commonwealth provides topping up funds and, of course, between the Commonwealth and the States, governments have the full responsibility for the funding of government schools. The Commonwealth accepts responsibility only for partial funding of nongovernment schools. So the funds that will be provided under the commitments announced by the Prime Minister on behalf of the Government will be additional funds and will not be funds at the expense of the government sector.

page 297

QUESTION

TULLAMAKINE AIRPORT

Mr SHIPTON:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and concerns the meeting that he had with the Victorian Premier, Mr Hamer, this week about Tullamarine-Melbourne Airport. I ask the Minister: Was that meeting successful? Will the Minister agree to the establishment of a joint Commonwealth-State working party or committee to encourage further use of Tullamarine by international airlines, including Qantas Airways Ltd? In writing to the international airlines, as the Minister has announced he will, will he also write to Qantas? Further, when he next sees the Chairman of that airline, will he raise the question of increased use and more efficient use of Tullamarine by Qantas?

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

– I had a very cordial and successful discussion with the Premier of Victoria and also with Mr Walker and a number of other people who have been very anxious to promote Tullamarine as Australia’s No. 1 international gateway. There is no doubt that they have impressed upon me, as the Minister responsible, the need to make the most of the excellent facilities of Tullamarine. What impresses me most is the great co-operation that I am getting from the Premier of Victoria and the Victorian Government which is quite in contrast to that which I am receiving from the Premier of New South Wales and the New South Wales Government with respect to the future airport needs of Sydney. It is not hard for me to co-operate with those people who wish to co-operate with me. I will certainly be seeking to assist the Premier of Victoria to promote tourism to that delightful city of Melbourne. I will be writing to the chairmen of the respective international airlines to suggest that there are very good facilities at Tullamarine which are not being used to capacity and that they, in planning their future travel arrangements to Australia, should bear that in mind. I have agreed with the Premier of Victoria that we should set up a joint Commonwealth-State committee to ensure that those excellent facilities are used to their capacity.

1988 OLYMPIC GAMES AND EXPO 1988

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that taxation revenue should be spent only on essential services and to help the needy, how does he justify the offer of the expenditure of huge amounts of public moneys for such purposes as the staging of the 1988 Olympic Games and Expo 1988 in Australia? Why should a taxpayer on the average minimum weekly wage rate pay $40 a week tax to enable trade exhibitors and so-called amateur sports competitors to boost their incomes and egos respectively?

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

– I would have thought that the honourable gentleman might want to join in some of the celebrations for the 200th birthday of the founding of Australia. But, if the honourable gentleman does not want to do that, so be it. He can go on a holiday during that year. I suggest also that the honourable gentleman might like to move a motion in this Parliament giving effect to the substance and the meaning of his question to see how many of his colleagues would like to support him.

Dr Klugman:

– I am pointing out your hypocrisy.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Prospect will withdraw.

Dr Klugman:

– I withdraw, but it is obvious–

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will withdraw unqualifiedly.

Dr Klugman:

– I withdraw.

page 298

QUESTION

INTEREST RATES

Mr Ian Cameron:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND · NCP

– I ask the Treasurer: Does the Government’s policy of not applying the new interest rates in drought declared areas in Australia apply to businesses both town and country? Also, does it apply to old as well as new borrowings?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

– The broad understanding that I have with the trading banks is to the intent that the rise will not apply in drought declared areas for the duration of the drought. Those two quite concise parameters should be noted so that there is no misunderstanding. Of course, those affected in the drought areas can include people other than primary producers. Obviously it would be only equitable that the provision extend to them as well. Obviously it ought to extend, and it is my understanding that it will extend, to both the categories of loans, the old and the new, that the honourable gentleman has mentioned. I emphasise that it will not be an easy matter administratively. The banks have indicated a willingness to accede to the Government’s request in this area. It can be administered only on a case by case basis on application by individual borrowers to their respective banks. Given the parameters that I have set out I believe, with a bit of understanding on both sides, that the provision can be made to work.

page 298

QUESTION

INTEREST RATES

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct my question to the Treasurer. I ask: What Government proposals does the Treasurer have in mind to alleviate the problem of people on average weekly earnings borrowing at the new interest rate, over a 25-year term, whereby their maximum entitlement of mortgage advance will now be reduced by $2,000 because of the interest rate escalation? Does the Government’s decision really mean that the deposit gap for a home has now been effectively increased by $2,000?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

– The principal reason the Government took the decisions which it did yesterday and which I announced last night was the recognition that the very group in the community that the interest rate controls were designed to help was in present circumstances in fact being disadvantaged by those controls. It is of little comfort to say to a potential borrower that he could have a loan at 101 per cent if any money were available to lend to him. The truth of the matter is that the existing ceilings were acting in a way that was counterproductive to the interests of the people they were designed to help.

The effect, in my view and in the Government’s view, of the greater flexibility the banks now have will be that a larger number of borrowers at lower rates of interest can be satisfied than would otherwise have been the case if we had persisted with the maintenance of the old ceilings. No matter how one tries to quantify the effect of interest rate controls, nothing can gainsay the fact that ultimately banks, like any other deposit-taking institutions, have to borrow their funds from the general public and the attitude of the general public to depositing funds with banks is determined by the rates of interest that are ultimately set in the market place. Any government or party that imagines it can fly in the face of that reality does not understand how our financial system operates.

page 299

QUESTION

RIVER MURRAY WATERS AGREEMENT

Mr GILES:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy. Is it a fact that the Commonwealth, South Australia and Victoria have indicated their support for amendments to the River Murray Waters Agreement and ratifying Acts which would give further powers to the River Murray Commission? Is it true that the New South Wales Government is currently granting new irrigation licences which, once granted, cannot be cancelled by these increased powers? Is the Minister aware of the enormous danger to South Australia implicit in the granting of further irrigation licences and the effect both on the quantity but, more particularly, the quality of Murray water available to South Australia? Finally, what does the Government intend to do to safeguard South Australia’s interests in Murray water on which that State depends?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– I am well aware how vitally concerned the honourable member for Wakefield is about the quality and the quantity of water which comes down the River Murray. I was involved with this matter a few years ago when I was the Minister responsible. I proposed that some changes ought to be made to the River Murray Commission to give greater control over water quality. I have been informed that the four governments involved have indicated their support for amendments to the River Murray Waters Agreement to give control to the River Murray Commission. However, these amendments do not include the right of veto on the issue of irrigation licences by any State.

I am advised that in the main the issue of new irrigation licences by New South Wales for tributaries of the Murray is in abeyance pending the outcome of a hearing in the New South Wales Land and Environment Court. The hearings concern an appeal by the Water Resources Commission against the ruling upholding objections by water users and the South Australian Government to proposed irrigation diversions from the Darling River. South Australian interests in the Murray River waters can be best safeguarded by the Commonwealth through the implementation of the proposed new agreement. This agreement will provide for the determination by the Commission of water quality objectives and standards for various locations along the Murray.

page 299

QUESTION

INTEREST RATES

Mr HAYDEN:

– My question to the Treasurer follows a question asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Is it not a fact that the average home mortgagee will be repaying in the order of an extra S4S a month as a result of the 2 per cent increase on the average housing mortgage which he announced last night? Does it mean that if an intending home buyer is already at the income level to obtain the average mortgage, based on repayments as calculated by the banks not exceeding 30 per cent of gross income, that gross income would have to increase by more than $37 a week to allow that intending home buyer to borrow the amount of the average mortgage he had originally intended to borrow, before last night’s announcement? Is not the clear implication of this, as a matter of simple logic, that there will be fewer borrowers, they will be borrowing less and they will be borrowing less to build smaller homes?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

– Of course people who have housing loans will pay–

Mr Hayden:

– I am talking about new borrowing.

Mr HOWARD:

– If the honourable gentleman will contain himself, all will be revealed. The truth is that both new and old borrowers will pay higher amounts for their housing loans as a consequence of the announcement that was made last night. The Government does not like that. No member on this side of the House likes the idea of there being higher interest rates for home borrowers, for business people or for farmers around Australia. But the reality of the situation that the Government faced was that unless it was prepared to allow an increase in controlled interest rates, the very group of people in the community whom we were hoping to assist would increasingly not be assisted in the way that controls on interest rates were designed to achieve. It is of no use–

Mr Hayden:

– Which people are you talking about?

Mr HOWARD:

– I am talking about the people who, because of the declining availability of money at controlled rates of interest, have been forced and in the future would be increasingly forced into borrowing at much higher rates of interest than will now prevail under increases that will occur in the interest rate ceilings. All of the evidence available to the Government shows that the effect of the ceiling has been that people who have not been able to get money at 10.5 per cent have been obliged to borrow at much higher rates than the increases in the ceiling will take those controlled interest rates to as a result of the announcement last night. I think, to borrow the Leader of the Opposition’s phrase, it is a matter of simple logic that if we put too low a price on the money that is available for the group of people in the community that we want to help, we can help fewer of those people and more and more of them will be forced to borrow money at a much higher rate of interest.

page 300

QUESTION

ILLEGAL EXPORT OF AIRCRAFT

Mr RUDDOCK:
DUNDAS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. I understand that yesterday the Minister answered a number of questions on notice concerning the alleged export and the attempted illegal export of certain historic Spitfire and Messerschmitt aircraft from Australia. Can the Minister assure the House that those responsible for these actions and attempted actions will be brought before the courts?

Mr MOORE:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · RYAN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It is a fact that an attempt was made to take a Messerschmitt out of Australia without authority being given by the Department of Transport. Following the inquiries that took place’ the matter was referred to the AttorneyGeneral’s Department, and action will be taken against the parties involved in that case. During those investigations, and newspaper reports have borne this out, it became apparent that a Spitfire had been illegally exported from Australia prior to the Messerschmitt case. The Spitfire had been hustled out of Australia in a container marked Aluminium Sheets and Scrap’. It arrived in Britain under the heading of a Spitfire Mark VIII and, despite inquiries that the Department has made over there, to this moment we have not been able to locate it. Once again, the matter of legal requirements was referred to the AttorneyGeneral’s Department, which has recommended that prosecutions be instigated against the parties involved. I hope that both these prosecutions will bring the matters to a head.

Mr Les Johnson:

– Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The questions which the Minister is answering have been on the Notice Paper since February last year. They were repeated in yesterday’s Notice Paper but were not printed in today’s Notice Paper. I think the Minister will acknowledge that the ground he is covering is identical with the ground necessary to cover the questions I have asked.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I understand from the question asked by the honourable member for Dundas that certain questions that were on the Notice Paper have since been answered. I ask the honourable member for Hughes whether there are any questions on the Notice Paper that remain unanswered?

Mr Les Johnson:

– Yes, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– On the Notice Paper of 2 December 1980 there is a series of questions by the honourable member for Hughes numbered from 119 to 122 inclusive. I am informed by the Clerk that answers to those questions have been lodged in the Papers Office and will appear in tomorrow’s Hansard. Therefore, I must regard the questions as unanswered at this point. The questions on the Notice Paper do not contain one essential part of the question asked by the honourable member for Dundas, that is, whether there will be prosecutions. The Minister has already covered that part of the question, so I will regard the question asked by the honourable member for Dundas as having been answered and will not call the Minister further.

page 300

QUESTION

LOY YANG POWER STATION

Mr CUNNINGHAM:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. No doubt the Minister is aware that workers who were sacked from the Loy Yang power station construction site in Victoria seven months ago were denied the unemployment benefit because of legislation, passed in this House in October of last year, amending the Social Services Act. No doubt the Minister is also aware that those workers who lodged appeals with the Social Security Appeals

Tribunal were successful and are awaiting a reply from the Director-General of Social Security as to whether they will receive a benefit. Is it a fact that this denial of unemployment benefit has been a major obstacle in reaching a settlement of that dispute? Is it a fact that this misuse of the Social Services Act has placed obstacles in the way of good industrial relations? Is it also a fact that the Victorian Government has agreed to make hardship payments, in part to make up for the denial of unemployment benefits, in order to achieve a return to work?

Mr PEACOCK:
LP

– The first part of the question, which concerns social security, would be better put to the Minister for Social Security. It is entirely up to him to make a decision in that matter. I am not placed so as to intervene in regard to the decisions of his Department or his Director-General .

Mr Uren:

– There is no interrelationship in your Government?

Mr PEACOCK:

– Of course there is an interrelationship, but the honourable member for McMillan has asked me to answer the question. There is one man who is answerable. The honourable member for Reid ought to know that, considering the time he has been here. Instead of purring cliches daily at Question Time, he should show his understanding of the matter.

Secondly, in regard to separating the hardship payments from the other two issues - the demarcation dispute and the wages relativity question - I have indicated already that the arrangements made between the Victorian Government and the unions concerned for the hardship payments cannot be condoned by this Government. There is no need for me to go further in that regard. So far as what might be termed the union sustenance fund moneys provided to members during the period of their dismissal is concerned, the agreement as to hardship payments covered those as well. I find this probably the most regrettable aspect of the whole arrangement. It really amounts to making government contributions to funds which have the basic purpose of supporting members who are on strike, and therefore of prolonging strike action, no matter in what guise it is given. I have made the Government’s attitude so clear that I need not reiterate it.

page 301

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION: ITALIAN EARTHQUAKE DISASTER

Mr WILSON:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs outline the action taken by the Government in response to the tragic earthquake disaster in Italy? Can he inform the

House whether any State government has responded to the offer of the Commonwealth to match State contributions on a dollar for dollar basis? Has any State government given similar encouragement to public contributions by matching those contributions? Furthermore, can the Minister state whether anyone has yet been approved for immigration to Australia from the earthquake disaster zone?

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · LP

– A number of State governments have responded. I do not wish to do any State an injustice, but certainly Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia, that I am aware of, have done so. In fact, South Australia has gone further and has encouraged the matching grants to which the honourable member has referred. That has, of course, cost the Commonwealth more, but when the Prime Minister announced that the Federal Government was prepared to match grants of the States it was hoping that that kind of initiative would take place. There has been a very good response throughout Australia, especially in South Australia where it seems that about SO per cent of the people in Australia who come from the disaster stricken area actually reside. At this stage the Commonwealth’s contribution is the $500,000 announced by the Prime Minister last week, plus the matching grants, which certainly well and truly exceed $100,000. Also, there have been the very generous grants by individuals and companies, which we hope will continue.

Some people have actually arrived from the earthquake zone but their entry had in fact been approved before the catastrophe. Next Saturday the first family to benefit as a direct result of the assistance given by the Government in response to the earthquake itself will arrive. Also, I have indicated that in certain circumstances the Government will assist in the payment of fares as well. On Saturday morning the Iaccheo family will be arriving on an Alitalia flight. The family will be accompanied by the brother of Mrs Iaccheo. He has been an Australian citizen for some years - in fact, since 1964. He went to the earthquake area, found the family in a tent and is bringing those people here under the relaxed family reunion arrangements which I announced in the House last week. The second family, Mr and Mrs Liotto and their three children and the children’s grandmother, are presently wait-listed on a flight leaving Rome on Friday. They have been sponsored by a family living in Gippsland. I understand, from our Rome office, that a third family has been approved and will be here soon. In addition to our staff from Rome who have gone to Naples, we have sent from Australia an Australian citizen who was a migrant from the area and who is employed by the Department. That is aiding in the interpretation and the expedition of cases as they come to our attention.

page 302

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

Mr Campbell having addressed a question to the Prime Minister -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Curtin is not a Minister at present. Any implications relating to a member of this House must be put in a formal motion. I declare the question out of order.

page 302

QUESTION

CONCESSIONAL AIR FARES

Mr MacKENZIE:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Transport whether he is aware of a report on today’s AM program in which it was alleged that he personally intervened to cancel a 12-month old agreement to grant discount air fare arrangements and other concessions to delegates to the national conference of the Australian Institute of Public Administration. Is the report correct?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

– I heard the report on AM this morning. I heard Mr Wiltshire say that I had personally intervened to cancel a contract that supposedly he, or the Institute, had had with TransAustralia Airlines. Certainly I did not personally intervene to cancel any contract with any individual organisation. I informed the House, I think on 27 August, of the background to the actions that were taken with the airlines in respect of discriminatory discounting. As a result of an approach by one of the airlines I met with both airlines, TAA and Ansett Airlines of Australia, on 6 July. There was a suggestion that, unless some action was taken to try to stem the degree of discriminatory discounting in Australia, there would be a discount war which would result in a very heavy loading on core fares, which are the first class and economy class fares of the ordinary person travelling on airlines in this country. At that meeting I asked the airlines to discuss their problems with each other and to report back either to me or to my Department. They failed to do that. After having come to an agreement, they took action and cancelled all discount arrangements with all associations and organisations with which they had made arrangements.

The Government was concerned about this action. As a result of the Government’s concern, both airlines were asked to meet with a view to covering the problem created for charitable and sporting organisations. It was agreed that they would offer a IS per cent discount to the charitable and sporting organisations and a 10 per cent discount to common interest groups, as an interim measure. However, I have referred the issue to the Holcroft inquiry into air fares. We have broadened its terms of reference to enable it to report on this issue. Until we get a report on it, the Government will not be taking any further action.

page 302

RIVER MURRAY COMMISSION

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Trade and Resources · Richmond · NCP/NP

– Pursuant to section 21 of the Commonwealth River Murray Waters Act 1915, I present the annual report of the River Murray Commission for 1979-80.

page 302

TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH CANADA

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Trade and Resources · Richmond · NCP/NP

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the bilateral-multilateral trade negotiations with Canada.

page 302

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Communications · New England · NCP/NP

– Pursuant to section 78 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, I present the annual report for 1979-80 of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

page 302

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL COMMISSION

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Communications · New England · NCP/NP

– Pursuant to section 102 of the Postal Services Act 1975, 1 present the annual report for 1979-80 of the Australian Postal Commission.

page 302

AUSTRALIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Communications · New England · NCP/NP

– Pursuant to section 99 of the Telecommunications Act 1975, I present the annual report of the Australian Telecommunications Commission for 1979-80.

page 302

AUSTRALIAN MEAT AND LIVESTOCK CORPORATION

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

– Pursuant to section 29 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act 1977, I present the interim annual report for 1979-80 of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation.

page 302

AUSTRALIAN WOOL CORPORATION

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

– Pursuant to section 90 of the Wool Industry Act 1972, I present the final annual report of the Australian Wool Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1980. An interim report for that year was tabled on 1 1 September 1980 with unaudited financial statements. The final report is similar in text, but contains audited financial statements and the Auditor-General’s report.

page 303

WHEAT RESEARCH ACT 1957

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

– Pursuant to section 18 of the Wheat Research Act 1957, 1 present a report on the Act for the period 1 January 1979 to 30 June 1980.

page 303

TREASURY

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

– For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report for 1979-80 of the Treasury.

page 303

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY AGREEMENTS ACT 1947

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

Pursuant to section 10 of the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947, 1 present the annual report on the operations of the Act 1979-80.

page 303

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BUREAU

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Industrial Relations · Kooyong · LP

– Pursuant to section 126 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, I present the annual report of the Industrial Relations Bureau for 1979-80.

page 303

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY FINANCE COMMITTEE

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Industrial Relations · Kooyong · LP

– Pursuant to section 30 of the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee Act 1977, 1 present the annual report for 1979-80 of the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee.

page 303

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Industrial Relations · Kooyong · LP

– For the information of honourable members, I present the texts of the following International Labour Organisation instruments adopted by the 65th session of the International Labour Conference held in Geneva in June 1979:

Convention No. 152 - Occupational Safety and Health (Dock Work), 1979;

Recommendation No. 160 - Occupational Safety and Health (Dock Work), 1 979;

Convention No. 1 53 - Hours of Work and Rest Periods (Road Transport), 1979; and

Recommendation No. 161 - Hours of Work and Rest Periods (Road Transport), 1979

Honourable members will be interested to learn that the four instruments were referred to the appropriate Commonwealth and State authorities for examination and comment. This procedure accords both with the requirements of the ILO constitution and with established Australian practice for examining ILO instruments which are regarded as appropriate for joint action by the Commonwealth and the States.

The results of the examination indicated that it would not be possible to ratify either of the conventions or apply either of the recommendations at present because Australian law and practice does not comply fully with the provisions of the instruments. However, the question of possible future action in relation to the four instruments will continue to be considered by the joint Commonwealth-State consultative machinery on ILO conventions and by the National Labour Consultative Council, through its Committee on International Affairs.

page 303

FAMILY LAW COUNCIL

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

– Pursuant to section 115 of the Family Law Act 1975, I present the annual report for 1979-80 of the Family Law Council.

page 303

LEGAL AID COMMISSION (AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY)

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

– Pursuant to Section 97 of the Legal Aid Ordinance 1977, 1 present the annual report for 1979-80 of the Legal Aid Commission (Australian Capital Territory).

page 303

LAW REFORM COMMISSION

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

– Pursuant to section 35 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973, I present the annual report of the Law Reform Commission for 1979-80.

page 303

AUSTRALIAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL

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

– For the information of honourable members I present a report by the Australian Science and Technology Council titled Interaction between industry, higher education and government laboratories’.

page 304

CHRISTMAS ISLAND

Mr ELLICOTT (Wentworth- Minister for

Home Affairs and Environment) - For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of Christmas Island for 1979-80.

page 304

ALLIGATOR RIVERS REGION

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs and Environment · Wentworth · LP

– Pursuant to section 36 of the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978, I present the annual report for 1979-80 of the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region.

page 304

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report for the Department of Transport for 1979-80 including those matters on which I am required to report pursuant to section 29 of the Air Navigation Act 1 920.

page 304

TRANSPORT PLANNING AND RESEARCH PROGRAM

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the Transport Planning and Research Program report of progress to 30 June 1980.

page 304

CAPITAL TERRITORY HEALTH COMMISSION

Mr MacKELLAR:
Minister for Health · Warringah · LP

– Pursuant to section 72 of the Health Commission Ordinance 1975, I present the interim annual report for 1979-80 of the Capital Territory Health Commission.

page 304

EDUCATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Education · Farrer · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the interim annual report for 1979-80 of the Education Research and Development Committee.

page 304

CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT CENTRE

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Education · Farrer · LP

– Pursuant to section 40 of the Curriculum Development Centre Act 1975,I present the annual report for 1979-80 of the Curriculum Development Centre.

page 304

AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · Balaclava · LP

– Pursuant to section 42 of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948,I present the annual return of persons granted Australian citizenship.

page 304

DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · Balaclava · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report on the activities of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for the year ended 1979-80 titled Review 80.

page 304

DEFENCE SERVICE HOMES CORPORATION

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

– Pursuant to section 50B of the Defence Service Homes Act 1918, I present a report on the operations of the Defence Service Homes Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1980.

page 304

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Mr HODGMAN:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Denison · LP

– Pursuant to section 10 of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1930,I present a statement of receipts and expenditure for the Australian Capital Territory 1979-80.

page 304

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY

Mr HODGMAN:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Denison · LP

– Pursuant to section 33 of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Act 1962,I present the annual report for 1979-80 of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority.

page 304

HOUSING LOANS INSURANCE CORPORATION

Mr McVEIGH:
Minister for Housing and Construction · Darling Downs · NCP/NP

– Pursuant to section 39 of the Housing Loans Insurance Act 1965, I present the sixteenth annual report and the financial statement for the year 1979-80 of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation.

page 304

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Amendment Bill 1 980.

Homes Savings Grant Amendment Bill 1980.

page 304

AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

– by leave- I present the official report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the United States of America and Mexico and visit to Canada.

In July this year I had the honour to lead an official Australian parliamentary delegation to the United States of America and Mexico and, with two members of the delegation, to visit Quebec at the invitation of Canadair Pty Ltd. To travel the perimeter of the United States of America and into Mexico and Canada within 22 days necessitated a rigid timetable, limiting the depth of the delegation’s assessment. However, some impressions emerged quite strongly during the delegation’s visit. One impression that emerged strongly and continually both in the United States of America and Mexico was the profitable contact possible at the legislator to legislator level. Such contact is vital regardless of the tradition of government in the legislator’s country.

In countries which mirror the Westminster tradition, commonality of experience is a valuable aspect of contact between members of parliament. In countries which do not mirror the Westminster tradition, contact at the legislator level is possibly even more important. For example, there is a’ general predisposition to believe that as Australia and the United States of America are both countries in the democratic tradition, the processes of government are quite similar. However, the actual processes of decision making are quite different, and awareness of these differences makes legislator to legislator contact invaluable.

A case in point was discussions that we held in the United States of America on the restriction of trade in Australian opiates, which has serious implications for the long term future of the Tasmanian poppy growing industry. Strong official and ministerial representations have been made at the diplomatic, official, and ministerial level. However, there was a great degree of sympathy with our position when the matter was discussed at the legislator-to-legislator level. Similarly, in Mexico the delegation discovered mutual understanding and warmth in discussions with members of the Grand Commission’s Foreign Relations Committee and the Committee on Energy and Agriculture.

Throughout the visit the delegation was met with warmth, good will, and a desire to learn about Australia. I thank our hosts for their generosity and courtesy. I also thank those who organised the program, particularly officials in the host countries, the heads of Australian missions and their staffs, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Administrative Services, the Legislative Research Service of the Parliamentary Library for its briefing material, and the Inter-Parliamentary Relations Office of the Parliament and its staff, particularly Mr John Ferguson and Mrs Gwen McDowell, for their administrative support. In the case of Mrs McDowell, I thank her for her special work over the last weekend in enabling us to present the report today. I especially place on record the delegation’s appreciation for the assistance provided to it by Ian Harris, a member of the staff of this House, who accompanied the delegation. Finally, I pay tribute to my fellow delegation members for their comradeship and co-operation in achieving the delegation’s purposes. The delegation was a most diligent one, and I feel that it was a worthy representative of the Commonwealth.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– by leave - My remarks will be very brief. On behalf of the members of the Opposition who were part of the delegation to which the honourable member for Stuart (Mr Wilson) has referred, may I say, in supporting his remarks about the delegation, and particularly about encouraging members of the Parliament to read the report which has been produced - it is an excellent report - how much we respected the leadership and kindness we were given as members of the Opposition and as members of the delegation by our leader, the honourable member for Sturt. He was a very kindly and almost fatherly figure in controlling the larrikins he had to look after. I would like to place on record our appreciation of his leadership of that delegation. The honourable member for Sturt referred to the help of the Acting Assistant Clerk of the House, Ian Harris, who was not only an extraordinarily good manager of the group’s activities but also was particularly good company. I will not go any further into that matter because I know that the Clerks of the House have to have that aura of remoteness and dignity about them. However, I can assure honourable members that Mr Harris, while having all those attributes, also is very sparkling company.

I should like to make a couple of remarks about the visit. I noticed when we were in Mexico that there is a great opportunity for rapport between the Australian people and the Mexican people. The report mentions that we think our diplomatic posts in Mexico should have more facilities, but I go further and suggest to the Government that it is high time we had some form of cultural relationships with Mexico. At the time we were in Mexico a cultural delegation from Russia was there and also one from Bulgaria, arranging all sorts of cultural swaps with Mexico. I felt that it was quite a pity, because of the similarity in some ways between Australia and Mexico in terms of our emerging greatness as nations, that we do not have a similar sort of relationship. We had the good luck to visit the Folklorico at the magnificant Palace of the Arts in Mexico City. I think it is a pity that we do not arrange on an official level a cultural exchange between Australia and Mexico.

The same might well be said about the United States of America. I was told - I am not exactly sure of the figures- that we have a staff of 300-odd in our Embassy in Washington. Almost 200 of those people represent Australia in the defence area, particularly in the purchase of defence weapons, but of the total staff of 300-odd there is not one cultural officer. Nobody is promoting a peaceful relationship between the nations of Australia and the United States and, by that process, throughout the world. I think that is a pity, and it is something the Government should look at.

One other small criticism I have of our experiences is that, quite apart from the kindness of the diplomatic personnel, as the honourable member for Sturt explained, there seemed to be a sameness about the sorts of people we met at the receptions we attended. It seemed to me to be a pity that the consul or the ambassador or whoever happens to be in charge of the particular post does not make an effort to find a wider spectrum of the host nation’s population for visiting parliamentarians to meet. For instance, we did not meet a trade union official; we did not meet a real working class man or a farmer at any of the receptions we attended. I think it is a pity that we are not getting the full opportunity to exchange views with a wide range of the population of the nation we are visiting.

Those are minor complaints and, all in all, the trip was entirely satisfactory. I think we have come back as better equipped parliamentarians, certainly with a better knowledge of the difficulties that other nations have in their pursuit of life. I hope that the investment that Parliament made in that trip is reflected in the better performance of the parliamentarians in this House who attended. In conclusion, I again thank the leader of the delegation, the honourable member for Sturt, and all my fellow delegates for their good company and their sparkling relationships.

page 306

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY OBSERVER DELEGATION TO ASEAN INTER-PARLIAMENTARY ORGANISATION

Mr CARLTON:
Mackellar

– by leave- I present the official report of the Australian Parliamentary-Observer Delegation to the third General Assembly of the Association of South East Asian Nations Inter-Parliamentary Organisation held in Jakarta, Indonesia, from 2 to 6 September 1980. In making my short statement I will not refer to the hosts or to the people who assisted us. I have indicated them in the introduction to the report. I merely want to say to the House what a valuable thing it is to have an association between this Parliament and the ASEAN InterParliamentary Organisation. The particular value is that, as honourable members know, ASEAN is an association of our close neighbours. The five countries of ASEAN are the countries with whom we have to do business all the time. AIPO is a relatively new organisation; this was its third General Assembly.

I had the task of leading the delegation to Bangkok last year as well as leading the delegation to Jakarta this year. It was fortunate that we had continuity in that I was accompanied by Senator Teague on both occasions. On the first occasion in Bangkok the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was with us and this time we had Senator Michael Tate. We were very pleased indeed that we were able to maintain a continuity of association with the parliamentarians of the group. The ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organisation is small enough for us to find out exactly what it is doing in some detail and to get to know all the people individually. Of course, it has some continuity in its representation and we are able, therefore, to take up very sensitive issues that we might have some difficulty discussing in larger bodies. Certainly, as parliamentarians, we are able to discuss matters that Ministers or officials might find difficult to discuss. We can always discuss the background political situation in our respective countries. Taking the visit to Indonesia as an example of the very sensitive issues that are discussed, we raised issues such as the East Timor situation, the refugee problem, the concern we still have about getting the remaining members of the list of 600 back to Australia, and also the question of Radio Australia broadcasts in Indonesian. Those are examples of the topics we were able to discuss with great frankness with fellow parliamentarians as well as with Ministers of the Indonesian Government and with officials.

I thank the House for the opportunity to lead this delegation, and I commend to the House a continuing association with the ASEAN InterParliamentary Organisation. The conferences last only one week, so at comparatively small expense this Parliament can maintain a very good working relationship with fellow parliamentarians in neighbouring countries.

page 306

INTEREST RATES

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

- Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The spiralling level of interest rates.

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 -

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

– Last night the Treasurer (Mr Howard) came into this House and gave further evidence of the undoubted fact that this Government is a failure in the area of economic management, that it cannot be trusted to keep its promises and that it deceived the people of Australia at the last Federal election. The Treasurer’s announcement of increased interest rates for bank overdrafts and home loans represents a further development in what has become a storm of interest rate increases in the course of this year, taking them to the highest level in our history. Thus we have the situation in which a government which justified its seizure of office on the ground that the country needed sound economic management has chalked up a number of unenviable records in its period of office. It has given us record unemployment and record high taxes. That is not a bad achievement since it has also given us, at the same time, record high tax avoidance. It has also given us record high interest rates. It is certainly a recordbreaking government, but they are hardly the kinds of records to boast about.

In this connection one could include this Government’s unenviable record of dishonesty and deception. The Treasurer’s announcement last night epitomised both of these aspects of the Government’s behaviour. In respect of dishonesty, the announcement of interest rate increases, taking them to record high levels, contrasts with the promises made in December 1977 by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) during the election campaign that he would reduce interest rates by 2 per cent. He said that that was a target that could and would be achieved. It was not just some forecast; it was a quite clear election promise. No such reduction ever occurred. Instead, we had a temporary decline in both mortgage rates and overdraft rates, with the mortgage rates coming down by 0.5 per cent in February 1978 and again in November 1978. In the course of this year those reductions have been swept away. They were swept away even before the Treasurer’s announcement last night of a further rise. This is an absolutely fundamental point to bear in mind. We were not talking about a one-off increase in interest rates as of last night but part of a continuing pattern of increased interest rates which have occurred throughout this year. The reductions that occurred temporarily after the 1977 election were swept away well before the statement of the Treasurer last night which gave us news of further interest rate increases.

By the end of October of this year mortgage rates for savings banks were 0.5 to 0.75 per cent above the level they were in December 1977 and trading bank rates were at the same level as at that time. In addition, the rate for prime corporate borrowers from trading banks was one per cent above the December 1977 level, the average rate for large borrowers over $100,000 was 1.5 per cent above the December 1977 level, building societies were up to 0.5 per cent above the December 1977 level and Commonwealth bonds were, respectively, 2.3 per cent, 2.2 per cent and 2.1 percent above the level in December 1977 for two-year, five-year and 20-year bonds. Those figures are for the period at the end of October. Since then - in the last few weeks - most of these rates have increased further as speculation about interest rate rises has led to a rapid rise in the money markets. Thus, short term Commonwealth bond rates have moved up to almost 13 per cent; that is, over 3.5 per cent above the level of December 1977. Finance companies are now offering 14 per cent to depositors, which indicates that their lending rates will go above the 16.5 per cent level they have already reached for housing finance. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing interest rates on housing mortgages at various periods since December 1977 for savings banks, trading banks, building societies and finance companies.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows -

Mr WILLIS:

– I thank the House. This whole picture shows that the interest rates are now far above what they were when the Prime Minister promised that they would be reduced by 2 per cent and there is every prospect that they will go even higher in the near future. So much for this Government’s honesty regarding election pledges. In addition to dishonesty, the latest episode brings out the way in which this Government has deceived the Australian people. During the last election campaign, perhaps having learned the lesson from the 1977 campaign, it simply made no promises about interest rates and refused to discuss the question of interest rates at all. Whenever asked, the Treasurer said that he would make no forecast about interest rates. The Government, particularly the Treasurer, did that knowing that when the election was over it would be taking action to increase interest rates. It was common knowledge and common expectation in the money markets of this country. It came from a statement in the annual report of the Reserve Bank of Australia. On page 8 of that report, which came out soon after the Budget, the Bank said:

The Bank will be aiming in the year ahead to keep liquidity conditions in financial markets firm enough to ensure that the loan outstandings of financial intermediaries do not grow as rapidly as in 1979-80. This will require flexibility in interest rates and close co-ordination between monetary, fiscal and external instruments of policy.

That statement and a similar comment in Budget Paper No. 2 which was, perhaps, slightly more ambiguous, were generally taken to indicate that there would be movement in official interest rates, including control of interest rates, in the near future because of the policy of flexibility of interest rates to which the Reserve Bank referred in the section I have just quoted. It clearly indicated that increased interest rates were likely. Certainly the money markets thought that way. That is why interest rates have soared over the last few weeks. With the Government indicating its intention to rely more heavily on monetary policy and with a high level of foreign capital inflow adding to the money supply, the markets have increasingly believed that interest rate increases would be absolutely necessary for the Government to achieve its money supply target rate of growth. So those wishing to attract funds, which includes the Government, have had to bid higher and higher in order to attract funds from people who are concerned that if they buy when interest rates are below their peak they will make a capital loss.

All of this speculation and the accompanying interest rate increases have occurred because this Government has been indulging in a cynical political exercise: That is, holding back an announcement of increased interest rates until both the Federal and Queensland elections were over. Of course, we are having this debate only a few days after the Queensland election and there is no doubt whatever that this Government delayed the announcement of the Treasurer of last night until that election was over and, of course, until the Federal election was over. There was never any doubt that this interest rate rise would occur.

Last night when the Treasurer finally came to announce an increase in interest rates he did so in an appallingly slipshod statement. The Treasurer came into this House and made a statement, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) said last night, off the back of an envelope and when he had finished with the envelope it was off the cuff. He still did not reveal what was happening to trading bank mortgage interest payments. In Question Time today we had to ask him what was happening to trading bank mortgage interest payments. It was only then that we learned from the Treasurer that there was to be an increase in that area, not of one per cent, as reported in the Press this morning, but of 2 per cent. Perhaps if the Treasurer had made a more careful statement, instead of the slipshod one with which he rushed into the House last night, we might have got that rather more clear. The Treasurer should also check with the Reserve Bank to see whether what he said during Question Time was right. I understand that the Reserve Bank is saying that the increase is to be only one per cent. I would like the

Treasurer to clear up who is right, the Treasurer or the Reserve Bank. We would all like to know what the increase is to be in regard to trading bank mortgage rates. Of course, that again indicates the extraordinarily slipshod way in which this Statement was made. Presumably the Government believed that an almost casual announcement made almost in the dead of night would attract less publicity and less adverse reaction than a proper, carefully thought out statement. If so, it is unlikely to be successful in that regard because the people of Australia will know what has happened when their mortgage repayments soar in the next few weeks. There is no doubt that the effect on the people of Australia of increased interest rates is not merely academic. Most of them are made far worse off by increased interest rates, whether they be home buyers, potential home buyers or people who will be adversely affected in other ways. Obviously, existing home buyers are adversely affected. They are adversely affected in no insubstantial way.

My colleague the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) incorporated a table in Hansard on 27 November at page 175 which makes very interesting reading in the light of last night’s announcement. This table shows what repayments are required for 25-year loans of $30,000, $25,000 and $20,000 at varying interest rates. For a $30,000 loan, which we can take as a typical loan made over a 25-year period at a 9i per cent interest rate, which is the rate that applied at the beginning of this year - savings banks and trading banks had a 9i per cent rate then - the repayment was $262.10 a month; at 101 per cent the repayment rises to $283.25 a month; at 1 H per cent it is $304.94 a month; and at 12+ per cent- if the Treasurer, and not the Reserve Bank, is right the trading banks will be charging up to 121 per cent as the rate for mortgage - it will be $327.10 a month. That is $65 more than it was at the beginning of this year. A $65 a month increase is no insubstantial rise. It is an increase of some $16 a week in the interest repayments of a person who is not atypical but a person with a typical housing loan of $30,000 over a 25-year period. These are very large imposts on the living standards of people who are home buyers at present. These increases in interest rates which have been announced are no insubstantial minor matter. People who are potential home buyers are affected most adversely by the increase in repayments. The Housing Industry Association calculated earlier this year that every half per cent increase in the interest rates puts 4,000 people out of the home purchase market. In the course of this year, we have had an increase of 3 per cent - that is, six one-half per cent rises - if the 12i per cent figure for trading bank mortgage interest payments is right. That means that some 24,000 people can be excluded from the housing market by these increases. This is a very important factor indeed and has a very important effect not only on people who would like to buy homes but also on the housing industry. The housing industry with less demand for homes is adversely affected; and the economy generally is adversely affected as businesses are less able to obtain credit because they often cannot afford the higher rates of credit: Therefore, there is less investment, less economic activity and less employment. The whole impact of increased interest rates generates a depressing effect on the level of economic activity, forces the country deeper into recession, increases unemployment and generally brings about a greater state of economic misery. The honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford), who will follow me in this debate, will expand on the effect on small business in particular which, of course, is the section of business most adversely affected by increased interest rates.

Having noted the tremendous effect of interest rates on repayments, I now turn to why these interest rate rises have occurred. The Treasurer would have us believe that he is not involved in all of this, that somehow this is the operation of the market. He argues that, in the circumstances, the Government must allow controlled rates to rise; otherwise, there will be an acute shortage of finance for small borrowers at the bank level. This is absolute nonsense. He is not divorced from all of this. The fact is that the Government, as the organisation in control of economic policy in this country, is responsible for what happens in the market because what happens in the market is greatly influenced by government policy. For instance, it is influenced by what happens to inflation. A rise in the inflation rate - and it certainly has risen in the last year or so - has an effect on the expectations in the market in regard to interest rates. Two years ago the inflation rate was less than 8 per cent; now it is over 10 per cent. In that situation, it is inevitable that there will be pressures for higher interest rates. That high rate of inflation is almost solely the result of this Government’s action in respect of the full import parity for Australian produced crude oil and also its action in respect of abolishing subsidies for medical services costing less than $20,000.

The Reserve Bank has said that last year the direct impact of oil price rises and the health insurance change was 2 per cent. This Government must, therefore, bear great responsibility for the increase in inflation and, consequently, these increases in interest rates. The Government must also bear responsibility for its tough monetary policy. If the Government is to pursue a more monetarist policy, the inevitable impact will be a situation which requires higher interest rates. That is the essence of monetarist economics. If one looks at England at the present time and notes what is happening there, one can see what will happen in this country if a tight monetary policy is pursued. That is what this Government says it will do. Also, as capital inflow increases, and this Government does nothing to stop it, tougher measures will be needed in respect of domestic credit to keep monetary growth within the targets. All of these factors, which are directly attributable to government policy, have great impact on what happens in the market and, therefore, have a great impact on what happens to the level of interest rates.

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

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I suppose the most remarkable thing about the speech which has just been delivered by the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) and the stance taken by the Opposition over the last couple of weeks on the subject of interest rates has been the total expediency of the attitude of the Opposition and the extent to which it has been willing to prostitute its views one week as compared with its views the week earlier. No better example of that claim can be found than by drawing a contrast.

I refer to what the honourable member for Gellibrand has just done and what his colleagues, including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) did during Question Time today. They berate the Government for allowing interest rates to go up for the purpose of seeing that the people who we are trying to help in the business and the housing area are, in fact, helped and are not hindered by a policy of controls. I contrast the extent to which we have been berated by the Opposition on that score today with what was said in another place only six days ago by Senator Walsh who is the Opposition spokesman on finance and related matters. What he said bears repetition. I quote from Hansard:

If this Government persists with its present non-viable policy and attempts to hold interest rates on overdraft and on housing loan borrowings at 2 per cent or more below where they would settle if market forces were allowed or were an appropriate rate - given the level of interest rates in other areas -then the supply of funds in those areas would dry up . . . the people who want home loans, the farmers and the small businessmen- will be forced to go to the fringe financial institutions and to pay rates probably as high as 14 per cent or IS per cent. This would have a highly undesirable and damaging result which would be quite unnecessary . . .

Those are not my words. They are not the words of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). They are the words of Senator Walsh on 26 November in another place when it suited the convenience of the Opposition to criticise the Government for not having made the decision that I announced last night. That, more than anything else, condemns the total expediency of the Opposition on this subject and the extent to which it is prepared to run from one argument to another in its attempt to discredit what this Government has done.

Nobody, including treasurers, likes to be associated in terms of straight popularity with interest rate rises. I do not enjoy and the Government does not enjoy the fact that it is economically necessary to allow certain rises to occur in certain interest rates in Australia at the present. Essentially over the past few weeks this Government has been faced with the reality of having to choose between a number of options, none of which has been attractive, but one of which - that is the one that I announced last night - involves the path of greater economic responsibility.

I have said on a number of occasions - and I repeat it here today - that no government can at the same time control both interest rates and the money supply. If one believes, as this Government does, in controlling the money supply as a major weapon - not the only weapon but a major weapon - in controlling inflation, it is necessary to have a flexible approach to interest rates. That means that on occasions, to achieve one’s monetary objectives, one must allow interest rates to rise. The honourable member for Gellibrand can choose to have a different point of view - and he clearly does. But let us be quite clear that the honourable member for Gellibrand said that if he were in my position he would have kept those interest rates down. Presumably Senator Walsh, in another place, would have let them go up, but I will not weary the House with that little internal economic policy problem of the Opposition. That is a problem for the Leader of the Opposition to sort out. Presumably the honourable member for Gellibrand would have said: ‘No, I will sit on those ceilings. I will not let those interest rates go up’. Okay, he would have then run around saying: I am marvellous. I have held those interest rates down and nobody will suffer’. That is fine. Everybody would have thought in the short term: What a statesman-like decision! There is no doubt about it, he solved the problem. He can hold back this tide and he can deliver the goods.

The truth, of course, would have been that as time went by there would have been a greater rate of expansion in the money supply. Presumably the honourable member for Gellibrand believes that that is okay, because he said directly and by implication over a period that this Government is obsessed with controlling the money supply. That is clearly his view. I do not know whether it is the view of all people who speak on economic matters in the Australian Labor Party at present but it is the view of the alternative Treasurer of this country. Although I disagree with his view, I respect the fact that he holds a different view than I do on the importance of money supply and economic management. He has been honest about it and I respect him for that. But let us not pretend that we are arguing about shades of grey. We are arguing about a fundamentally different approach to economic management in this country.

The Opposition pretends that governments can painlessly hold down interest rates in defiance of market forces. Today we were being urged - by implication - by the Opposition to ignore the fact that increasingly the ceiling on interest rates for loans of under $100,000 was harming the people that it was designed to help and that over a period the proportion of trading bank advances going to small overdrafts was showing evidence of declining. More and more evidence was accumulating of small borrowers being turned away from the 10.5 per cent interest rate and put into higher lending areas by the trading banks. A few days before the election, as the honourable member for Gellibrand will know, a letter appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald from the chief manager of one of the banks. Quite properly, from a commercial point of view, he indicated that preference ought to be given to putting certain borrowers into higher interest rate areas.

Of course, banks have certain obligations to their shareholders and it is not entirely surprising that they should pay some regard to commercial considerations. That is something that we on this side of the House quite clearly have recognised. We have not wanted to see interest rates rise, but, faced with a choice between unrealistically sitting on interest rates or recognising the reality that they ought to rise if we are to achieve our money supply objectives, we chose the former course. In the long run the decision that was taken yesterday will be to the economic benefit of this country. The alternative to the decision that was announced last night would have been to see the people we were trying to help increasingly harmed by the existing interest rate controls. In turn, there would have been a greater tendency for the money supply to advance.

I believe that this particular decision continues to recognise the preference that this Government and successive governments in this country have displayed to housing finance. I believe that this decision will give to the trading banks a much greater degree of flexibility for interest rate policies concerning loans under $100,000. As I said last night and at Question Time today, the fact that the ceiling for trading bank advances of under $100,000 has been increased by 2 per cent is not a carte-blanche for an across-the-board increase of up to 2 per cent on every trading bank overdraft of under $100,000. It does mean that there can be, should be and, I believe, will be a greater flexibility for the banks and a greater variety of interest rates. I believe that that is the way in which the banking system will respond to the changes that I announced last night.

I also believe that the decision of the Government to lift the controls on deposit rates will give a greater degree of flexibility in deposit taking to the savings banks. I think it is important to remember that there are no controls on the deposittaking practices of a number of the major nonbank financial institutions around Australia including, in particular, the State Savings Bank of Victoria and the permanent building societies of that State.

The honourable member for Gellibrand, during the course of his remarks - I think the Leader of the Opposition did the same last night - got very worked up about the fact that last night I did not have a prepared statement when I came into the House. The fact is that decisions had been taken and there was a clear obligation on my part to announce those decisions immediately to the House. What did the member for Gellibrand want me to do? Did he want me to issue a Press release at 11.15 p.m. last night and give it to the world before I had given it to this Parliament?

Have we reached a situation where a Minister, because he comes into this House and announces some decisions that have been taken by Cabinet, without the benefit of a prepared statement, will be accused of doing his work in a slipshod fashion? I think that if we have reached that situation it indicates an appalling sense of priorities on the part of the honourable member for Gellibrand regarding the deference that ought to be paid to this House. My clear obligation, having got that decision from the Cabinet, was to come straight into this chamber and announce it to the Parliament before it became public knowledge to the world. So let us have no more nonsense from the honourable member for Gellibrand about slipshod statements. Let us have no more carping interjections from the honourable member for Wills (Mr Hawke) about the length of time it takes to make up our minds to do certain things. He is not too bad at taking a long time to make up his mind to stand for Parliament. So let us not have too many interjections about length of time in making up our minds to do something.

The honourable member for Gellibrand told me that there was some kind of conflict between what I had said last night and what the Reserve Bank of Australia had said. I have both of the statements. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a statement issued last night by Sir Harold Knight, the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows -

RESERVE BANK OF AUSTRALIA

Bank Interest Rates Statement by Sir Harold Knight, Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia

Interest rate ceilings applying to trading and savings bank advances are being increased by 2 per cent effective 3 December. An exception is savings bank loans for owneroccupied housing, on which the interest rate ceiling is being increased by 1 per cent. The ceilings on trading and savings bank deposit interest rates are being removed.

With the concurrence of the Treasurer, the maximum interest rate which trading banks may charge on overdrafts with limits of less than $100,000 is being raised from 10.5 per cent per annum to 12.5 per cent per annum. Comparable increases will apply to interest rates on term and farm development loans of less than $100,000; these are usually at rates slightly higher than those on overdrafts of similar amount. The maximum rate on personal instalment loans, which is now 7.75 per cent (flat), will be 8.75 per cent (flat).

The maximum rate of interest which savings banks may charge on loans, other than loans for owner-occupied housing, of less than $100,000 is being increased from 10.5 per cent per annum to 12.5 per cent per annum. The maximum rate of interest on savings bank loans for owner-occupied housing is being increased from 10.5 per cent per annum to 1 1 . 5 per cent per annum.

Within these ceilings, each bank will determine the rates to be applied to their loans. Banks have agreed that, as regards any increase in their lending rates, special consideration will be given to those in primary industry whose incomes are adversely affected by the current drought conditions.

Reserve Bank of Australia Sydney 2 December 1980

Background Information

Trading Banks

Since February 1972, rates of interest charged by banks on larger overdrafts have been a matter for negotiation between banks and their customers. On smaller overdrafts, a maximum interest rate has applied. In February 1976, this maximum interest rate was reduced by 1 percentage point to 10.5 per cent per annum and the application of the maximum was extended to overdrafts drawn under limits of less than $100,000 (previously $50,000).

In February 1978, trading banks reduced by 0.5 percentage points the interest rate charged on housing loans for owner-occupied dwellings drawn under limits of less than $100,000. In November/December 1978, trading banks extended a similar reduction in interest rates to other loans of less than $100,000 including overdrafts and new term and farm development loans. At the same time, the interest rate on new personal instalment loans was reduced from 7.75 per cent per annum (flat) to 7.5 per cent per annum (flat) . Also in November/December 1978, trading banks reduced by a further 0.5 percentage points the interest rate charged on housing loans for owner-occupied dwellings.

In March/April 1980, trading banks increased interest rates on small overdrafts by 0.5 percentage points to the maximum of 10.5 per cent per annum. There was a similar increase in interest rates on other smaller loans; interest rates on housing loans moved up by 0.5 percentage points in early April and by a further 0.5 percentage points in July to reach the maximum of 10.5 per cent per annum.

The maximum rate which trading banks may offer on fixed deposits has stood at 10 per cent per annum since July 1974 when it was raised from 8 per cent per annum. Banks may issue certificates of deposit of a minimum amount of $50,000 for a minimum term of three months and a maximum term of four years without limitation as to the rate of interest.

The range of interest rates currently offered by trading banks on fixed deposits of less than $50,000 is:

  1. Savings Banks

    1. . Interest rates on loans by savings banks have been subject to the same general maximum as has applied on overdraft loans by trading banks. In February 1976, the maximum interest rate was reduced by 1 percentage point to 10.5 per cent per annum. The maximum applies to loans for less than $100,000. The interest rate on larger loans from savings banks is, as is the case for trading banks, a matter for negotiation between banks and their customers. In February 1978, savings banks, along with trading banks, reduced by 0.5 percentage points the interest rate on loans for owner-occupied dwellings. In November/December 1978, this reduction was carried through to other loans under $100,000 and a further reduction of 0.5 percentage points was made in interest rates on loans for owner-occupied dwellings. Interest rates on housing loans moved up by 0.5 percentage points in early April 1980 and by a further 0.5 percentage points in July to reach the maximum rate of 10.5 per cent per annum. Interest rates on non-housing loans had moved up to the maximum in March/April.
    2. Since July 1974, the maximum rate payable on savings bank deposit accounts has been 9 per cent per annum. In March/April 1975, savings banks offered 8 per cent per annum on investment accounts and deposit stock; in February 1978 savings banks generally reduced the rate to 7.5 per cent per annum with a further reduction around December to 7.25 per cent per annum. Subsequently, rates were increased to 7.5 per cent per annum in December 1 979/ January 1980, 8 per cent per annum in April and 8.5 per cent per annum in June/July. Since late July 1980, banks have offered the maximum rate of 9 per cent per annum. Investment accounts are subject to one month’s notice of withdrawal; deposit stock, which is offered by some State savings banks, is also subject to one month’s notice of withdrawal.
    3. The rate offered by most savings banks on ordinary accounts is currently 3.75 per cent per annum on balances up to $4,000 and 6 per cent per annum on balances over $4,000; these rates have remained unchanged since 1 October 1973; prior to this date, they were 3.75 per cent per annum and 4.25 per cent per annum respectively.

  2. Statistics

A classification of advances of the major trading banks by interest rate was published in the Statistical Bulletin for October 1980. Details of interest rates paid and charged by trading and savings banks, including the rates charged on new housing loans to individuals, are shown monthly in the Statistical Bulletin.

Reserve Bank of Australia Sydney 7 December 1980

Mr HOWARD:

– I thank the House. The Governor’s statement reads as follows:

Interest rate ceilings applying to trading and savings bank advances are being increased by 2 per cent effective 3 December. An exception is savings bank loans for owneroccupied housing, on which the interest rate ceiling is being increased by 1 per cent. The ceilings on trading and savings bank deposit interest rates are being removed.

My statement read:

The Government has concurred in a proposal to increase the ceiling for overdrafts drawn to a limit of $100,000 by an amount of 2 per cent.

Secondly, the Government has approved an increase of one per cent in the lending rate charged by savings banks for loans of under $ 1 00,000 for owner-occupied housing.

I have been advised that all housing loans given by trading banks are by way of overdraft. In some cases they can be secured by a mortgage. That is the advice that has been conveyed to me. So, there is nothing inconsistent between what has been said by the Reserve Bank and what was said by me last night. Any attempt by the honourable member–

Mr Willis:

– That is not what they told us.

Mr HOWARD:

– The honourable member for Gellibrand interjects. I have in my hand the statement issued last night from the Governor of the Reserve Bank. There is absolutely no inconsistency between what Sir Harold Knight said last night and what I said last night and at Question Time and during this debate today.

The fact remains that the Opposition is hopelessly divided on this issue. A week ago, Senator Walsh condemned the Government for not allowing interest rates to go up. He was condemning the Government. The Leader of the Opposition has allowed a copy of his remarks to be incorporated in Hansard. There is absolutely no repudiation of them. Yet the honourable member for Gellibrand came into this chamber today and condemned us for allowing interest rates to go up. He condemned us for doing the very thing which Senator Walsh said on 26 November - last week - if we did not do would have a quite unnecessary, highly undesirable and damaging result. The truth is that it suited members of the Opposition last week to take one stance and it suits them, out of sheer political expediency and nothing else, to take another stance today. We have been prepared to take an economically necessary, although unpopular, decision. I believe the decision taken by the Government, which has the total support of members of the Government parties, is one totally consonant with the long term economic interests of this country.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– The performance of the Treasurer (Mr Howard) in the House today in trying to defend the indefensible was absolutely woeful. The first thing we must say about the move last night to increase interest rates is that it was not just an action in isolation; it was the result of the very poor, incompetent monetary management of this country over the whole of the period that he has been Treasurer. The Opposition is at one in condemning the Government for that total monetary management which has led to this performance today. Of course, the decision announced last night was postponed because of the various elections that have taken place in this country.

It is no wonder that the Treasurer is now ducking and weaving in such a punch drunk way that he reminds me of Cassius Clay, or Mohammed Ali as he is now known, in his last fight when he was so punch drunk that he could not put up a decent performance. The Treasurer in his performance is punch drunk because of the fights he has had with his so-called colleagues, particularly those of the National Country Party, who have placed him in his present indefensible position, which was so clearly indicated by the poor performance he put up in this debate. Unlike the former Cassius Clay, this Treasurer has no past glory to attract our sympathy. He deserves his discomfort because his stewardship has been incompetent and because he is part of a team, the members of which are benefiting and have benefited from false pretences. That is why they are in the uncomfortable position they are now in. Although Government members have benefited from false pretences, they have been singularly unsuccessful in the way they have managed the monetary side of the economy - indeed, in the way they have pursued the total economic management of this country.

Why do I mention false pretences? I will explain to those few people who might not understand very readily why I have used that phrase. Of course, I say that because the Government has been running the country for five years. Yet we find the Treasurer suddenly coming into the Parliament last night - after a couple of elections are out of the way- to make the sort of statement that he made which is causing such burden and hardship to so many hundreds of thousands of Australians, whether they be home owners or small business people. This Government cannot falsely seek to blame the Whitlam Government any longer for our troubles, nor has it the excuse of an international economic downturn, as applied in the Whitlam years between 1974 and 1975, for the sort of decisions it is now taking, which it announced last night and which it is weakly trying to defend in this Parliament today.

Of course, it is a case of false pretences that Government members are sitting opposite. They went to the Australian people a couple of months ago and hoodwinked a small majority into believing the Government was a competent economic manager. But, this matter of interest rates rises has been going on for the whole of this year, the rate of increase in money supply being around 1 3 per cent is not new. These problems required careful management a lot earlier and the reason why a decision such as that announced last night had to be taken in this peremptory way was as a result of earlier economic mismanagement. After five years home owners and small businesses in particular are burdened with increased inflation and because of the proper decisions not being made earlier. As a result, interest rates in this country have been increased to such a high level.

The standard of living of hundreds of home owners is being reduced and many hundreds of small businesses will go to the wall. Because they are paying out more to banks and other lending institutions in interest, hundreds of thousands of ordinary Australians have less in their pockets to buy other things and in many cases less to pay for other essentials. The level of economic activity is reduced further, the chances of economic recovery are further removed, unemployment gets worse and stagflation continues. The Government, under false pretences, says it is a good economic manager and yet its economic stewardship results in the hardships of the latest decisions.

Labor’s political opponents justly can be accused of political pretences because they denied, just two months ago, that living standards were falling. Indeed, they promised just two months ago an improved standard of living. The Government denied two months ago during the election campaign that there would be an increase in interest rates. Yet we now witness it imposing the burden of increased interest rates on the Australian people.

Before I leave the subject of false pretences, I draw to the attention of the House the fact that it is three years ago today that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) made his famous interest rate promise. It was on 3 December 1977 that he said:

A 2 per cent reduction in interest rates in the next 12 months is a target that can and will be achieved.

The Prime Minister said that three years ago to the day. Has there ever been a clearer example of a broken promise, let alone a clearer example of a total lack of success in the attainment of an objective? What an infamous anniversary this is. How fortuitous it is that we should now on 3 December be debating the Liberal and National Country Party increase in interest rates when it was on this very day three years ago that we were promised a 2 per cent decrease in interest rates. It is not only the hardships resulting from the spiralling interest rate increases which are significant. As I have suggested already in my speech the way the increase has been imposed is also significant. The market has been in turmoil for months due to Government inaction.

The warring between the coalition partners has taken its toll. The intervention of the Minister for Communications (Mr Sinclair) was an extraordinary one. I will read the headline from just one paper, the Sydney Morning Herald of 24 November, where it stated, ‘Sinclair sees no case for rise in bank rates’. That is the sort of comment that we saw on 24 November. Just over a week later the Treasurer, with justified embarrassment, came into this House and announced an increase in interest rates in the face of what a senior colleague had been so widely reported as having said. Even now there is confusion as to the Government’s decision. The Treasurer can do all the huffing and puffing in the world but the fact is that a representative of the Opposition’s senior spokesman in this area within the last 45 minutes has telephoned a senior officer of the Reserve Bank of Australia. He was told that the interest rate increase would be 1 per cent on overdrafts, rather than 2 per cent. It just is not credible that the Treasurer should throw at us a Press release which says one thing and then for the Reserve Bank to give the Opposition another answer.

As we learned from the Treasurer’s answer to a question asked in the House today, it would seem that some farmers in some drought areas possibly will not be charged the extra rates. Yet, all the evidence shows that the small business people in the country towns serving those same drought stricken farmers in those same drought stricken areas - those small business people who are also burdened by the drought - will not receive any special postponement of their special interest rate burden.

Mr Howard:

– That is not correct. You did not listen to my answer.

Mr HURFORD:

– The Treasurer now tells us that that is not correct. I will thank him for making another statement to this House about these interest rate increases. There is much confusion everywhere about who is to be allowed a postponement of interest rate increase. I repeat: We ring the Reserve Bank at one hour and get one answer and the Treasurer tells us something else in this House.

In summary, the monetary and interest rate policies of the Fraser Government are now suffering from the five years of abuse and misuse which have characterised this Administration. For five years the Government has pursued a deliberate policy of stringency, with the single purpose of restraining demand in the economy, in a largely vain bid to wind back the rate of inflation. It is not good enough just to ask the Opposition what it would do in these circumstances. We would not have allowed these circumstances to arise. We would not have allowed the small business people of this country, who have out on overdraft about $6,1 36.7m, to suffer such an increase in interest rates.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-(Hon. Ian Robinson) - Order, the honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr PORTER:
Barker

– The honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) and the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford), who have both debated this matter, have claimed that the Government’s move on interest rates is a bad one. They have not presented any alternatives; they have suggested that the situation would not have arisen if they had been in control. I will mention just one example of what happened when Labor was in office. In May 1974 the interest rate for three to six months certificate deposits rose to 18.2 per cent. At present the rate is 11.2 per cent. When Labor was in power, the money supply was right out of control. So for Labor members now to say that this situation would never have arisen if they had been in office is somewhat suspect.

The honourable member for Gellibrand spent a long time discussing the table that was incorporated in Hansard by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). The honourable member for Reid’s table referred to the increased monthly repayments on a given loan that would be caused by an increase in interest rates. On an overdraft of $30,000, at an interest rate of 10* per cent the monthly repayment is about $283. 1 have rounded the figures. At 12+ per cent the monthly repayment is $327, which is an increase of $44 a month or $528 per annum. We admit that that is what happens with an increase in interest rates, and the Treasurer has already said that the Government does not like having to put up interest rates but it is the only sensible economic policy the Government can follow. We have undertaken, as we have said many times, both during the election campaign and in our five years in office, to maintain control of the money supply. As the Treasurer has said, it is not possible to maintain control of both the money supply and interest rates.

Honourable members will well remember that Labor tried to control interest rates and it left control of the money supply unregulated. During its period in office the money supply went completely out of control, as did the inflation rate. I think it is only fair to suggest that if Labor had been in Government and had held interest rates down as has been inferred today, it would have to allow the money supply to increase. If the money supply increases there must be some increase in the rate of inflation. I repeat that on an overdraft loan of $30,000, an increase of two per cent in the interest rate represents a monthly repayment increase of $44, or $528 annually. If Labor were in office and pursued a policy of controlling interest rates but not the money supply, what would be likely to happen? If, as a result, there was an increase of five per cent in the inflation rate, the $30,000 loan would have to be increased by $1,500, as against an annual increased repayment of $528. Would the fellow who has to borrow $31 ,500 as a result of Labor’s inflation rate be better ofl”. In fact, in the first year the fellow will be $ 1 ,000 better off under this Government’s policy.

The people most affected by the policies the Labor Party has been promoting in the Parliament are the pensioners, the home buyers and the farmers. They are the people who, under Labor’s policy, would not be able to afford the deposit gap. Using the example quoted by the honourable member for Gellibrand, interest rates on home loans have gone up by one per cent from 10.5 per cent to 11.5 per cent. On a loan of $30,000, that represents a repayment increase of about $22 a month or $264 a year. Take a house worth $35,000, on which a loan of $30,000 may be sought. Under Labor with its lack of control of money supply an increase rate of inflation of one per cent represented an additional capital payment of $350. That reflects the greater deposit gap that people would have to bridge in order to buy such a house. The annual repayment would, under the Government’s proposal, have increased by only $264. It is highly likely that the inflation rate, under Labor, would be a lot higher. I have quoted the minimum effect only. Therefore, the Labor Party, for short term political gain, is just trying to convince the people of Australia that the Government ought not to take any action on the interest rate front.

Clearly, as the Treasurer has said, there is division in the Labor Party. Senator Walsh has stated that he believed the move was necessary. It has become apparent that interest rate controls, which were designed primarily to assist small borrowers, have had a counterproductive effect. What has emerged is that, far from their assisting small borrowers, they have had the result of many small borrowers being denied access to funds. Such borrowers have been forced to go to institutions which provide finance at higher interest rates.

The honourable member for Adelaide discussed that point and seemed to disagree with the Government concerning it. The following statement appeared in the Australian Financial Review oi 21 November:

In effect a whole new generation is growing up which does not assume that the place to go for short term accommodation is the bank. They have received too many knockbacks. Instead they will treat the trading bank system as simply a money transmission mechanism. This is not the fault of the banks; if they are not allowed to charge market interest rates for lending they will, as rational profit makers who have responsibilities to their shareholders, simply have to send would-be borrowers elsewhere.

The honourable member for Adelaide suggested that the Government was disadvantaging the small businessman, the small person, in Australia. Clearly, such people were being disadvantaged by the controls which had been placed on the banks and which this Treasurer has told the House have been lifted. The article continues:

  1. . by destroying the normal capacity of the system for competition between institutions, and penalising the relatively low income customers of the banks, the Government, in the name of populism, is forcing more and more small borrowers into the fringe, high interest segments of the market.

Is that not what the Opposition has just been talking about? Honourable members opposite have been stating that we should not have allowed interest rates to increase. They are promoting just what this article is talking about. The article continues:

  1. . that it is the low income groups who suffer most from attempts to regulate interest rates.

This Government, in contrast to the Labor Party, which pretends to be trying to help the small businessman, the small person, in Australia who at the moment is having difficulty in obtaining overdrafts and loans because of the controls and regulations on bank lending, has moved to assist such people. Labor Party member’s say that that is not correct. I suggest that they had better go and find out what is happening in the marketplace. Quite obviously, they do not understand it. They say that Labor would have done better. Many of the problems that the Government has had over the last five years have resulted from the policies of the Labor Party when in Government. It has taken about five years to straighten out the economy. Members of the Labor Party say that we would have been in a better position had they been in power. I wonder about that, because Australia is not doing badly. In Australia the overdraft rate for $100,000 or more is now 12.5 per cent. In the United States it was 14.5 per cent in October. I have just seen an Australian Associated Press telex for today, which states:

Resource stocks tended to absorb most of the big losses as US prime rates moved to 18.5 per cent . . .

The rate is 18.5 per cent in the United States. In the United Kingdom the rate is 17.5 per cent. So to suggest that Australia is not doing well on the interest rate is quite wrong. Our interest rates are lower than those generally available in countries comparable to Australia. The monetary policy of this Government is the correct policy. Contrary to the suggestions of the Labor Party, it is aimed at controlling inflation and at helping most of all people such as pensioners, farmers, and those who cannot survive when there is high inflation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

page 316

LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS (GRANTS) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

Mr MOORE:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Ryan · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Act 1980 to implement the Government’s election commitment to extend the $80 per tonne subsidy on liquefied petroleum gas. This objective is to be realised by extending the subsidy from 30 September 1980 to commercial and industrial consumers in areas where natural gas is not readily available for use. In April of this year the Government introduced a scheme to subsidise the use of LPG by householders, nonprofit residential-type institutions and schools for a period of 3 years to allow them time to adjust to the rising prices of LPG and, where possible, to convert from LPG to more readily available alternative fuels, such as natural gas and electricity.

In introducing this scheme, the Government was particularly mindful of the interests of householders and similar consumers of LPG in country districts, whilst at the same time recognising that Australia’s increasing dependence on imported oil during the 1980s will give LPG a premium value as a fuel for automotive use and as a petrochemical feedstock. LPG is important to the nation’s future transport fuel requirements and so it is the Government’s wish that its use not be encouraged if alternative fuels are available. The Government is aware, however, of the disadvantage suffered by users who are dependent on LPG, relative to their counterparts in those areas where there is access to natural gas. Accordingly, the subsidy will be extended to consumers in industry and commerce, broadly defined, to allow those consumers also time to adjust and, where possible, to convert to alternative fuels. It is intended that in some areas, such as Newcastle and Canberra, the subsidy will operate until the advent of natural gas reticulation, at which time the subsidy in those areas will be terminated.

Clause 5 of the Bill will provide for the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs to declare those areas in which natural gas is available and thus ineligible for the subsidy. Areas to be so declared will include Sydney, Wollongong-Port Kembla, Melbourne, Geelong and Adelaide. There are other areas, such as Perth and Brisbane, where natural gas is not available in all locations or to all users, and those will receive special examination. This Bill will not affect the position of householders, non-profit residential-type institutions and schools as they will continue to be eligible for the subsidy regardless of location.

The petrochemical industry is concerned primarily with maintaining the adequacy of supply of Australian-sourced LPG and the Government supports this objective. Accordingly, it is appropriate for users in that industry, and users engaged in oil and gas production and refining, to be expected to purchase their supplies at prices negotiated freely with the LPG producers. It is intended by the Government, therefore, that the subsidy will not be extended to those users. Industries ineligible for the subsidy will be declared by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs under proposed section 3A to be inserted by clause 5 of the Bill. Automotive use will remain ineligible for the subsidy except when the gas is used in the propulsion of a fork-lift truck or a similar factory or warehouse vehicle.

I emphasise that the Government is determined that the extension of the subsidy should not encourage the large scale use of LPG by new users, and to this end will keep a close watch on future developments. The Government is of the view that industries considering significant increases in their use of LPG for such purposes as materials processing must make their assessment of LPG and the alternative energy sources at the full market price. Payment of the subsidy to registered distributors will continue to be conditional in all cases upon the benefit of the subsidy being passed on to the consumers. It is estimated that the extended subsidy, which will terminate on 28 March 1983, will cost $1 3m per annum.

The Bill provides in clause 10 for the automatic amendment of schemes already formulated under the Act so as to allow early implementation. Complementary amending legislation will need to be introduced later by each State to develop fully the necessary schemes and administrative details. As the basic machinery already exists for the administration of the subsidy, I believe there will be little difficulty in administering the extension. Clause 8 of the Bill is a minor machinery amendment to allow the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs to appoint approved persons by reference to the office or class of persons so appointed. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Young) adjourned.

page 317

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 4) 1980

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

Second Reading

Mr MOORE:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Ryan · LP

– I move:

This Bill forms part of a package of measures to give legislative effect to the South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Co-operation Agreement. The other parts of the package are the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980 and the proposed Part X of Schedule 5 to the Customs Tariff Act 1966, which will be introduced by a tariff alteration notice prior to 1 January 1981. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Customs Act 1901 to incorporate in that Act the rules for determining the origin of goods the manufacture of island member countries of the South Pacific Forum. The Government is taking this action following the signing of the Agreement by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on behalf of

Australia, at the Eleventh Meeting of the South Pacific Forum on 14 July 1980.

The Agreement is a preferential non-reciprocal agreement between Australia and New Zealand on the one hand and the island member countries of the South Pacific Forum on the other. The prime objective of this Agreement, which will enter into force on 1 January 1981, is to achieve progressive duty-free and unrestricted access to the markets of Australia over as wide a range of Forum island products as possible. To this end the Agreement provides a framework within which Australia can extend unrestricted duty-free or concessional access to its market for specified products from the Forum island countries. The Agreement contains safeguard provisions for Australia’s domestic industries as well as provisions to encourage and facilitate economic and technical co-operation to assist the economic development of the Forum islands. The Agreement is expected to prove a major step forward in the development of our relations with the South Pacific and in strengthening our political bonds with the Forum islands. It reflects the importance of Australian markets for those countries and Australia’s responsibility to assist them in their economic development.

The new rules of origin for Forum island countries contained in this Bill will allow certain specified goods originating in those countries to be accorded more advantageous tariff preference than the preference currently accorded to them under the rates of duty applying to goods from developing countries. Those goods which are now free of duty under the developing country preference rates will continue to be free if originating in Forum island countries. The goods to which the Agreement applies will be listed in the proposed Part X of Schedule 5 to the Customs Tariff Act 1966, as will rates of duty applicable to those goods. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Young) adjourned.

page 318

CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1980

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

Second Reading

Mr MOORE:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Ryan · LP

– I move:

This Bill, which is complementary to the Customs Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1980, amends the Customs Tariff Act 1966 and provides a further part of the legislative framework for the implementation of the tariff preference arrangements contained in the South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Co-operation Agreement. The main purposes of the Bill are to insert a new section 12 into the Customs Tariff Act providing for the Minister to declare a country or place specified in an order to be a Forum island country, and to insert a new Part into Schedule S to the principal Act relating to goods from Forum island countries.

The preferential rates of duty to apply to the specified goods from those countries will be introduced initially by a Gazette notice of intention to propose a customs tariff alteration. This notice, which will be notified in the Gazette prior to 1 January 1981, will propose the insertion of a new Part X of Schedule 5 to the Customs Tariff Act and will cover goods falling within some 300 tariff classifications. The majority of those goods will be admitted free of duty. However, any goods which, if produced in Australia, would be subject to duties of excise will attract a rate of duty equivalent to that excise rate of duty. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Young) adjourned.

page 318

CONSTRUCTION OF COMMONWEALTH OFFICE BUILDING, TOWNSVILLE, QUEENSLAND

Reference to Public Works Committee

Mr McVEIGH:
Minister for Housing and Construction · Darling Downs · NCP/NP

– I move:

Commonwealth office accommodation in Townsville is at present spread over a number of leased and Commonwealth-owned buildings. Some of this accommodation is unsuitable for its purpose, particularly in the area of providing privacy to members of the public transacting business with Government departments. To consolidate most Commonwealth activities in a central location, it is proposed to replace existing fragmented accommodation with a single office complex in the Civic Precinct in Walker Street.

The building will accommodate 600 people and the works will comprise: Three floors of office accommodation; a basement providing storage areas and secure parking for official vehicles; and site landscaping and an open car parking area. The building will harmonise with adjacent low rise construction, will take into account the tropical location and provision will be made for further long term development of the site. All office accommodation will be air conditioned. The estimated cost of the proposal at August 1980 prices is $8. 7m. I table plans of the proposed work.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 319

DEVELOPMENT OF RAAF BASE, LEARMONTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Reference to Public Works Committee

Mr McVEIGH:
Minister for Housing and Construction · Darling Downs · NCP/NP

– I move:

The Government has decided to increase the capabilities of Learmonth Royal Australian Air Force base to support operations by maritime and transport aircraft. It is proposed to undertake the following works: An extension to the general purpose aircraft apron; construction of flight line facilities; and refurbishing of an existing aviation gasolene storage facility. The increased size of the general purpose apron will allow maritime and transport aircraft activity to take place remote from armed fighter and strike aircraft. It will also provide parking for aircraft associated with increased maritime surveillance operations. The apron extensions will be constructed in cement concrete to the same standards as the existing apron pavement.

Five permanent buildings will be constructed to provide flight line facilities and they will be designed to withstand cyclonic winds. These facilities will enable 24-hour servicing of all types of RAAF aircraft deployed at Learmonth. The estimated cost of the proposed works is $3.8m at August 1980 prices. I table plans of the proposed work.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 319

PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 November, on motion by Mr Viner:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– The Opposition does not oppose the provisions of the Bill before the House. It is as well to recall that this is not the first occasion on which this sort of device has been resorted to in the post war history of this Parliament. I can recall two occasions- one in the 1950s under the

Menzies Government and the other in the early 1970s under the McMahon Government. In both instances the exercise foundered and foundered completely. I believe the argument boils down to this: Whilst the device may be well intentioned - if I understand correctly, it is a device designed to provide to members of the Parliament who are not Ministers some sense of responsibility and some opportunity to contribute productively - the fact is that the style of duty, the level of authority and the category of status available is extraordinarily limited. It is limited, of course, by the restrictive provisions of the Constitution. Therein, of course, through these limitations lies the destructive process in this sort of exercise. There is just not enough satisfaction in the roles which are assigned by this sort of device.

On the history of previous experiences with this sort of undertaking, the role of the people assigned to this sort of job, whether called a parliamentary secretary, a ministerial secretary or whatever, has devolved to nothing much more than that of a paper shuffler and a factotem whose duties in other areas are to shake hands with members of visiting groups or dignitaries, perhaps to read a speech for a Minister at some sort of function or to represent him at some sort of community undertaking. In the short term that may provide some diverting satisfaction for a member of parliament; but it is very much in the short term. There is little opportunity to contribute productively and creatively in that sort of role. At least I believe that was the experience of people who had been assigned this sort of role on previous occasions. It is unfortunate. I want to come back to explore that point. I repeat that the Australian Labor Party presents no opposition to the proposal before the House if it is the wish of the Government to try this sort of enterprise once again, no matter how futile, from past experience, the prospects may be.

I would like to say a few personal things. In the second reading speech of the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister (Mr Viner) it was stated that two members of the Government back benches would be appointed as parliamentary secretaries to Ministers. One is a Victorian, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). For the record I acknowledge that, among his National Country Party peers, he is one of the more able members. In working with him on a joint parliamentary committee of inquiry, in conflicting with him in debates in this House on health and welfare matters - he is extremely well informed and a formidable debater - and generally by his performance in this Parliament I find that it is regrettable that for all of his capacities he is one of the most neglected talents in his party. His absence from the front bench to make room for other members from his party who are less able than he is, is testimony of the manner and quality of National Country Party politics.

The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) is the other member of parliament appointed to this role. His appointment is not so much based on the strength of his advocacy in the House as on the fact that there is a total absence in this House of any ministerial representation from South Australia. It is a poor runners-up prize for a very important State. I make no personal observation, nor do I cast any reflection on the abilities of the honourable member for Sturt, but I do make strong critical observations about the second best prize being offered to South Australia. The area we are considering is one of enormous uncertainty, and it is not helped by the certainty of legal opinion which is as certain in its conflict between the people offering the opinion as those people are as certain of the rightness of the opinions which they are offering.

For instance, as far back as 1918 Sir Robert Garran put forward certain proposals where assistant Ministers would be appointed and paid as honorary Ministers or as parliamentary secretaries. More recent opinion is that that would be in conflict with the Constitution. In 1958 the opinion of Sir Garfield Barwick, Douglas Menzies and K. M. Bailey cautioned against any payment. The Speaker at that time, A. G. Cameron, took a fairly tough line of opposition to the appointment of ministerial secretaries or parliamentary secretaries or whatever they might have been called; he asserted that in fact they were holding an office of profit under the Crown - they were Crown appointees - and in that sense were not entitled to recognition by the parliamentary institution. This prevented them from obtaining accommodation. In 1971 the McMahon Government received cautionary advice that in the absence of payment these sorts of appointments could be made.

Let me turn to the more recent views of Professor Enid Campbell and Professor Sawer. Whilst it would seem they agree that appointments could be made in the absence of payment of profit, there are reservations about these appointments in other areas. Without exploring the legal complexities, the issue boils down to the fact that there is a great deal of uncertainty in this area and a lack of precision of assurance as to exactly what can be done. I refer again to the important opinion of Douglas Menzies expressed in 1958. He stated:

Where there is no payment of salary but expenses are allowed I think difficult questions could arise. I think that a daily allowance of a fixed amount to cover expenses might well be regarded as a constituting an offence of profit within the meaning of section 44, sub-section 4. But I would not think so, if there were nothing beyond the reimbursement of actual out-of-pocket expenses.

The words ‘actual out-of-pocket expenses’ mean literally that no more expenses than were actually incurred would be covered. The sub-sections of clause 5 of the Bill provide that the appropriate allowances which have been determined by the Remuneration Tribunal will be the sort of outofpocket expense allowances which will be available to the parliamentary secretaries. If this provision were to be contested I wonder how well it would stand up and how well, in the event of the parliamentary secretaries accepting these allowances, the constitutionality of their appointments would stand up if it should be established that the allowances in fact generally exceeded the actual out-of-pocket expenses they had incurred. From experience one can conclude that there can be instances where this can happen. Perhaps a sagacious and careful member of parliament - I refer to his handling of the out-of-pocket expenses available to him as a reimbursement under the determination of the Remuneration Tribunal - could make savings which could result in an actual profit. In fact the allowance could exceed the actual out-of-pocket expenses incurred by a member of parliament in the discharge of his duty.

I am suggesting that this area is fraught with uncertainty and confusion and has the potential for difficulties in the constitutional and legal sense. In the practical sense it is a proposition which, on the basis of experience, has very serious short comings. It failed in 1958 and again in 1971. It is the latter period about which I have clear recollections. My recollection is, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you were one such parliamentary secretary in that period. The task allotted to these people degenerated to that which I described earlier as paper shufflng and as a handshaking factotum for a Minister. It is not a very fulfilling role for properly ambitious members of parliament who want to make a contribution to the functioning of this institution.

If the work load of the Ministers is such that they need assistance, I cannot understand why, firstly, opportunity within the Constitution is not taken up to make appointments with remuneration, allowing for a proper range of administrative responsibility or, secondly, if that is argued against strongly, there is not a constitutional change. I am sure that there will be a bipartisan response to that suggestion. However in my view it would have to be part of a series of proposals to bring about reform in the parliamentary institution. But that is something that can be looked at later. In the meantime, on the best advice made available to me, I believe that it is compatible for the Government to appoint a Minister assisting the Minister for a particular department and to appoint that Minister as the Minister for State administering the department assisting the Minister for such and such a department. By providing a small office within the department of the principal Minister and obviously the sort of secretarial and other office backup staff, the constitutional problem can be got around. I believe that possibility ought to be explored. Everyone would be much happier if the proposals were explored. Then, if they stand up, as I believe they will on the basis of quite sound legal advice extended to me, they should be applied. If Ministers have too much work, work that is beyond the reasonable bounds of one person, and if it is desired that there should be some sharing of that work, let us do the task properly and ensure that the people taking up some of the burden and some of the excessive work load are able to do so in a fulfilling way and in circumstances which will maintain an incentive for them to contribute their maximum effort in all respects to see that the task is properly done.

I repeat that I believe there is a way around this constitutional problem and that is to establish a department of state assisting a particular department and a Minister of state administering that department, assisting the principal Minister. Certainly it is a much more wholesome and meaningful way of approaching this matter. I conclude by saying that we do not oppose this legislation. We have reservations as to how successful it will be. I would recommend that there are other ways around this problem. I have outlined the method I have in mind. It ought to be explored. Should it be found to have constitutional deficiencies, contrary to eminent legal opinion which I have received, I think it is about time that we explored the possibility for a bipartisan approach to a constitutional change in association with other changes related to parliamentary reform in this institution.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

– As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) has said, the Opposition does not oppose the legislation. But some of us on this side of the House find the legislation rather hilarious. With the greatest respect for the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) and the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson), there is no doubt that this legislation represents a release valve for the Liberal and National Country Party coalition. When one looks at the machinations that occurred in the coalition following the election, one can easily see why these appointments had to be made. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, they are not a permanent feature of our parliamentary system. They have been tried and discussed by Sir Robert Menzies, Sir William McMahon and they are being tried again now. If these positions were successful, if they were needed and if they were playing a positive part in the parliamentary system, they would become a permanent feature of what is required. But they occur only at times when there is great pressure on the government of the day. If we look at the government of this day following the 18 October election, we find that there were certain pressures which had to be released. That situation has ultimately ended up with the appointment of a couple of parliamentary ministerial secretaries who will post letters and shake hands with people who the Minister concerned does not have time to see.

Let me run through the Ministers who have been dismissed. In the first place there was the very senior Minister from Queensland, the honourable member for Mcpherson (Mr Eric Robinson). As a result of representations made to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) by the National Country Party, he was told that he was no longer required in Cabinet. As the song of a few years ago would have said, Malcolm just rang him up and said: ‘Here’s to you, Mr Robinson; Malcolm loves you more than you will know’. That Minister went out the window. Of course, the word went around that there was no room for Groom because the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) had done his homework very well over the last three years. At any period during the last three years it was very difficult to see the Prime Minister walk through this chamber unless the honourable member for Denison was about 1 8 inches behind him.

Groom had to go, irrespective of the job he had carried out, and in came the carnation-wearing, lovely, ruddy-faced member for Denison who had done everything possible to ingratiate himself with the Prime Minister. Over the last five years the Prime Minister has told us that there would not be any jobs for the boys. We have people just in their forties, ex-Ministers of the Thirty-first Parliament, who have retired from politics. The Government back bench today looks like a travel bureau. The honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland) and the honourable member for Boothby (Mr John McLeay) have their bags packed and they are sitting up the back of the chamber. It was not necessary to make them parliamentary secretaries. One will be the Australian High Commissioner to London. I am not sure where the honourable member for Curtin is going but he is heading overseas too. That was another way of releasing some of the pressures that had built up.

In my State of South Australia the Government was really faced with an enormous problem. Old carpets McLeay was retiring to go to London. He had not been very impressive in representing South Australia or the Government, so it suited both his lifestyle and his position in government to offer himself to serve Australia in another way which the Prime Minister very gladly accepted. But then, the question remained: What to do with South Australia. The Prime Minister did not have the brightest of bunches to pick from to put some one on the front bench of the Liberal and National Country Party coalition. Obviously Don Jessop had been going to the wrong meetings to talk about Andrew Peacock’s future as Prime Minister of Australia. So Don Jessop, who is probably the most competent of the people representing South Australia in either chamber, could not be selected because he could not be counted on in future in case there was any sort of vote in the coaltion party room as to who was going to lead the Liberal Party. So he had to go by the board.

Of course, poor old Ian Wilson, the honourable member for Sturt, just has not made the grade. He has been here for a number of years, except for one period in which Norm Foster took the seat for one parliament. He just has not been able to impress upon his colleagues that he really has the necessary wit, energy, drive or initiative to make this team. If one looks at the members of the team, one will see that it doe; not take a great deal of any one of those four qualities to make it. Nonetheless, the Prime Minister has made the decision that the honourable member for Sturt cannot do it. He did condescend to make him a Parliamentary Secretary. So we will see the honourable member for Sturt from time to time being a much busier person than he has been previously. We will be passing him in the corridor as he carries the Prime Minister’s mail to the letter box downstairs. He has a really important role to play.

The most amazing feature of the Prime Minister’s appointment from South Australia was that he appointed some one who no one has ever heard of. Most of the people in the Liberal and Country parties had never heard of Tony Messner. It may be that he will be enormously competent but I can tell honourable members one thing: He was not at the meetings at which Andrew Peacock’s future was discussed. He got the nod and that was all that was required. The period after the election was a very interesting one in that we were waiting to see what was going to occur. That was one of the reasons - the only reason that one can see - that we are now faced with what I describe as this hilarious piece of legislation. We are going to have the honourable member for Murray and the honourable member for Sturt as parliamentary secretaries.

I can understand why the honourable member for Murray was appointed. He has put up with a number of embarrassments as he has watched people who have sat with him and around him in the Parliament go on to the ministerial benches. But it must be the height of embarrassment to watch the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) head for the front bench while the honourable member for Murray is left sitting on the back benches. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, the Opposition has been rather impressed with the interest, attention and presentation that the honourable member for Murray has given any area of responsibility that he has had. At one time he had responsibility for the area of health. We were rather impressed with the way in which he was able to handle it. But it looks as though the honourable member for Murray must have been attending meetings which the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) did not like. It does not look as though the Deputy Prime Minister has been terribly impressed with the honourable member for Murray.

It is not good enough for members of the Opposition to be impressed with him. He really has to do everything so that the old demon Doug will bring him down on to the front bench. The Deputy Prime Minister knows he is in no danger when he brings down the honourable member for Darling Downs because he does not even know that he is in Parliament yet, let alone on the front bench. I can really understand the embarrassment that is faced by the honourable member for Murray when he watches the honourable member for Darling Downs, as the new Minister for Housing and Construction, answer all the questions that will be thrown at him over the next three years. The honourable member for Murray will be riding in tandem with the honourable member for Sturt along the corridors and down the stairs to the post office with all the letters, packages and postcards that the Ministers send. He has now been delivered up.

This is a great moment in the careers of the honourable member for Murray and the honourable member for Sturt. They will post the mail, they will be told by various Ministers that they do not have time to shake hands with the Broken Hill school of pensioners and the honourable members will be able to go into King’s Hall as parliamentary secretaries and shake hands on behalf of the

Minister concerned. It is a great day in the lives of the honourable member for Murray and the honourable member for Sturt. All the appointments do is answer some of the problems which were reflected in the decisions made because of the Prime Minister’s not being able to sort out his Ministry.

Mr HOWE:
Batman

– I will not detain the House very long. I want to make a few remarks about this Bill. It is very hard to follow the act of the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young). I think he pointed to the essence of the matter which was that once again potentially what could be a very useful and important change in terms of the composition of the Government by the appointment of parliamentary secretaries has been made for reasons which are transparently obvious and which relate to very short term political considerations. Indeed, it is a matter of balance rather than, I think, an attempt to deal with a quite serious problem. The Bill attempts to deal not only with the inevitable isolation of Ministers but also with the inevitable isolation of governments. Indeed, one could say that one of the lessons of the last election, and of most elections, is that governments, by which I mean Cabinets, inevitably get out of touch with what people in the electorate are feeling. It is only through elections and through particular instances that occur from time to time that what people are thinking and feeling is brought home to the Government.

Together with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), I think it is most unfortunate that the Government, in making these appointments, has not gone very much further. The two appointments refer only to the office of the Prime Minister and to the area of Primary Industry. If one looks across all areas of government one finds that a number of ministries are extremely heavy ministries indeed, ministries in which very often there are heavy levels of representation. Some of the ministries which are not regarded as relating to the largest departments are often those in which there are considerable levels of representation, for example, immigration. Very often it is impossible for a Minister to give attention to representations without assistance. On the other hand,- there are departments which are very large - the Department of Defence, for example, which brings together what are historically a number of ministries - and it is hard to believe that a single Minister can properly supervise those departments. In fact, we reach a situation where the whole concept of ministerial responsibility can become quite laughable. There is no way in which a Minister can really understand and come to terms with the ramifications of all the decisions that need to be made within a department.

The point I make is that it is unfortunate that the Government has not faced up to the need to achieve reform in a number of key and critical areas. The change provided in this Bill is designed to strengthen the Executive, at least in terms of political relationships. It will also strenthen the Executive in the sense that it will add a couple of additional people and allow those people to provide support to a couple of areas. Of course, the real problem of the Parliament is not so much that Ministers require more support, although that certainly is true, but that there is a sense in which the Ministry becomes less and less responsible to the Parliament and less and less sensitive to what people are thinking and feeling about particular issues. I think the lack of relationship between the Parliament and people in the various organisations and lobby groups who represent interest groups in the community is a fundamental problem that sooner or later we will need to come to terms with. It is unfortunate that the reforms that have been attempted in this area in terms of parliamentary scrutiny of government legislation have been so tentatively adopted. The introduction of legislation committees and of more extended committees in relation to the Budget was pursued in almost a casual way. The kind of activity that was suspended last year because of the pending election was quite laughable in terms of its organisation and its capacity to allow any real examination of the Budget in relation to the various departments. People are able to come to the Parliament to make representations about a specific matter - I guess that that part of the system tends to work reasonably well - but we as a Parliament provide very few opportunities for people to participate in the clarification of goals in relation to their particular interests. They should have the opportunity to scrutinise legislation at a draft stage so that it is possible for them to influence legislation, not by lobbying behind closed doors but by an open process so that they can see legislation shaping up and have the opportunity to intervene. In that way the relationship between the Parliament and the wider community would become one with real content.

I think that the fundamental problem of national parliaments is that almost inevitably they become more and more isolated and less and less responsive to what ordinary people are thinking and feeling. It is extremely important that in the next four or five years, as we move towards building a new and permanent Parliament House at a massive capital expense, we come to terms with the whole question of parliamentary reform. We should do this not simply by taking moves to strengthen the Executive, which is already strong in relation to the Parliament, but byfinding ways of bringing people into the Parliament to play a constructive role - by criticising, by making suggestions about legislation, by raising matters that are of interest to a section of the Australian community - and somehow to see them followed through.

It is unfortunate that in Australia we have nothing akin to the committee hearings of the American Congress whereby it has been possible to enable public debate to take place involving the legislators and very often wide cross-sections of people within the community on particular issues. For example, at the moment there is a very great need for this country to come to terms with the whole issue of the energy future, not only of Australia but of the Western world. That is an issue which affects people at every level, and it is one in which a very wide cross-section of the Australian people have a contribution to make. It is unfortunate that, as we move towards making key decisions about Australia’s energy future, no serious attempt has been made to encourage and develop public debate so that people are aware of the alternatives and of the implications of the policies which are being developed. People should have an opportunity to contribute to the building of policies, as active participants and as people who feel that they can make submissions to the Parliament and can argue for those submissions. Certainly we have committees that to some extent take on that kind of role, but they are extremely limited and poorly staffed. I do not know whether this manoeuvre of appointing parliamentary secretaries will cost a great deal of money. I guess that it will not, but it will cost some resources.

In terms of the future staffing of the Parliament and the additional resources which are given to the Executive, I think we need to think through our priorities. I believe that the priorities ought to be given much more study. It is not enough simply to make some Ministers more accessible by appointing secretaries or even to appoint assistant Ministers, as the Leader of the Opposition has suggested. We need to think through just what is required to make this Parliament and its Executive more responsive to the very diverse and changing nature of the Australian community and to emerging issues. The people should be part of the process of developing issues and policies and should not be simply presented with policy changes by those who represent bureaucracies much more than they represent any significant section of the Australian people.

The domination of this Parliament by the Executive and, in turn, the bureaucracy is a fundamental problem. That problem will not be resolved simply by the appointment of parliamentary secretaries or even minor changes to the legislative committee system. This Parliament needs to be thinking in terms of quite fundamental reform and it is in the interests of parties on both sides of the House to be thinking about how Parliament could be effectively reformed. It is unfortunate that this measure is such an ad hoc measure. Certainly there is no reason to oppose it. It is a pity that it does not go much further and is not part of a wider commitment to parliamentary reform.

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 Hodgman) read a third time.

page 324

BARLEY RESEARCH BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 November, on motion by Mr Nixon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HODGMAN:
Minister for the Capital Territory and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce · Denison · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House has a general debate covering this Bill, the Barley Research Levy Bill 1980, the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Bill 1980, the Wine Grapes Levy Amendment Bill 1980 and the Wine Research 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 DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

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

Mr KERIN:
Werriwa

– We are about to embark on debates covering seven Bills on four great primary industries in this country and we are dividing these four industries by two. One might as well debate the whole Notice Paper as try to fit all these Bills into two cognate debates, but be that as it may. This reflects the growing tendency in this House to treat such agricultural

Bills in a rather cavalier fashion. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) comes into this chamber and delivers a second reading speech which, I guess, is largely prepared by his Department and we do not see hide nor hair of the Minister again. I am not implying, of course, that the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Hodgman) has no interest in agricultural things. He wears very fine carnations and we praise him for that.

One of the powers of the Government is to keep things off the agenda and to arrange the agenda. I do not think that one should start without raising some protest about what is happening here today. It is rather symptomatic of the Government’s arrogant treatment of the Parliament and its rubber stamp attitude to primary industry. I do not think there is any sense in having the pomp and ceremony of last Tuesday’s opening of the Parliament, and for that matter in making such magnificient references to the late Sir John McEwen, who was a great parliamentarian, and not dealing with these four great primary industries. I am sure that if he had been in Opposition he would not have let the chance slip to pass some comment on that. I do not know how many speakers we will have. I suspect there will be one or two on our side and that will be about it.

The Opposition believes that the Parliament is a place for debate and that these are important industries. However, these Bills are virtually identical to Bills warmed over in August and September by the last Parliament. The measures relating to the Wine and Brandy Corporation were known in January of this year. The measures in the following debate relating to the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation require the appointment of people by 1 December. It is a bit late for that to happen now. I think we need to understand why these Bills were not debated during the term of the last Parliament. Of course, the answer is to be found in the timing of the Queensland election. The last Parliament was closed early because of the undignified brawl between the Liberal Party and the National Party in Queensland and the Premier of Queensland’s threats. The National Party sacrificed Senator Maunsell to get Mrs Bjelke-Petersen elected and the Prime Minister sacrificed Yvonne McCombe so as to avoid an argument with Mr BjelkePetersen. I notice that I have flushed out the Minister for Primary Industry, which is good. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) attacked the Queensland branch of the Liberal Party and the honourable member for Mcpherson (Mr Eric Robinson) was dumped from the Cabinet because he told the truth. I would like to quote from his statement at the declaration of the poll. He said:

The political path the Premier has followed is an affront to all Queenslanders who support Parliamentary democracy.

Let us reflect on the record:

The deliberate rigging of electorate boundaries for Party Political advantage;

Vindictive and intolerant personal attacks on anyone who opposes the Premier or his views - be they politicians, churchmen or even Members of his own Party;

Abuse by the National Party of its majority numbers in the State Coalition;

The further weakening of Parliamentary scrutiny of the use of Cabinet’s great powers . . .

Mr Nixon:

– Is this relevant to the Bill?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Order! The Minister has interjected: ‘Is this relevant to the Bill?’ I must admit that if he had raised a point of order I would have had to speak to the honourable member for Werriwa. Whilst the honourable member may make passing references to such matters, he has gone past the making of passing reference.

Mr KERIN:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your kindness. I was raising these matters because the question of why we are here at all debating these Bills is very much dependent on the timing of the Queensland election. The fact that these Bills were not debated in the last Parliament is directly related to that. The calling of the election on 1 8 October meant that we had to meet before the end of the year or within three months to avoid the nonsense and the justified criticism of the one-day sitting which occurred in 1969 - the last time we had a Federal election in October. So we are now meeting for five days. It is a bit of a charade, but I will accept your guidance and get straight on to these barley, wine and brandy Bills.

At the outset, I must say that the Opposition does not oppose the Bills. The barley Bills are non-controversial and provide for the imposition of a levy on the production of barley in Australia for the purpose of financing research. As is typical in the question of primary industries levying themselves to pay for research, a trust account will be set up and an industry research council and State committees will be established. The Opposition strongly favours policies designed to foster research into the needs of our rural industries and, having been a member of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation’s Advisory Council for the past year or so, I am particularly mindful of the role played by that great institution and the need for continuing research in its relevant rural divisions.

At present the Commonwealth contributes annually to barley research in South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia. It is only logical and sensible, now that the Government matches grower levies, that barley should be levied in all the mainland States where it is grown. The way it will now work is that levies collected in a State will be spent on research in that State and the Commonwealth’s matching grant will be spent on a national research program. I do not think it is inappropriate to discuss barley’s place in the coarse grains industry. This year world consumption is expected to exceed total production and thus stocks will be drawn down and there will be upward pressure on international coarse grain prices. One could refer, as some benchmark on that, to the price of United States No. 2 yellow maize, which has risen by about 20 per cent in the last week. Barley is Australia’s largest coarse grain crop but, being a winter cereal, the drought has severely cut production and the fall is now estimated to be about 33 per cent. I understand that the latest estimates indicate that New South Wales and Queensland may even have to import barley to meet domestic demand. So, even with higher prices, the gross value of grains will drop in this year. Domestic prices will rise, but there will be less export availability.

One of the constant debating points in the coarse grains industry is the question of the establishment of an Australia-wide coarse grains marketing corporation. It is my view that this is still a fair way off, but it is obvious that some amalgamations of marketing organisations within the coarse grain crop types could take place. But, before that occurs, it seems that the whole concept of statutory marketing will be examined by bodies as disparate as the High Court of Australia - I do not suppose I should say ‘desperate’- and the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations.

The Government should also constantly examine the performance and raison d’etre of governments’ activities as marketers of primary commodities via the statutory corporations. It seems rather sad that it looks as though it will cost the plaintiffs and the wheat industry approximately Sim to have resolved the case before the High Court with respect to the wheat industry, and specifically the case being put by Mr Verbergang. That indicates that the boards and the corporations are in a position these days to justify their existence. I think that it may well prove that boards and corporations are the very best thing for Australian marketing of rural produce. But we have so many, particularly at State level- over 100 in fact - that people elected to parliaments, including ministers, need to look to the efficiency, accountability, role, functions and flexibility of such boards and corporations. What we are dealing with is administration, often involving huge amounts of money, and the marketing of products where errors of judgment can and do occur. I always see administration if viewed as a process as being somewhat circular. It seems to go through a tail chasing exercise and that does not depend on whether we are talking about the Public Service in general. Sometimes it is a demand for accountability; other times it is a demand for efficiency.

One needs only to point to the recent investigation by the New South Wales Government of the Grain Elevators Board for more evidence for the fact that governments are looking at these kinds of organisations. For some primary commodities there is no competitive benchmark, as far as marketing is concerned. Where there is a monopoly, the market cannot judge performance. So there is a need for State authorities to examine their role and functions, just as there is a need for governments to consider whether they wish to get back to more or less direct control, or whether more or less authority should be delegated.

In case anyone thinks that this is a partisan point of view, I remind honourable members that I am only a moderate compared with Senator Rae and his committee. There are lots of other matters that I could talk about regarding the marketing of rural products, particularly the futures markets and whether that can occur to a larger extent with respect to the coarse grains in this country. Another aspect is the eventual impact of computer selling which is being experimented with and is in place in the United States. These are some of the matters that one could reflect upon.

However, I turn to the wine Bills which parallel those relating to barley as far as the research levy is concerned. The major Bill relates to the replacement of the Australian Wine Board by the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation. This action is part of the process which was commenced under Senator Ken Wriedt when he was Minister for Primary Industry. It was decided to give boards enhanced powers and to have members of boards and corporations more representative of all aspects of the industry concerned. This is a major piece of legislation. It is not just simply fiddling around with the levies. It represents a dramatic change in the organisation of the industry. Again the Opposition does not oppose it, but it is a bit more important than half a speech in a rushed sitting. After all, the Corporation will be given power to engage in trade in the export field, subject to ministerial approval, and will be able to borrow for that purpose under government guarantee. This means, reading between the lines, that the Corporation will not be there just to regulate exports and promote wine but, as this idea grows, it will be out in the marketplace selling. There is one clause in the Bill which itemises, for the first time, the sanctions that will apply if some of the Corporation’s members have a pecuniary interest. The Opposition welcomes the incorporation of this clause into marketing legislation.

The Opposition also welcomes the fact that there has been so much consultation in the industry prior to the legislation and the new structure of the Corporation. By having only four out of 14 members as growers, the Government is recognising the differing interests in the industry. I am always intrigued by the fact that, if the Australian Labor Party proposes a grower minority on a primary industry commodity board, there are large squeals, but few when conservative governments do it. However, we will allow that one to pass.

The problems of the wine and brandy industry are well known and that is why the proposal to allow the Corporation to engage actively in exporting is so interesting. The most recent figures for export show sales of about 6,100 kilo litres, about the same as imports. Whereas brandy exports have risen in the last year or so, wine imports are starting to drop. White wine sales are still increasing and red wine sales at last are now stabilising from the downward swing. The price of grapes will reflect this pattern of consumer preference as has occurred in the last few years. Recently the Bureau of Agricultural Economics informed us that brandy consumption is expected to increase as long as excise levels remain, but the sale of Australian brandy will rise by 9 per cent from the present very low base.

I think that the treatment by governments of the brandy industry has been particularly bad and I believe that there may be a case to say that the Government has actually lost revenue by the measures it has exacted against this industry. With respect I think this is a matter on which neither side of the House has a particularly happy record. At the outset of my remarks, I made the observation that I thought it was sad that so many Bills are now debated in this House without the responsible Minister being present. I am very pleased to see that the Minister for Primary Industry has come into the House for this debate.

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

– I do not know how the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr Kerin) incorporated the Queensland election in his contribution to the debate on this legislation. That election is over and was well won by the National Party. There was never any doubt about that result so, what these Bills have to do with that election, I do not know. However, I will speak briefly to the two measures before us. The purpose of the first Bill is to provide for the replacement of the Australian Wine Board by the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation. It is part of the modernisation of statutory marketing authorities in primary industry which, of course, has been taking place for some years.

I pay a tribute to the former members of the Australian Wine Board and their senior staff who, over many years, have played an important part in the development of the wine industry, in this country and in respect of exports. They have carried out the promotion of wine and brandy in Australia. In 1979-80, $543,000 was invested in this promotion. A special promotion committee supervised these activities. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon), who is at the table - and it is good as the member for Werriwa said to see him there - formed a working party some time ago which comprised representatives of the Australian Wine and Brandy Producers Association and the Wine Grapes Council of Australia to advise him on the future role and structuring of the Australian Wine Board.

In January 1980, the Minister announced that the Board would be reconstituted as the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation with similar powers and functions to those of the existing Board but with a changed membership structure. It is good to have a look at this structure which comprises the new Board. The jurisdiction of the Corporation will cover wine, brandy, rectified grape spirit and, in certain circumstances, grape juice. The Minister said that the Government would be looking to the Corporation to play a significant role in co-operation with the industry in developing and promoting overseas sales.

The Corporation will have the power to regulate exports and will have promotion and publicity functions in export markets as well as in Australia. It will also have the power to engage in trade in the export field, subject to ministerial approval, and will be able to borrow for this purpose subject to the approval of the Treasurer (Mr Howard) under a Commonwealth guarantee. There have been great changes in the wine industry and big investments by large public companies. Grape growers and co-operatives have been disturbed by the emergence in some seasons of the problem of the take-up of all grapes available. Under these circumstances there has been questioning of the Board’s structure to cope with present day needs of the industry.

As outlined in the Bill, the proposals have the general support of the industry. The legislation provides for six representatives of private and proprietary wine makers, two representatives of co-operative wine makers, four representatives of wine grape growers, a Commonwealth representative, and a chairman appointed by the Government. With 14 members, the Board membership will now be larger by three than the previous Board. No doubt it will now constitute a fair balance between sections of the industry. This is extremely important because the wine industry is a diversified industry. The Board will have the power to delegate any of its powers to an executive committee of five members. This aspect is similar to that of the Corporation’s previous decision which worked extraordinarily well. Private and proprietary producers of wine and brandy have the right to nominate their representatives. Their six representatives will be elected by Australia-wide elections.

Another important section of the Bill provides that no more than one representative for a category shall come from any one State. This is a very good section. It means that no one State will have the greater say on the Board. Clause 21 of the Bill states that pecuniary interests must be disclosed by a member in any matter being considered by the Board. If this does not take place the Minister has the right to terminate the appointment of such member if reasonable excuse is not given. Of course, pecuniary interests in this industry have played an important part. It is good to see that the Minister has seen fit to include this clause in the Bill.

Exports to overseas markets have increased, the total of which stands at 6,1 12 kilolitres which is 14.4 per cent greater than the previous year. Exporters are continuing to pursue sales in markets such as the Middle East, Japan and Scandinavia. There are also considerable sales to the United States of America.

The wine producers of the Hunter Valley, in my electorate of Paterson, have been very successful in marketing their wine to the United States of America. Following the record sale of the 1979 European vintage there appears to be intense competition in overseas markets. The local market accounts for the overwhelming proportion of our wine and brandy production. The relatively small Australian market, which is approaching zero population growth, represents a finite market and recently there has been a marked slowing down in the growth of local sales. Our export trade presents the industry with the opportunity to build on the rapid expansion in the local market which occurred over the last decade. Export activity has been the main drive of the industry in the recent six months.

Grape production increased in 1980 and approximately 511,000 tonnes of grapes were crushed. This exceeded that of the previous year. Red grape surpluses again occurred although they were relatively small in comparison with total grape production. There has been a spectacular boom in white grape sales. In 1979 vintage tonnes of grape produced amounted to 476,988 and in 1980 there was a slight increase to 5 10,570 tonnes. Wine production in 1979 totalled 355,092,000 litres but in 1980 the quantity was down considerably by 414,237 litres. Brandy production, shown in litres of alcohol, was 2,208,000 for 1979 and 1,650,000 for 1980.

Export figures are on the up and up. As I mentioned earlier, the industry has export drives throughout the world. Exports to the overseas wine market totalled 5,228,000 litres in 1979. In 1980 overseas wine exports amounted to 6,112,000 litres. Brandy exports, in litres of alcohol, amounted to 140,148 for 1979 and 140,273 for 1980.

The Hunter Valley, which I have the pleasure to represent in this Parliament, has some of the best known wine producers in Australia. I refer, for example, to W. R. Carpenter of Arrowfield, Drayton’s, Denman Estates, Elliott’s Wines, Dr Lake with Lake’s folly - he gets a bigger price for his wine than any other producer because of its excellent quality - Mount Dangar Vineyards, Pokolbin Co-operative, Saxonvale Wines; K. & M. Sobels, Terrance Vale Wines, Robson Vineyards, Tyrrell’s Vineyards, Tulloch, Verona, Wyndham Estate and Wollundry Vineyards.

Mr Nixon:

– What about a sample?

Mr O’KEEFE:

– Yes, I will give the Minister a sample later on. I now turn to the other portion of my electorate at Mudgee which is a big wine producing area as well. Some of the producers include Burn Brae Wines, Craigmoor Wines, Huntington Estate, A. G. Kurtz, Mansfield Wines and E. G. & V. M. Wahlquist. These are all producers of quality wines. So, I have a great interest in this legislation.

Great environmental problems are arising at present because of the aluminium smelters which are to be built in the Hunter Valley. Of course, the wine producers are very concerned that these aluminium smelters with their fluoride emissions could give the industry great problems. The people concerned about the problem the environmentalists and people within the industry - are now getting together. It is hoped that some suitable conclusion can be arrived at. This is an important industry. It has been established since the 1800s. We do not want to see the industry destroyed, but also we do not want to stop another great industry coming to the area. So much for the wine industry.

I turn now to the associated Bill. I wish to say a few words about barley prior to speaking on the Bill itself. Barley is a cereal which contains two main varieties - two row and 41X row. The former is generally, but not exclusively, preferred for malting purposes. Barley is grown principally on pasture land worked up early in the year of sowing. In this way it forms an important phase in the rotation of crops. Like oats it may also be sown for fodder production or for grain. When sown for fodder, sowing may take place either early or late in the season as it has a short growing period. It may then provide grazing or fodder supplies when other sources are not available. Barley grain may be crushed to meal for stock or sold for malting. Crops sown for malting purposes require a combination of light-textured soil of moderate fertility, reliable rainfall and mild weather during ripening. The main growing areas in Australia are situated in South Australia but considerable quantities are grown in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia.

Barley is marketed in New South Wales and Queensland by statutory boards in each State while the Australian Barley Board controls marketing in Victoria and South Australia. Marketing of barley in Western Australia is the responsibility of the Grain Pool of Western Australia. Over the past four years the acreage sown to barley has increased, and in 1978-79 2,777,000 hectares were sown. Production of two row barley was 3,776,000 tonnes while six row barley production was 219,000 tonnes. This represents a gross value of $328.6m. The tonnage exported, 1,703 tonnes, had a value of $149. 3m. Of course, Japan is one of our main export markets for barley.

The first purpose of a barley research scheme is to establish the machinery to collect the levy imposed under the Barley Research Levy Bill 1980. The second purpose is to establish a trust account which has already been mentioned for the funding of research. The third purpose relates to the establishment of a national barley research council and State committees. The proposed barley research scheme will replace existing arrangements under which the Commonwealth has contributed to barley research in South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia. The proposed scheme is similar to other existing research schemes for rural industries. In particular, it provides for government contributions on a onetoone matching basis with grower levy contributions.

The Barley Research Levy Bill imposes a levy on barley production to finance the barley research scheme. It provides for the imposition of the levy on barley produced and harvested on or after 1 September 1980 and delivered to another person, other than for storage on behalf of the grower. Initially the levy rate is to be set at 1 Se per tonne but by regulation it may be varied to a maximum of 20c per tonne.

Barley is produced mainly in Victoria and South Australia and the crops in those States have been less affected by drought conditions than those of north-west and western New South Wales. At the moment, the north-west of New South Wales is suffering a devastating drought. Barley has stood up to the drought conditions better than wheat. It is an important grain crop, the value of which over the last seven years has been as follows: In 1973-74, $190m; 1974-75, $257m; 1975-76, $313m; 1976-77, $295m; 1977-78, $205m; 1978-79, $339m; 1979-80, $464m and 1980-81, $363m. Therefore, it is a very important crop to Australia and it is of great value not only domestically but also for export. It is a splendid export earner and in an average year earns for Australia some $200m. Because of the devastating drought which has occurred the net value of production, in real terms, is estimated to fall some 25 per cent. In the dry conditions in north-western New South Wales and Queensland, the area sown to barley for the 1980-81 year is down. Therefore, it is very important to provide funds for barley research with a view to improving the production and quality of this important grain. The measures have my full support.

Mr FRY:
Fraser

– I wish to make a few remarks, in the main about the Barley Research Bills. However, I was pleased to hear the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O’Keefe) acknowledge that a problem exists in the vineyards of the Hunter Valley. Most members of the Government do not acknowledge that there is any problem there from fluoride emissions as a result of aluminium production.

Mr O’Keefe:

– Yes they do; that is not right.

Mr FRY:

– I know that the honourable member does and I commend him for it, but not all of his colleagues believe that a problem exists. We have all been subjected to some pretty high pressure material in the mail in an effort to convince us that there is no problem there at all. I hope that, as a result of the honourable member’s concern, there will still be, in 10 or 20 years time, a thriving wine industry in the Hunter Valley.

I would like to support all of these Bills because both the barley industry and the wine industry are growth industries in the primary sector. Both have very good long term prospects. Of course, those prospects can be realised only if we are prepared to invest in research sufficiently to improve the quality of our product and remain competitive. We must win our share of what is a highly competitive market. Long term success and growth in those two industries will depend to a large extent upon research effectiveness. That, again, will depend upon the amount of money that we are prepared to invest. Most of the investment is needed for very long term research and if it is to pay off, it must be continued over an extended period. Investment is required in a whole range of research areas. Genetic improvement is very costly and many years may pass before a satisfactory result is obtained, but the work has to be done. Genetic improvement can cover a while range of aspects, including yields, new varieties, disease resistance, malting quality of barley, frost resistance and, of course, drought resistance, which we have come to be very much aware of this year.

The other aspect of this scheme that I believe is very good is that it is tailored to reflect the needs of each State. Although some States have made more progress than others, it is essential to recognise that the research needs of States may vary widely. The need in one State may be for higher yieding varieties or better malting quality. In another it may be for the development of frost or drought resistance. So it is very good that the States should undertake their own research and tailor it to their own needs.

In addition, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation undertakes some research in this field. Although the CSIRO is not a party to the fund,’ its work is important because it undertakes fundamental research, as do some of the universities - the Australian National University in particular - especially in genetic improvement and in what is called genetic engineering. That is very fundamental research indeed. Also, the CSIRO is more concerned with applying the results of such research.

Unfortunately - I shall refer further to this matter later - the Australian National University is under considerable financial stress because the Government has failed to fulfil its promises to the University. The present situation points up the need for research into new varieties and drought resistant strains in particular. As the honourable member for Paterson has said, this year the barley crop will be considerably reduced. I have just made a trip through some of the barley growing areas in northern New South Wales - to Moree, Dubbo, Goondiwindi and into the Darling Downs. The scene was quite devastating. I saw very few crops that would give more than three or four bags to the acre. A lot of them, of course, were completely wiped out. Although some people are harvesting their crops, the shortage of stock food is so extreme that, despite the fact that barley is not the ideal grain for the purpose, many producers will have to retain their crop in order to sustain their flocks of sheep or herds of cattle. Thus, the amount of barley delivered will be very much down. Although, generally speaking, in 1980 acreages were increased, the yields will be substantially reduced. That is particularly so in Queensland, where the yield will be less than half of normal. In 1979 production in Queensland totalled 364,000 tonnes but the estimate for 1980 is only 1 10,000 tonnes, or about one-third of normal. Queensland will have the lowest yield of any State. Production is, of course, down quite considerably in New South Wales. The position in the southern States is not so bad. No doubt the affected States will recover and next year we will see them making up that loss.

My only criticism of this levy scheme is that when there is no crop there is no levy. In turn, the Government has no levy payment to match. However, there is a need for continuing research programs. Some mechanism should be built into the administration of the scheme to even out the availability of the money required. Most research projects are long term projects. They cannot be switched off and on at short notice. Just when money is needed for research the crop may fail and none is available. That creates difficulty for the State concerned, in endeavouring to even out the rises and falls and retain continuity in its program. I understand that this year the levy will produce some $380,000 or $400,000. That will not go far when spread among the various States involved.

Another aspect to which 1 would like to refer briefly is the fact that in the Governor-General’s Speech reference was made to the Government’s commitment to small government. We have to realise that any government intervention, even in such a small matter as the barley levy or the operations of the Australian Wine Board, involves the employment of more public servants. If the barley levy is to be administered, statistics are needed from the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. There will . also be a need for public servants in the Department of Primary Industry to audit payments and administer the whole scheme. Public servants are involved in the actual research, at the State level, in the departments of agriculture, and in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. That points up the futility of a government pursuing small government as a dogma. Even though in the Governor-General’s Speech it was said that the Government was concerned to have undogmatic government, small government has become its dogma. The Government has never put up a case stating why there is anything intrinsically good or intrinsically bad about either small or large government. What it should be talking about is effective and efficient government.

If we need more government in order to invest more in research, then we are quite justified in increasing the Public Service, whether at Commonwealth or State level. If we need more public servants to see that more wealthy people do not evade or avoid paying tax, then we must have more public servants. To commit oneself to a dogma that small government is good government is quite false. It is a dogma to which this Government gives only lip service. It does not really believe in it. Certainly it does not believe in it when it comes to administering various subsidies for the rural sector of the economy. It puts the dogma into effect more when it is delivering services to underprivileged people through the Commonwealth Employment Service or when delivering health and education services. Then it believes in small government. When it comes to subsidising the rural sector, this Government believes in big government and it always has. The Opposition does not argue against that. We have always supported the need for government intervention, and we have always been very strong on research funding. We acknowledge that when a government enters into these schemes it needs public servants to administer them. To pretend that it does not is nonsense.

Referring again to the situation at the Australian National University, I have a report on the current situation from the Vice-Chancellor in which he points out that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) gave an undertaking that financial support for research at the Institute of Advanced Studies at the ANU would be maintained at an adequate level. The Government has not fulfilled that promise. The report points out that staff numbers, which should have increased since 1975, have decreased. In 1975 the number of full time academic staff in all the research schools at the ANU totalled 528; it had dropped to 493 as at 30 April 1980. The proposed establishment for 1978 was 641 and the ultimate establishment was 705. It is now down to a total of 493. Yet the

Government has made statements which say quite unequivocally that the excellence of our research should be maintained. In his election speech on 30 September 1980 the Prime Minister declared that the Government would be providing additional funds for the establishment of research centres of excellence in a number of universities. He made that commitment but he has not kept it. The research school at the ANU is in dire straights in trying to maintain its programs. It has been involved in some very important fundamental research in genetic engineering, and in looking at energy problems in Australia and the development of solar energy. A whole range of very important fundamental research has to be done before the CSIRO and the State departments can apply the knowledge that comes from those research schools at the universities. It is disappointing to see that the Prime Minister has not fulfilled those undertakings. In his report the Vice-Chancellor states:

The adequacy of ‘adequate’ is difficult to determine precisely. But, along with my ‘Budgetary’ paper, the University’s submission provides clear evidence of the present ‘inadequacy’ of support, and of what is now needed to ensure that financial support for the Institute is indeed adequately maintained’.

The Government is saying one thing and doing something quite different. As the honourable member for Paterson has said, the wine industry has expanded tremendously in recent years, and we want to see that expansion continue. If it is to continue effectively, we need continuing research funds over the whole range of the industry. The point should be made that the growth and success of the industry have not depended on imported technology; they have depended very much on developing our own technology and research for the particular needs of the Australian industry. That is how it has to go forward. We cannot import technology.

We have to discover the true value of our environment in the production of these commodities, and I do not think we have reached anywhere near our capacity in many areas of agricultural production. I think there is much more to be got out of our environment, but to get it out we have to be prepared to invest very heavily and consistently over a long term. A good deal of that investment has to go into the fundamental research that is being undertaken in our universities. It is the height of folly to cut back on that area because of some short term economic expediency of government. The approach to research should be nonpartisan. The Australian Labor Party has always strongly supported research funding. We pioneered many of the research funds, and of course such funding is a very strong plank in our agricultural platform. It is pleasing to see that some money is going into research- although we would like to see more- and for that reason the Opposition supports the Bills.

Mr GILES:
Wakefield

– I congratulate the Government for introducing this legislation. In passing, I congratulate the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr Kerin) for giving greater stature to the House in such an important area as rural matters. I think I detected, from the comments of one or two speakers, that a certain amount of parochialism is creeping into the debate. Of course, that suits the honourable member for Wakefield extraordinarily well. If there are two industries that are of tremendous importance to the seat of Wakefield, they are barley and the production of wine and brandy. South Australia does not often lead Australia’s production statistics, but in these two industries it certainly does. Nearly 50 per cent of Australia’s barley is produced in South Australia, the majority of it in my electorate. Likewise, 50 per cent of wine and 90 per cent of brandy comes from that area. If we are to be parochial, I might as well go one step further and point out that Queensland is not the sunshine State. Statistics prove that it is not. South Australia has hours more sunshine a year than does Queensland. Likewise, I have not seen the statistics but I am quite certain that South Australia has a far greater acreage of gardens than the garden State of Victoria has ever had. However, I will leave that aside, because it does get a trifle parochial.

Mr Kerin:

– Is your wine as good as the Hunter Valley wine?

Mr GILES:

– I hope that none of the pollution in the area worries the reputation of the Hunter Valley wines, otherwise there will be a grave takeover risk from the Barossa Valley, Clare, McLaren Vale and Riverland. That concerns me, and I hope it does not occur. In passing, I remind the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Fry), to correct his contentions of a few minutes ago, that on this side of the House the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is very perturbed about pollution in the Hunter Valley.

As I have said, the industries concerned in this Bill are of specific importance to my State. The production statistics for barley in Australia show that just on 50 per cent of Australia’s total production comes from South Australia, as well as 70 per cent of the high quality malting barley grown today, which largely is of the clipper variety. Many of my constituents are specialised barley producers, many others use barley as part of their traditional rotation programs. It is acknowledged that many of these farmers are amongst the finest in the world. I think back to the time a little while ago when I was at the European Economic Community in Brussels, during the European drought. There was no question at that time that the German malting industry was very interested in trying to augment its dwindling supplies of malting barley by purchasing barley from, in particular, South Australia. Although yields are down, as my colleague the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O’Keefe) has said, in South Australia we have been fortunate to have fine opening rains and good finishing rains. Although yields will be down, currently prices are up. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a small table in relation to current prices. I have shown it to the honourable member for Werriwa.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows -

Mr GILES:

– I thank the House. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics currently is forecasting a 15 per cent increase in prices for the coming season. Although I have not put those statistics together, it looks to me at the moment that that level has been exceeded.

This Bill is similar to legislation introduced in the last Parliament. I well remember our attempts then to get the legislation debated. That legislation passed quickly through this House and I thank the honourable member for Werriwa and others for enabling that to happen. Unfortunately, for some reason or other, the legislation could not be programmed for consideration by the Senate in the last day or two of its sitting. That is the reason this Bill is before the House on this occasion. Because of that time lag and the importance of this legislation to the barley industry research program, honourable members will note under a retrospectivity clause in this Bill that it is proposed to impose the levy on barley harvested on or after 1 September 1980.

Due to lack of time, I will not repeat what has been said by other honourable members. They who have covered fairly fully the technicalities of the Bill. However, I would like to talk about one or two of the effects of the Bill. As I remember the facts, levies are collected at the old rate of 1 5c per tonne. In my State the money collected is paid to the Barley Research Committee. This 15c payment is matched by the Federal Government and will be paid to the Barley Industry Research Council, which is a national body. Traditionally most of the Australian research has centred on South Autralia as that is where much of the production has taken place. For example, research work on clipper barley, which is now grown right across Australia although not uniformly, was financed and funded out of the Waite Agricultural Research Institute in South Australia and bred by Mr David Sparrow. It is therefore most important - I must say that my State is perturbed about this - that the national Barley Industry Research Council should recognise the need to help a wide variety of ongoing and, indeed, new research projects in South Australia. A previous speaker in this debate differentiated as best he could between fundamental research and more practical oriented research programs. Of course, fundamental research as it affects the barley industry is at this point carried out primarily in the Waite Agricultural Research Institute.

I notice that you are looking anxiously at the clock, Mr Deputy Speaker, so for two minutes I will refer to the legislation which concerns the formation of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation. This proposal has, considerable merit, particularly in the eyes of the growers, because the power to promote and sell wines overseas has been a source of some doubt under the old Australian Wine Board criteria. I am still privately a bit incensed that an industry as small as the wine industry should need the Electoral Office to carry out properly held elections in respect of the three tiers of proprietary firms. This seems to me to be quite inane but I gather it is consistent with what happens with other industries. So, small though the wine industry is, that is the procedure that is to be adopted. In my view the federal secretary could ring all the members, whom he would know, and conduct a poll ballot just as effectively in respect of most of the categories on which a vote is required.

Secondly, I am very grateful that the Government has allowed an extension to the original draft Bill to include viticultural research if it is needed in the future. This proposal originally came from the Barossa Valley Grape Growers Association and I am very grateful to the various members of the working party and, indeed, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) for that inclusion. I guess that I have used all of my available time. I had better conclude my remarks if I am to abide by the agreement that applies to all honourable members. I congratulate the

Government for introducing this legislation, which is so very important to my State of South Australia and to my electorate of Wakefield.

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 Nixon) read a third time.

page 333

BARLEY RESEARCH LEVY BILL 1980

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 26 November, on motion by Mr Nixon:

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 Nixon) read a third time.

page 333

AUSTRALIAN WINE AND BRANDY CORPORATION BILL 1980

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 26 November, on motion by Mr Nixon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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 Nixon) read a third time.

page 333

WINE GRAPES LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 26 November, on motion by Mr Nixon:

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 Nixon) read a third time.

page 334

WINE RESEARCH AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 26 November, on motion by Mr Nixon:

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 Nixon) read a third time.

Sitting suspended from 6.5 to 8 p.m.

page 334

DAIRYING INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND PROMOTION LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 November, on motion by Mr Nixon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Primary Industry · Gippsland · 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 Meat and Live-stock Corporation 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 DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

– 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 KERIN:
Werriwa

– At the outset, I must say that the Opposition does not oppose the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill, about which I will speak first. This is a simple machinery measure to increase the maximum rates of levy which can be applied for domestic promotion purposes and for research. The reason for the necessity of the potential for a doubling of the levy is that falling milk production has resulted in a decline in funds. Apart from the drought which, as honourable members know, has affected New South Wales and Queensland particularly, the reason the industry has the capacity to pay this increase in the levy is that production has dropped and therefore the sale of surpluses at a loss or near loss on the export market to some degree has ceased as there has been a rather major restructuring in the dairying industry. However, some people in the industry now fear that we soon will not produce enough milk and dairy products for local consumption and therefore urge an increase in domestic prices to ensure that people will be prepared to continue with the 75 hour to 90 hour working week that the industry entails.

Whilst there is no surplus that cannot be profitably sold I am sure that the industry will be in a strong position to gain the justified price for its product in relation to its real cost. More pressure will come in the future from imports. New Zealand’s export prospects, particularly to the European Economic Community, are of particular importance to Australia. My colleague the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) will be speaking on aspects of this issue so I will not touch upon it. However, much could be said about the dairying industry and its problems and prospects in general terms but there is really no time to debate those matters or to inform the House as we are trying to get quite a few Bills passed.

We can talk about the economic situation of the Australian Dairying Industry. It is expected to improve slightly overall in 1980-81. For example, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics predicts that unit returns for producers are expected to be some 15 per cent higher this year than the previous year. This is mainly due to the higher domestic prices, a significant improvement in export returns and a larger proportion of milk output being used for fluid consumption. This again relates to the question of the restructuring that has taken place in the dairying industry since the subsidy was phased out and the reconstruction program was engaged in. This increase in unit returns is expected to more than offset the decrease in the overall output.

The figures forecast by the BAE are reasonably interesting because as a result of the process which I have described the gross value of dairy production is forecast to rise by 9.5 per cent to some $750m in 1980-81. But, as farm costs are forecast to rise by 9 per cent, net returns to farmers may not improve markedly. In a way this parallels a recent study into agriculture in Australia which shows the relationship between the cost price squeeze and the increasing productivity that marks primary production in Australia. An article that I recently read stated that in the long term there is a trend of minus 2.3 per cent in the cost pressure. The ratio of prices received to prices paid shows a declining trend for Australian primary producers throughout the industry of some 2.3 per cent. The only way that primary industry can compensate for that decline is to relate the volume of output to the volume of input. In a way this is a measure of productivity.

Over the long haul - and the period of the study was 20 years - the study showed a 2.1 per cent increase in productivity. So we set the figure of 2.3 per cent against the figure of 2.1 per cent and one notes the reason primary industry has coped with the economic vicissitudes of the Australian economy and industry conditions in general, and that the difference of .2 per cent by and large relates to the restructuring of the farms as they have become bigger and more productive units. The production estimates for 1980-81 are still expected to fall by nearly 5 per cent. That fall reflects the continuing downward trend in the numbers of dairy cattle and a decline in yield a cow as a result of adverse seasonal conditions. For quite a time the number of dairy cows has been dropping. That is due to the continuing exits from the dairying industry, to the switching to beef production by dairy farmers and to the process of restructuring in the industry. Honourable members can now see in the figures that the number of farm exits and the rate of decline in dairy cow numbers does seem to be easing.

Consumption of fluid milk is expected to rise marginally but not to any great degree. Even so, this, combined with the estimated drop in milk production, is still expected to result in substantially less milk being available for manufacturing dairy productions in 1980-8 1 . Output of the major products will be affected with the sharpest falls being recorded in the production of butter, casein and wholemilk powder. Output of cheese which has been one of the brightest spots in dairying production and sales is also expected to fall in 1 980-8 1 , reversing, at least temporarily, the strong upward trend of recent years. Production of the other products of the dairying industry is estimated to remain at about the same levels as in the previous years.

In summary, after a number of years of steady contraction, the domestic market for milk and dairy products seems to be stabilising. The principal factors responsible for this are the increased consumption of cheese and fresh and cultured milk products and the relatively stable demand for fluid milk and dried milk powders which together appear to be offsetting the effects of the slowing decline in butter consumption. We can say that, with the relative stability of the domestic market and the low levels of stocks in most of the major dairy products, it is estimated that exports in 1980-81 will be significantly below the volume shipped in the previous year. The exception again will be cheese exports which are forecast to rise slightly by something like 63,000 tonnes in 1980-81.

I turn to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill, to which there is more substance, as the Bill I have just spoken on concerns the simple question of an increase in the levy. As I said, my colleague, the honourable member for McMillan, will discuss more fully the current aspects of the situation within the dairying industry. But this Bill contains a few measures which are substantial. At the outset, I must say that this Bill is not opposed by the Opposition. However, I must point out that it has been the Government’s dilly dallying which has resulted in two members of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation not being appointed by 1 December of this year when ostensibly they should have been. It does not mean that the form in which the Corporation is presently constituted is in any way invalid; there is no real worry about the Corporation structure at present. The Minister for Primary Industry has made several announcements to this effect. As honourable members will realise, the Corporation has a producers consultative group which has provided the Minister with a list of four names to reappoint or replace two producer members whose terms expired on 30 November 1980.

The Bill before the House increases the number of producers allowed on the Corporation to three. As the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) somehow cannot pick three out of the four names provided to him, the corporation will probably have to hold its first meeting this month without full membership. This is due mainly to the fact that the producers consultative group has now been asked to give the Minister an ‘adequate geographical and industry spread’ of representatives for him to choose from. That committee, I am informed, does not meet until 9 December. The four names put up by the PCG in order were Mr Graham McCamley of Queensland, Mr Norm Seccombe of New South Wales, Bill Bodman of Victoria and John Newman of Western Australia. That indicates a fair geographical spread, but perhaps the Minister can inform me how that does not quite meet his request at this stage.

The choice has been expanded to five and we will see who the Minister picks. Mr Seccombe has been on the Corporation. The loser in the elective process so far is a fellow by the name of John Kerin who would seem to have something going for him. I cannot quite put my finger on what he has going for him but he seems to have been a good bloke. We just do not know whether he will be reappointed. The producers consultative group has put up the list of names. I do not know whether we can rightfully say that the problem has arisen due to the Minister’s indecision. I think it is mainly due to the fact that the Parliament rose early and these bills have been held over. Some doubts have been expressed that the Minister is unhappy with the four names, that he wants the ranking changed or that he wants to appoint not one or both of the two top-ranking people.

I do not actually accept that, but it seems to me that if we are to have this system of election, which seems to be somewhat curious, and as the Minister has the capacity to choose he simply has to take a firm decision. If he wants Mr Newman who is a sheep man from Western Australia - I think it is important that we have a person from the sheep meat industry on the Corporation - he simply should appoint him. While we have this system surely he cannot buck from appointing the man who comes in first or second without jettisoning the system. I am not a betting person but I guess I would have a fair amount of money on McCamley, Seccombe and Newman. The amendments increase the Corporation’s membership from nine to eleven. The producers representation has been increased from four to five. The meat processors and exporters have had their representation increased from one to two. I note in a Press release that the chairman has been reappointed for another three years. I understand the same applies to Mr Geoff Jones. The opposition considers that he does an excellent job. The Australian Government has a representative. There is also a member with special qualifications.

Another aspect of this Bill is that the AMLC Act established this producer consultative group I have referred to but also established an exporter and abattoir consultative group to provide twoway communication between the interests it represents and the Corporation. The second of these consultative groups included both livestock and meat exporter interests. This proved unsatisfactory because of the divergent interests of the two classes of exporters. Again, as honourable members will realise, the Meat Council of Australia, which is a separate body altogether from the matter we are discussing, has recently formed its own association and has reflected some of this divergence. It thinks that by setting up this organisation it can more fairly put forward its point of view. It sees the meat side of the industry as being very separate from the livestock side of the industry. Its members believe that they can speak with more of a united voice, and I am informed they will not make statements unless they can reach a consensus. The only section left out of this group, of course, is the public abattoirs.

The Bill seeks to amend the Act to provide for the establishment of two separate consultative groups to get away from these divergent interests. One will represent livestock exporters and the other will represent abattoir proprietors, meat exporters and processors. These groups will replace the present single composite group. The requirement in the present Act for an Australian meat industry conference also is to be replaced by a provision for the Corporation to conduct such smaller conferences and meetings as it considers necessary. One would assume that the AMLC will conduct these conferences and seminars as it considers necessary.

There are many matters one can talk about with respect to the Australian meat industry. I guess the perennial questions of classification and live sheep exports and the views taken by various people - the meat producers, the unions and the livestock growers - may bother the Minister from time to time. There have been calls for a study on the question of Australian live sheep exports. Whilst the previous study may have related to figures of a while ago, I believe that by and large the parameters of the question are well enough recognised by government and the industry not really to require any further study. I think that again it is just a question of political will and decisions to be taken.

A recent study, again in a BAE journal, pointed to the changing structure of the sheep industry. It pointed out that the number of ewes for the first time in a long time has exceeded 50 per cent of the flock but that the number of wethers is coming down and that the age of the sheep population in Australia is substantially younger. The impact of the drought on that figure is not 100 per cent clear to me. We will all be a little in the dark until the drought ends, but by and large some of the fears that were expressed - they are still being expressed- in the light of this study have been shown to be not so fierce. If the absolute number of sheep drops to a sufficient level we can say that we cannot sustain the present level of live sheep exports and, on the other hand, if the number of ewes has gone up absolutely, the Australian sheep industry is in a better position than it was a year or two ago to produce the sheep for the live trade.

I will not canvass the issues put forward by the union concerned at this stage, but I am sure that it and most people in the industry recognise - I am sure the Minister recognises - that the union has a legitimate interest to protect. Of course, the other question concerns carcass classification, particularly as it applies to the beef industry. As the Minister will be aware, the Cattle Council of Australia has written to quite a few people in the Parliament including the Minister with respect to a motion that was carried at its second conference. The motion read:

That the Cattle Council of Australia advise Australian Agricultural Council that sufficient manual classification trials have been completed, and that the Council now asks for a firm date for implementation be set by AAC, and that date to be no later than 30 June 1 98 1 .

I guess that is putting this question very clearly in the Minister’s basket. I guess we can all agree that the number of trials that have been going on have stretched over a period of some ten years now. It probably is very wise action by beef producers to get this matter resolved one way or another. They have pointed out that, after all, trials and the implementation of the idea of a classification scheme have been going on in Western Australia - some 90 per cent of the beef herd in that State has been involved - and thereby it is about time that we had a national classification scheme. I still have some residual doubts about that, but it seems that many producers - not the producer organisations themselves - seem to think that carcass classification is some magic way of getting a stabilisation scheme by the back door. I would not put the two matters together.

I believe that if we can have a national carcass classification scheme simply as a matter of political will the cattle producers and the pressure they can exert will be met with some decision. If there are still real doubts in the States or in the Minister’s mind or within the industry that insufficient work has been done and that elements of this classification are yet to be tested and trialled, I guess it is fair enough to put forward the point of view that the process should be speeded up. I am not inclined to express a firm point of view on this matter at this stage except to say that I would like to see some more conclusions reached.

There are a few other matters I could mention in respect of the meat industry. Anyone who talks about the livestock industry as it is at present is very cognisant of the drought. But, despite that, average sale yard cattle prices for 1980-81 are still expected to improve on the average of last year. They are expected to increase by nine per cent which is the same sort of increase I mentioned for dairy products.

The drought has increased yardings and the quality of the cattle market has deteriorated. I guess one of the bad effects of that has been that there are too many abattoirs in Australia, in particular in New South Wales where that has been very clearly demonstrated by the number of abattoirs that have shut down. After the weather gets better, even fewer animals will go through the abattoirs. That again will cause problems in country town. The only point I put forward in that regard is that the Government should really think of introducing a seasonal employment scheme.

During the election campaign I was in the town of Roma on the day that the abattoir there shut down and put off 300 people. In the same period the Wheat Board in Queensland put off some 60 people on the western downs. It seems to me that the Government should contemplate the reintroduction of some policy on seasonal unemployment while the seasonal downturn is being experienced. Quite clearly the farmers and the graziers will need skilled slaughtermen and other skilled people again when weather conditions get better. I urge the Minister to take that into account when he is discussing drought measures, particularly with the New South Wales Government which, I understand, is pressing very strongly within the Commonwealth-State drought negotiations for recognition of the unemployment question in our country towns. That is all I wish to say on this Bill.

The Opposition strongly supports the two Bills. The first Bill relating to the dairying industry is simple and straightforward. The second measure relates to three changes with respect to the structuring of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation which are unexceptionable. There is some controversy about the appointment of people to it. But I do not think that is a question of great moment or debate. The Opposition welcomes and supports the Bills before the House.

Mr Ian Robinson:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

– The two Bills which we are debating this evening, the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill and the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill, are significant. Yet they are really machinery in nature. Firstly, I refer to the amendments to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act. I commend the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) for the action the Government has taken to increase representation on the Corporation. There is no doubt that this is a move which will further strengthen the operations of this very significant organisation born out of a crisis in 1977 when the beef industry in Australia was on its knees and when this Government was under some challenge as to the ways and means of remedying and replacing the Australian Meat Board. In the time of the Corporation’s operation, it has shown very clearly that the concept and the responsibility which it has undertaken contributes very greatly to the strengthening of the industry and to a better situation of cohesion. Above all, there is a very marked degree of improved efficiency both at the producer level, in the processing and in the marketing of beef in Australia and from Australia to overseas markets.

I recall very clearly debate in this House about the wisdom of undertaking such a venture. There is no doubt that the decisions were made with a great deal of effort on the part of the then Minister, who was supported by the present Minister in those days and by a number of other members of the National Country Party. The foresight that was so pre-eminent in that matter has, I am sure, been more than justified. Tonight we see again presented to this House very appropriate restructuring of the Corporation. As I mentioned a moment ago there has been an increase in representations on it and improvement in the process of selection of representatives on it from the various sectors of the industry. In particular, the Bill includes an extension of the term for the chairman of the Corporation, not in terms of the individual that occupies that office, but in the strengthening of the actual office by making it a position of greater permanency and one that can attract people of calibre to take the responsibility that is so important to the operation of the Corporation.

I turn now immediately to the Dairy Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill because time is limited. There are three important aspects that arise. The first is the industry contribution to research activities which is very important so that there is a proper relationship between industry participation, the work that is encouraged by the Government through financial assistance and through such organisations as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and other instrumentalities. But more important is the amendment to improve the financial situation for the promotion of dairy produce in Australia and in other countries where we seek and continue to expand markets. All of this is of vital importance to an industry which is unique among all primary industries in Australia. It is unique because dairying continues to be and will always be, I imagine the kind of industry that requires a seven-day a week approach on the part of those people who operate and participate in it. That approach is required on the farm and by those in the manufacturing sector who are required to recognise that it is an industry that just cannot stop. It cannot stop because of its very nature. Cows must be milked twice a day every day of the week. It is a sobering thought. In fact, it takes one back half a century to the pioneering days of this country.

Despite modern technology and all that has been done to improve efficiency in the industry, there is no way that we can get away from this element. Yet changes have come from other directions in the form of shorter working hours for the industry in general and in the degree to which wage levels have risen. These have had an enormous impact on this industry. The impact has been more than in any other industry because of its nature to which I have just referred.

My concern is for the very real problem that we face, a fall in the size of the industry in terms of production. Although there has been some stabilisation of the number of dairy farms in Australia, the fall in production is a very serious matter. The figures have been mentioned. I repeat them. It is estimated that production for the year ahead will be down to something like S million litres which is probably a shade less than is required to cover our domestic requirements. If we look at other statistics we find a trend that perhaps, in some ways, equates with an improvement in viability because we are less dependent on the export market. Production of butter alone has fallen dramatically. Nevertheless, the real issue and the purpose of this legislation is to ensure that there is a continuity in terms of promotion to obtain the best possible markets and as a consequence to ensure that there is the highest possible return to the producer. That leads me to say at once that I was rather surprised at the comments made by the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr Kerin). He said that this industry which has a 70 to 90 hour a week requirement on the part of those who work in it needed a price increase. I remind him that currently in New South Wales in particular the prospects of a price increase for the industry are absolutely nil. They are nil for one reason. The Minister for Agriculture in that State, a member of his own party, has just told the industry that it can forget all about any prospects of a price increase currently, and that the industry has had its increase for this year. He will not even consider further action.

Earlier today in this House we were reminded that the cost of grain has increased by no less than about 20 per cent. With a raging drought, the dairy farmer is faced with a situation where his costs have increased by at least 20 per cent for normal feed purposes, yet the New South Wales Minister for Agriculture says: ‘I won’t even entertain a price increase’. The words of the honourable member for Werriwa ring a bit hollow at this time and in these circumstances.

Mr Kerin:

– I am a statesman.

Mr Ian Robinson:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I do not quite know what that interjection was all about, but I do not think it solves the issue that I have raised. In conclusion, the Government is to be commended for what it has done in respect of its responsibilities overall for the industry in Australia. The elements of it are very dependent on State determinations in many fields, and I have already mentioned the price in each State for whole milk for local consumption. The stabilisation schemes, the other work that the Federal Government has done, and the tremendous contribution made over the years by the present Minister in the formulation of so many policies have afforded a degree of viability in the industry that is unequalled if we look back over the past couple of decades. This measure is intended to strengthen further that overall approach. I certainly hope that it will foster a further improvement in the recognition of the market aspects of the industry and the research factors which are so important.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Before calling the honourable member for McMillan, I remind the House that the honourable member is about to make his maiden speech. I ask that he be accorded the due courtesies.

Mr CUNNINGHAM:
McMillan

- Mr Deputy Speaker, as the newly elected member for McMillan I wish to convey to you, my congratulations, and I ask you to convey to the Speaker my congratulations, on your election to your respective positions. It is 3 i years since the electorate of McMillan was formed, and I am proud to be the first Labor representative in that area. Only four representatives have been elected to the seat in that 31 years. Before addressing myself to the Bills before the House, I seek your indulgence to make a few comments about the electorate I represent. The electorate of McMillan has the physical characteristics of three distinct regions. These regions are separated by two mountain ranges. The beautiful Dandenong Ranges divide the northwest corner of the electorate from the centre, and this area is referred to as the Upper Yarra Valley. The south-west area of the electorate is divided from the centre by the Strzelecki Ranges. This area is centred on the old coal mining town of Wonthaggi and also takes in the tourist area of Philip Island. When one travels from west to east, the centre region takes in the very productive dairy and vegetable country, which is an asset to that electorate. At the eastern end we have the La Trobe Valley with its vast coal deposits, which are being exploited to generate electricity. Those coal deposits extend in to the electorate of Gippsland, which is represented by the Minister for Primary

Industry (Mr Nixon), who is sitting at the table. The two electorates share those great coal deposits.

The three regions have very different economic situations. The north-west and south-west regions have declining economies, and these are the areas where the Government’s policy of cutting back on public spending is having a bad effect. In fact, the reductions in public spending are dragging down the areas. Both areas lost their public transport in the last four or five years, they have large unemployment problems, and they are dependent on a new base to get their economies going again. That is not so with the centre of the electorate, which has a fully electrified rail line running parallel to the Princes Highway. Because of the importance of the highway to energy production this year that section through the electorate was declared a national road. It has not helped to improve the road; it is one of the worst highways in the State and carries the greatest amount of traffic one would want to see. With the way the railway system is being run in Victoria at present, it would not be a bad idea if that rail line were to be declared a national line. The Government is talking about closing it down, and Gippsland definitely will suffer from the problems in the rail industry in Victoria. These two vital transport avenues are essential to the future development of the brown coal deposits in the La Trobe Valley and are vital to the economy of the State of Victoria. Mr Deputy Speaker, there will be other occasions on which I can raise matters of local importance, and I thank you for your indulgence.

I now address my remarks to the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill, which is now before the House. This Bill seeks to raise the levy farmers pay for research and promotion for the Australian market and for export markets. I wish to go back over a 10-year period, give a quick summary of what has happened to the dairy industry, and analyse the reason for the need today to increase the research and promotion levy. We have to go back to 1 968 to start assessing the situation, to the period when the dairy industry was encouraged to produce, with the help of government subsidies, for the British market. At that time Britain was making the first move to join the European Economic Community. In the period between 1968 and 1973, when Britain eventually joined the EEC, the Australian diary industry had to face up to reality. That reality was that production had been geared to a market that would no longer be available and it was going to face a massive oversupply situation. Sadly, those five vital years were wasted while State dairy organisations squabbled, State governments could not agree, and the Federal Parliament debated two price quota schemes of one sort and another. Looking back through the Hansards for that period, one can see that basically no leadership was coming forward to overcome the problems of a Government decision not to proceed with sales in the EEC through Britain. The then Minister for Agriculture, the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), had this to say in a dairy industry debate in April 1 972:

I am afraid that I find it hard to see the future for the industry other than one in which it must relate its volume of production to the available market.

Over this period negotiations were taking place with the EEC and Great Britain on how much produce would be allowed entry from Australia and New Zealand. Australia’s negotiators, some of whom still sit on the Government side quickly conceded Australia’s rights to that market. This was not so with our neighbours over the water in New Zealand. They took a very strong stand on behalf of their industry and were successful in achieving a phase-out period right through until 1980. The importance of this can be seen from a 1977 New Zealand Dairy Board report, which states:

For the foreseeable future, access to the United Kingdom market, especially for butter, will remain vital for the New Zealand dairy industry. In June 1976 the EEC Council of Ministers established the level of United Kingdom access for New Zealand butter at 125,000 tonnes for 1978, 120,000 tonnes for 1979, and 115,000 tonnes for 1980; and arrangements for access after 1 980 will be discussed during 1978.

Those discussions are still taking place. In Brussels the negotiations are proceeding. Because the Australian industry had allowed itself to be pushed out of Great Britain, hard decisions had to be made. The industry had a massive oversupply situation and had been abandoned by the Government of the time, which was not able to achieve what the New Zealand Government was able to achieve for its industry. History shows that at the end of 1972 this reconstruction became the responsibility of a Labor government, and production had to be tailored to economic markets. Those hard decisions had to be taken. By this time there had been a severe drop in the industry. At this stage farmers throughout the industry could see the problems that were ahead. I suppose we could say that some of the wise ones - I was not one - decided that it was time to get out and they left in droves.

The job of guiding this reconstruction became the responsibility of a man who, until the recent election, was a member of this Parliament. Of course, I refer to Senator Wriedt. At this stage I would like to pay a tribute to Senator Wriedt for the work that he did in this Parliament. He is respected throughout rural Australia. This is particularly evident in the dairy industry. In the period from 1970 to 1980 the number of dairy farmers in the Commonwealth declined from 60,000 to approximately 20,000. The industry has bottomed out into a well balanced supply and demand situation. In fact, some people are starting to say that perhaps we will run short of some products. It is here that we see the need for research funds to increase productivity and the need for promotion funds for us to compete in the market place. That is the reason why honourable members on this side of the House support this Bill.

The report of the Dairying Research Committee which was tabled in this Parliament last week shows that in the last 12 months a total of $1,149,031 was allocated for research on a variety of programs, including herd testing and related research, research into the sale of new products on the home market and research into education and planning, some of which related to the farming community and some of which related to factories and factory personnel. This is vital to the productivity of the industry at present. It is good to see that the farming community has asked the Government to come forward with this legislation and is prepared to put in money; in other words, it is prepared to put its money where its mouth is.

The Australian Dairy Corporation’s report of 1978-79 shows that some $3.2m was spent on promotion. That is something which did not take place in years gone by. From 1946 to 1970 the dairy industry did not need to promote its products as it was fairly well protected on the market. The major allocation of this money was spent on the promotion of butter on the Australian market. That leads me to ask a couple of questions. We are legislating for the Dairy Corporation to levy this money for promotion on the Australian market. The questions are: How secure is the Australian market? Is there a danger that imports could take over a large proportion of that market? Should the Australian dairy market be protected from unnecessary imports? That is of major concern to the dairy industry of McMillan and, for that matter, the whole of Australia.

The dairy industry has gone through very hard times and has bottomed out at a situation in which I think it could now expect some protection for the market that it has left. Many hundreds of jobs depend on there being a viable industry with a secure market, particularly in the electorate that I represent - McMillan. It is an area which has been described as the New Zealand of Victoria. That area can compete with New Zealand production at any time. The McMillan electorate has the grass growing ability and everything else of New Zealand.

To assess whether there is a danger of dairy products, particularly butter, being sold on the Australian market, we need to look at the position of New Zealand in relation to the EEC. As I have said, in 1979-80 New Zealand shipped some 1 1 5,000 tonnes of butter to the EEC through the British market. At this point, New Zealand is endeavouring to renegotiate access for 95,000 tonnes over the next three years, which represents a drop of some 10,000 tonnes a year. But at the present time the talks in Brussels are stalled. The French Government is holding out to reduce New Zealand to a one-year contract of 60,000 tonnes. This could place an extra 35,000 tonnes on the market. Having had a study tour of New Zealand, I know that that country depends for its survival on getting a good price for its dairy products. It is only a matter of time before New Zealand has to find markets for that surplus butter.

I will now quote from a report which deals with an examination of the dairy industry in France, Denmark, England, the United States and Canada. This report was presented to the Australian Dairy Corporation by Mr Bill Pyle on 30 August 1978. Referring to the EEC’s agricultural policy, he stated:

To talk to world political, trade, commodity, marketing and farming leaders as I have done in the last few weeks is a salutary lesson. Above all, it teaches one to be realistic. To look at the world around us in terms of what is POSSIBLE, rather than what we would LIKE.

I am afraid we have lacked judgment in the past. We have not yet learnt to sum up the problems which face us on world markets and say: ‘THIS one we have a reasonable chance of changing and will fight like hell to bring about. THAT one we cannot change; we must face up to it, adjust to the situation and learn to live with it’.

He continued:

Those changes may come . . . But that day may not be in our lifetimes and we would be foolish in the extreme to listen to the politicians and the optimists who suggest that it is in sight, lt is not . . . We must face up to reality. The EEC and its domestic agricultural political situation is a fact … In other words, we must accept that protectionism is a fact of life - in the EEC, and the USA and Japan, as well as in Australia . . . The question we must ask ourselves, I suggest, is whether it is any longer possible for agricultural industries to survive in any developed nation today without significant measures of protection.

It seems that our senior politicians and bureaucrats, as well as our farmer decision-makers, have become too introverted; too willing to play to the gallery at home, instead of getting out into the world and rinding out what really makes it tick . . . finding out why trading blocs like the EEC have the policies they have and why they have persisted, seemingly in the face of economic logic and international justice.

The likelihood of New Zealand losing its market in the EEC and being forced to export to

Australia is very real. Already we have seen the move to sell New Zealand cheese on the Australian market. The outcome of the Bill before the House will be to levy dairy farmers to promote their products on the home market. It is interesting to speculate what share of that market they could be promoting on behalf of the New Zealand Dairy Board. To indicate to the dairy industry just what the position of the Fraser Government is in regard to this matter, 1 will quote from an answer given by the then Minister for Special Trade Representations in November 1979. His reply was to a question regarding the present position of the Government’s consideration of the Industries Assistance Commission’s report on cheese. The question was asked by the former member for McMillan. The Minister’s answer reads:

Last year the Government certainly sent a reference on cheese to the Industries Assistance Commission. I assure the honourable member that the views of the Commission will be very carefully weighed when a decision is made on the report.

That reference to the IAC was made on 15 June 1978 and a draft report was released in October 1978. The terms of reference required the Commission to report by 15 December 1978 and the report was signed on 1 5 March. It has not yet been released or tabled. It would be a good question to ask why. Perhaps it has something to say that the Government does not agree with. The Minister, in his answer, continued:

In June 1979 consultations were initiated with New Zealand within the Joint Dairy Committee. During those consultations the New Zealand Dairy Board indicated that its objective in the Australian market was to develop a modest place for New Zealand cheese and a share in reasonable market growth.

Tonight we are debating a Bill, the purpose of which is to increase the growth in the market for dairy goods in Australia. The Minister for Primary Industry has said that the New Zealand Dairy Board intends to have a share in that modest growth. It seems rather odd that we should be passing legislation which allegedly concerns the Australian farmer but which, while funding areas of his market, funds also the New Zealand market.

In conclusion, I must say that, if the negotiations in Brussels break down, the time will have arrived for decisions to be made in Australia to protect our dairying industry. The industry has gone through a very tough time and, as a result, has been reduced to a standard of considerable efficiency. Those who still remain in the industry have fought hard to retain their interests. Those who work in the factories associated with the industry - I refer in particular to the people in the electorate of McMillan - have seen those factories develop in such a way that their operations are now economic. It is important that the market be retained for the Australian product. Whether the Government believes in so-called free market enterprise or anything else, I believe that it will have to make decisions on behalf of the industry reflecting the fact that the industry must be protected from unnecessary competition. This is especially so when the products concerned can be produced economically by Australian farmers from their holdings and Australian workers in our own factories. It is not my intention to see any further reduction of employment in those rural areas which depend on this industry which is now most efficient. I support the legislation.

Mr Ewen Cameron:
INDI, VICTORIA · LP

– Firstly, I congratulate the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) on his maiden speech, which I thought was very good. In his second reading speech the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) said:

The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Dairy Industry Research and Promotion Levy Act 1972 in order to increase the maximum rates of levies which can be applied, for domestic promotion purposes and for research, to whole milk and butter fat production—–

Later in the second reading speech, the Minister stated that:

Falling milk production in Australia has resulted in a decline in the funds collected from the domestic promotion levy in recent years. This reduced level of income is threatening the Australian Dairy Corporation’s ability to continue to finance the rising costs of its established domestic promotion programs.

The last paragraph of the second reading speech refers to:

  1. . this amendment which is sought to facilitate forward planning for research in the coming years. An early increase in rates of levy paid by producers or the totality of the research effort is not contemplated.

I bring those points to the notice of the House because the purpose of the Bill really is to set a higher level for levy collection.

I wish to direct my remarks mainly to the area of research. I have been looking through the 1980 annual report of the Dairy Research Committee. I have found it a most fascinating document. I will take a few extracts from that report, as the Committee is obviously doing a very fine job. I am sure the Minister will agree with me that the Committee deserves to be congratulated. The Chairman’s letter to the Minister states:

Dairy farmers pay the research levy to increase their net farm income and improve the industry. They expect the research scheme to provide new procedures and techniques which reduce costs of labour, increase returns or improve the quality of milk and dairy produce.

The letter further states:

The 1979-80 national milk output at 5,400m litres is 4 per cent less than last year. This was due to poorer seasonal conditions. Increases in yield per cow, slight increases in stocking rates and the maintenance of the national milk output from a declining farmer population continue to be the trend in the industry.

The pertinent phrase in that sentence is a ‘declining farmer population’. The letter continues:

Dairy Research Program Allocations totalling $1,149,031 were approved from the Dairying Research Trust Account, during 1979-80. They financed a varied and comprehensive program undertaken by scientists and technologists engaged by CSIRO, Departments of Agriculture, other State instrumentalities and dairy organisations. Almost all the grants represent but a fraction, mostly barely one fifth, of the total costs incurred in carrying out the projects concerned. Without DRC sponsorship, most of these projects would have been shelved or never started at all. This also means that the Committee is involved in a program, which is far greater than the financial statistics would imply.

I will certainly not take much more of the time of the House, because time is short, in dealing with the report, but I must note that the report makes fascinating reading. I will briefly quote from the research program and draw out interesting parts. Part of the program deals with a report to the farmers, that is, a communication between the Committee and the farmers who provide the prime finance which the Federal Government matches. The report states:

More than 25,000 copies of a report titled, ‘What’s Happening in Dairy Research’, were despatched to dairy factories for distribution to all dairy farmers in Australia. This was the first Committee publication, which was specifically written, designed and produced for the dairy farmer. This comprehensive booklet informed the farmer of the more important farm research, which the Committee has sponsored by means of the research levy. Assistance towards the dissemination of technical information was maintained through continuing grants for research periodicals and technical bulletins, such as the Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry and the Journal of Dairy Technology.

The Committee is maintaining communication with the industry; I feel that this is most important.

The research program for 1979-80 includes examination of areas such as dairy farm research into soils and pastures and problems such as animal-pasture relationship. In respect of animalpasture relationship, the program has examined feeding for peak production, a very important area that was closely looked at. The Committee also examined areas of animal physiology - for example, hormone treated steers to help in oestrus detection. Improving the efficiency of milk production was also examined as was animal health in respect of copper deficiency and copper parasite interactions in dairy cattle. This was examined particularly in Gippsland and, I assume, in the electorate of the honourable member for McMillan.

In looking at farm management, the Committee examined the cleaning of milking machines, developing a national dairy herd improvement scheme and feed budgeting extensions. It also looked at farm management economics - a most important sector. It examined dairy manufacturing research in fermented dairy products such as the control of proteolysis to retard cheese maturation and cheese making with ultrafiltration of UF processed cheesebase. The Committee established a comprehensive program to examine whey, unit processors and their relationships. It looked at milk protein products and the chemical approach to monitoring dematuration processes of milk protein. Milk fat studies were also undertaken with examination on the milk fat globule membrane. The Committee looked at the control of milk quality, studying, for example, the early detection of psychotropic spoilage and determination of the consumable life of pasteurised milk, cream and yoghurt. That was a very comprehensive program for one year. One part of the program that greatly appealed to me was the dairy education scheme which provides postgraduate studentships - a continuing program - through which:

Assistance and incentive is provided through these awards for persons already engaged in dairy research to further develop their skills.

They are available to experienced graduates, currently involved in dairy research projects requiring assistance to undertake additional studies, which would materially enhance the effectiveness of their future research.

There is also a program of travel grants. These are normally awarded to graduate personnel working on dairy research projects to facilitate the study of new research techniques developed overseas and to exchange information with institutions involved in related work.

Dairying industry bursaries are offered to students sponsored by a dairy organisation to undertake courses in relevant fields at Australian universities, colleges of advanced education or the Gilbert Chandler Institute of Dairy Technology. The Committee has a scheme of study grants which are intended to provide financial assistance to research workers, extension officers and factory technologists wishing to visit other research groups within Australia to seek and study new techniques or investigate the application of findings by the industry. Once again, I recommend the Dairying Research Committee report to anyone who is concerned with, or interested in, that industry.

I wish now to refer to a proposal that has been placed before me in my electorate, which contains a considerable dairy industry. Although it is not a traditional irrigation area in the north-east of Victoria quite a number of dairy farms pump from the various rivers. The proposal was put to me by the North Eastern Dairy Company, a cooperative which operates in the Kiewa district. Over the past few years some 30 of the cooperative’s traditional suppliers have left the industry. Very few young people are entering it. These traditional farms are still there. They run beef cattle or sheep but in the main beef cattle. The co-operative is very concerned about the situation that has developed. It would dearly love to get young people, or others, back into the industry. The main problem is finance. A great many of these farms can be quickly and easily put back into milk production. The equipment is there and it is just a matter of restocking and encouraging share farmers, or perhaps lessees, to go back into the industry. There is potential for these farms to go back into full time dairying production on a share or lease basis.

Mr Humphreys:

– You have to lend them the money.

Mr Ewen Cameron:
INDI, VICTORIA · LP

– I am coming to that. Many of the properties require capital input. The availability of finance to a family which wishes to enter into a lease or share agreement is very limited. The Victorian Rural Finance Commission can lend on first mortgage only. The Commonwealth Development Bank is reluctant to lend to share farmers, and the trading banks do not usually lend for stock purchases. The major source of funds is stock agents loans, which usually have a maximum term of three years and an interest rate of 14 per cent. Today the figure is probably 15 per cent or even 16 per cent. I do not know what increase will follow last night’s statement by the Treasurer (Mr Howard), but the rate charged is fairly high. This places an extreme burden on anyone who is interested in taking part in this loan program.

The Primary Industry Bank of Australia, although a suitable financier, is so overladen with loan applications that it may not be able to assist. However, the main problem is that PIBA relies in the main on the trading banks to make the initial loan which it then refinances. As I have already stated, most trading banks are not interested in lending on stock purchases and are inclined to be hesitant about becoming involved in PIBA loans anyway.

Many of the dairy farms in the Kiewa area are owned by the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation. It is hoped that this body will be able to assist in getting these properties back into dairying.

My purpose in mentioning this case is that the North Eastern Dairy Company, although unable to finance prospective dairy farmers in regard to capital equipment and stock, is prepared to offer a number of services. These include the supply and installation of bulk milk vats, short term finance for milking equipment and the supply of fodder. The company is also prepared to offer management advice and budgeting and technical information. It is prepared to act as a guarantor on bank loans to suitable suppliers of milk to the company. It is prepared to offer these services in order to ensure that the decline in milk production does not continue. The dairying industry in general would benefit from increased milk production and the employment situation would also benefit from the promotion of a share and/or lease scheme. Such a scheme could be used as a stepping stone to farm ownership by young people. The story of this dairying industry in the north-east of Victoria must be similar to that which can be told of many other traditional dairying areas throughout Australia. We should be considering carefully the possibility of encouraging young farmers to return to the dairying industry.

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

– in reply- Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner the House was discussing the barley research Bills and the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Bill. Since resuming, the House has had before it the Australian Meat and Live-Stock Corporation Amendment Bill and the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill. I thank those honourable members who have taken part. Thoughtful contributions have been made regarding all of the Bills, I will confine my remarks to what has been said concerning the latter two.

The honourable member for Werriwa (Mr Kerin) expressed the impatience that is being exhibited throughout the industry concerning progress towards carcass classification. He referred to the slowness with which the matter seems to be proceeding. If the honourable member wishes to know what progress has been made I commend to him the annual report of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, which was tabled by me today. The chairman, Mr Jones, points out that at the moment draft tenders have been lodged with the Department of Administrative Services and that, on receipt of approval, tenders will be called for the supply and installation of trial semi-automated equipment at two abattoirs. He points out that it is expected commercial trials will begin in mid- 1981. The Government and the industry are anxious to proceed as far as possible in the matter.

The honourable member for Werriwa also raised the question of seasonal unemployment schemes, having in mind the downturn, the seasonal close down and the closing down through drought of a number of abattoirs in the drought stricken areas. I can confirm that the New South Wales Government has raised this matter with the Federal Government, but the fact is that, as the New South Wales Government knows, we believe that money ought to go to the farmers and graziers throughout those drought stricken areas. If the New South Wales Government were to get off its backside and do something about it the money would be going out a lot more quickly than it is, and a lot more people could remain employed in the feeding of sheep and cattle in normal farm work. Unfortunately, the New South Wales Government seems to be bogged down in its own red tape and the process is very slow. That would not give jobs to seasonal meat workers who, I must point out, are paid a loading because their work is seasonal. I suppose that no one knows better than they do that the abattoirs will close down at some time in the year.

I congratulate the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) on a thoughtful contribution in regard to the dairying industry. It is a pleasure to have a member of the Opposition who knows something about rural industry.

Mr Lloyd:

– Even when he gets mixed up and says that McMillan is better than Murray as far as dairying is concerned.

Mr NIXON:

– I thought he got mixed up by not realising that McMillan is not quite as good as Gippsland. Apart from that small parochial point, I thought he made an excellent contribution. One view I do share with him concerns the prospect of the horror that could be created should the railway line close down. I am pleased to hear him state a firm view on that. We have been quite ecumenical about that and perhaps I will join with him in approaching the Victorian Minister for Transport to make sure the railway line is kept open. The honourable member raised the real question of the problems that New Zealand has as a result of its negotiations with the European Economic Community. As he properly pointed out, it is true that the Australian industry has adjusted to the situation following its loss of access to the EEC some years ago. The Australian dairy industry has made a massive adjustment not only on the dairy farm but also in the factories and, indeed, in all aspects of production. We have weathered the storm that New Zealand still has in front of it. When one hears of the tonnage of butter that New Zealand is sending to the EEC and of the difficulties it is having in its negotiations with the French, one can have only sympathy for New Zealand.

I must point out to the House and to the honourable member for McMillan that the answer to New Zealand’s problems, if they come to a head, does not lie in the Australian market. The sooner the New Zealanders and everybody else understand that, the sooner we will get to a proper working relationship with New Zealand in respect of its problems. I think it is fair to say that the New Zealanders appreciated the stand we took on the sheep meats regime which helped them enormously in their position at the bargaining table in relation to their negotiations on butter. I hope that they are able to sustain their position, otherwise their industry is in for a very difficult period. 1 repeat that I do not believe for one moment that the answer to New Zealand’s problems, if it runs into any difficulties, lies in the Australian market.It would be much better for the two countries to get together and try to foster a third market in another part of the world. It would be much better to get together and tackle the problems of EEC protectionism. I have made my position on that issue very clear on a number of occasions.

The honourable member for Cowper (Mr Ian Robinson) knows the industry backwards and he made his usual useful and thoughtful contribution. The honourable member for Indi (Mr Ewen Cameron), in an interesting recount of the work being done, demonstrated the real value of this dairying Bill. I thank other honourable members, who I have not been able to mention, for their contribution to the debate on these Bills.

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 Nixon) read a third time.

page 345

AUSTRALIAN MEAT AND LIVE-STOCK CORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 26 November, on motion by Mr Nixon:

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 Nixon) read a third time.

page 345

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENT (WESTERN SAMOA) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 November, on motion by Mr Viner:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The title of the Judicial Appointment (Western Samoa) Bill indicates that it relates to the appointment of a judge of the Federal Court of Australia to the Western Samoa Supreme Court. The reason for this legislation is that the judge has certain entitlements in Australia; the appointment to Western Samoa is at the request of the Government of Western Samoa, and the acceptance by the judge is with the consent of the Parliament. The Opposition supports the legislation because it merely gives approval to what is a fair proposition. Australia is a very significant country in the Pacific area. The Pacific Forum is tangible evidence of the fact that there is a great deal of harmony in the Pacific area. The appointment of one of our judges as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Western Samoa is a significant appointment and it does help the continuance of good relations between Australia and all countries in the Pacific region.

The Bill is very small and it provides for a number of formal matters. Clause 4 provides for the appointment to take effect from 7 July last and to continue for such period as the acceptance would apply. If there were to be an extension of that appointment it is deemed that the approval would continue. The second reading speech of the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) indicated that the period in mind would be two years. Another part of the legislation indicates that the judge will not be paid an Australian salary but that his pay and entitlements will be totally looked after by the Government of Western Samoa. On the same note, he will preserve all his rights as an Australian judge. Clause 6 of the Bill states that he will maintain his entitlement to his pension rights. It is a formal matter; the Opposition applauds the measure and wishes it a speedy passage.

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 Viner) read a third time.

page 346

QUESTION

COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF AUSTRALIA

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

– by leave - I move:

This motion is required because of the vacancy created by the retirement from this House of the former member for Wills, Mr Gordon Bryant.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 346

REMUNERATION AND ALLOWANCES AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 November, on motion by Mr Viner:

That the Bill be now read a second time. (Quorum formed).

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

– Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House has a general debate covering this Bill and the Ministers of State 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 DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-(Hon. Charles Jones) - 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 SCHOLES:
Corio

– The Opposition does not oppose these Bills. It has been the Opposition’s practice to accept decisions of the Remuneration Tribunal in respect of those matters it determines. It is our belief that decisions on matters which require legislation should be accepted by the Parliament. In fact we believe that the Tribunal, wherever possible, should make determinations which are not subject to parliamentary review. We think it is an undesirable practice for the Parliament to be able to impose the ultimate sanction and pass judgment on decisions of the Tribunal, especially those reflecting on members of parliament. Such a practice is a remnant of a bygone age and could well be done without. It would be far better if members of parliament not only were seen to be independent of salary fixing but also were to be eliminated from any actions relating to their salaries.

There has been some diminution of the remuneration available to Ministers. I think this has been the result of a misguided attempt to convince the community that the Parliament does not want to do something which is unacceptable to the community. I can understand the Government’s approach to this. Obviously on occasions there is some embarrassment in respect of decisions concerning the remuneration and allowances of Ministers which require legislative effect. However, I believe that if a person is worthy of his position and the Tribunal adjudges the worth of the position held by that person, it should be good enough for this Parliament to accept that decision and pass the necessary legislation.

The Tribunal has departed from the practice in recent times in respect of judges, and there seems to be a problem in this area which the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) and the State Attorneys-General might look at. I draw the attention of honourable members to the table on page 18 of the report of the Remuneration Tribunal, which shows a very great differential between the salaries and allowances paid to senior judges in Australia, not only of the High Court and the Federal Court but also of the various State courts. This situation would seem to be undesirable, and I believe that some judgment should be made in respect of uniformity of salaries paid to State and High Court judges. The Tribunal argues in its report that it is necessary to advance the salaries of Commonwealth judges by a significant amount in order to restore their relativity with the judges of other courts. At the moment the salary paid to the Chief Justice of the Queensland Supreme Court is significantly in advance of that paid to the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. It would seem reasonable that judges sitting in courts of similar jurisdictions in all areas of law should receive comparable salaries. The great variations in the salaries paid to judges of State Supreme Courts would seem to be unjustifiable. A person whose case is heard in one of the smaller State Supreme Courts is entitled to believe that his case is being heard with equal validity and by a person of equal standing to the Chief Justice of Queensland or New South Wales. The law should not be seen to have a different price, but that appears to be the case if we look at the remuneration paid to the judges of various

States. Certainly in Commonwealth law one does not have a choice of which judge in a State will hear one’s case. Looking at the remuneration paid, I question why the Chief Justice of Tasmania is worth $17,000 a year less than the Chief Justice of Queensland. The position seems to be anomalous, and it could well be the subject of discussions between Attorneys-General in an endeavour to come to an arrangement about equality or uniformity in respect of the remuneration of judges. I think it is not unreasonable that a person who has equal responsibilities should receive a comparable remuneration. A person who appears before a court is entitled to expect that his case will be heard by a judge of equal quality to another, no matter where he presides, and I believe that those judges should receive equal remuneration.

Successful barristers who move to the Bench make very substantial sacrifices, and the best quality barristers should be encouraged to move to any area of the Bench in which they seek to preside. As I have said, the Opposition does not oppose this legislation. We believe there is justification for its being introduced and passed through the Parliament at a time which is much closer to the release of the Tribunal’s report.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It is not my intention to oppose this legislation. Rather, it is my intention to take the opportunity to express some views in relation specifically to the Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Bill. Schedule 3 of the Bill contains the new range of salaries and allowances to be paid to the judges of the various courts of the Commonwealth. At the outset I want to say that I believe that a judge’s position is an onerous and difficult one. To be elevated to the Bench has definite financial advantages in terms of an assured salary and a pension fund to which judges do not have to make any contribution from their own salaries. On retirement, after a qualifying period of a number of years, they have access to a more than generous superannuation and pension scheme. I recognise that barristers have access to a reasonably high income, depending, of course, upon the skills of the individuals. Nevertheless, the ultimate ambition of somebody who has pursued a legal career is promotion to the Bench. It is the pinnacle of achievement. I know that the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Hodgman) and the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Ellicott), who are young men, aspire to such a position in later life because it is seen to be the pinnacle of a legal career, the Everest of years in the legal profession.

In looking at the salary range being made available to judges and other members of the courts through the Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Bill one might admit that those learned gentlemen qualify for such salaries. One thing which seems to be escaping the notice of this nation is that the number of judges in this country and the number of people making decisions in relation to law, such as magistrates, is almost the same, if not the same, as the number of Federal and State politicians. We are reaching saturation point. I will not apply the term ‘two bob a dozen’ this year, but there are hundreds of people in this rather exalted position. I feel that it is time some changes were made in the manner in which decisions are arrived at by the Remuneration Tribunal. The salaries of ordinary members and Ministers of this Parliament are not determined by members of parliament. We have set up a Tribunal comprising three members, one of whom is a judge, to do that. Imagine the hue and cry that would come from the nation if we appointed a member of parliament to the Tribunal. The people would be up in arms if we had one of our members determining our salaries.

What I am about to say is not intended to be a reflection in any way on Mr Justice Campbell. It is not a personal comment. I believe that it is high time the Government recognised that there is a great need to appoint someone else to the Tribunal to consider the salaries of the judiciary. The honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) made reference to the differences in salaries from State to State. Queensland has been cited as a State which pays a high salary to its Supreme Court judges. Because one State pays most generously and because the Commonwealth courts are, in theory, more important than the State courts, does it mean that whenever a decision has to be made about salaries they have to set about catching and overcoming the salary level paid in that State? I would say that the answer is no. If the only judge on the Tribunal is a Queenslander, it would not be unfair to suggest that he would be acutely aware of the existence of differences.

My plea is that the Government look at the situation to see whether there is a way in which the salaries and allowances of judges can be determined by an independent group. When one of the members of the Tribunal is a judge, the public has every right to feel that there has to be some bias. I am sure that fair-minded people, including the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, would acknowledge this point because the salaries of judges are generally way above those of the Ministers of the land. It would be unfair to suggest that I had a prejudiced view of the members of the

Bench, but it is fair to say that the proliferation of judges throughout this country in recent years has reduced their status in the eyes of the community.

The judges of the High Court of Australia are great and wise men and should be looked upon with admiration. The Chief Judge of the Federal Court of Australia - a court which every year seems to assume more responsibilities and duties - and his fellow judges are also men of significance. However, because of the growth in the area of family law and in other areas, the number of judges has probably trebled, quadrupled or even multiplied beyond that in the last five years. They are still offered salary ranges which are miles above those of the average individual in the community - the people we represent. The lowest paid member of the judiciary receives $48,000 a year. How many people in our electorates would be on salaries of that level? Surely the work that is done in some courts is not worth as much as the salaries received by any of the 26 Ministers of the Commonwealth. For some years I have been making comments in relation to this matter. I am reminded tonight of a well-documented speech I made on 10 November 1976 after I had done a great deal of research into salaries and the number of people involved in the administration of the law. Since then there has been an even greater proliferation of judges.

I conclude my comments with the plea that the structure of the Remuneration Tribunal be changed so that when the salaries of judges and others are considered a judge is not sitting on the Tribunal. In all fairness to Mr Justice Campbell - a fair man from Queensland - people could think from time to time that his very occupation prejudices his view. I know that it does not, but what will happen when he retires? What will his successor think? We, as a parliament, must guard against that whilst ensuring that the salaries set in this area are realistic. In conclusion, I note that the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment is giving advice to the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) to ignore my comments. It is funny how the legal fraternity sticks together at the appropriate time.

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 Viner) read a third time.

page 348

MINISTERS OF STATE AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 27 November, on motion by Mr Newman:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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 Viner) read a third time.

page 348

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

Debate resumed from 2 December, on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That a Standing Committee be appointed to inquire into and report on such matters relating to the circumstances of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people and the effect of policies and programs on them as are referred to it by -

resolution of the House, or

the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.

That the committee recognise the responsibility of the States and the Northern Territory in these matters and seek their co-operation in all relevant aspects.

That the committee consist of 8 members, 5 to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip and 3 to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip.

That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker.

That the members of the committee hold office as a committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time.

That the committee elect as Chairman of the committee one of the members nominated either by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip.

That the committee elect a Deputy Chairman who shall perform the duties of the Chairman of the committee at any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the Chairman and Deputy Chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the Chairman at that meeting.

That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and refer to any such sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine.

That the committee appoint the Chairman of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the Chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to perform the duties of the Chairman at that meeting.

That a majority of the members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee.

That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may take part in the public proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote or move any motion or constitute a quorum.

1 2) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.

That the committee have power to move from place to place.

That any sub-committee have power to move from place to place, adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment.

1 5) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it.

That the committee be provided with necessary staff, facilities and resources.

That the committee in selecting particular matters for investigation take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication.

That the committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report.

That the committee or any sub-committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Standing Committees on Aboriginal Affairs appointed during previous Parliaments.

That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders -

Upon which Mr Lionel Bowen had moved by way of amendment:

Omit paragraph (1), substitute the following paragraph: “(1) That a Standing Committee be appointed to inquire into, take evidence and report on:

the present circumstances of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people and the effect of policies and programs on them, and

such other matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people as are referred to it by -

resolution of the House, or

the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.”.

Omit paragraph (3), substitute the following paragraph: “(3) That the committee consist of 9 members, 5 to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip and 4 to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip.”.

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

– I wish to speak briefly to this issue. This is the only standing committee proposed to be set up for which the Government is putting forward revised terms of reference. That revision is made to effect control over the autonomy of that committee - in other words, to deprive the committee of autonomy in deciding what matters of interest to Aboriginals it shall investigate. This is a pernicious development. It is one to be resisted in a parliamentary democracy. No good reason is advanced by the Government why the recommendations of the National Aboriginal Conference, the body which has been hailed by the Government with a fanfare declaring it to be a development of democracy, self-determination, self-management and self-government for Aborigines, should not be accepted. Yet when it is asked for advice, that advice is spurned. When it makes suggestions to the Government the Government always knows better. Paternalism is the order of the day and will continue to rule while this Government is in power.

Basically what the National Aboriginal Conference asked for was very reasonable. It asked that the pernicious and racist regimes of Queensland and Western Australia, which have recently been condemned at the United Nations, should be investigated by this House. An amendment to the Constitution has never been carried by a greater majority than in the case of the amendment which gave to this Parliament the power to make laws concerning Aborigines. Indeed, it was carried in every polling booth, including those in Queensland. The overall vote revealed that more than 90 per cent of the Australian people were in favour. Yet, whenever it comes to the crunch in facing up to the Premier of Queensland, the Premier of Western Australia or, indeed to the Northern Territory Administration on matters of Aboriginal concern, it is always found expedient to be conciliatory, to be patient, to negotiate and not to assert the rights of Aborigines or the sovereign responsibilities of this Parliament. It is always found better to wait awhile, to look at other priorities, to give priority to Ranger uranium and like concerns, to pastoral concerns or perhaps to tourism if Uluru is concerned. Everything else must be looked after first. Once all the roads, the access and all the other facilities that are wanted for white people, European culture and European communities are obtained, we can start looking at Aboriginal rights, if there is any room left for them.

That is the position with this proposed committee. In the past, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs has produced some good results and reports. I have been a member of the committee concerned with producing two of the reports, one on health and the other on legal services. I believe that its suggestions were detailed, well thought out, well based, well argued, well supported and, indeed, indisputable. They were unanimous all-party reports. Many dollars, hours and much energy and time of members of this House and the staffs of those committees were put into producing those reports and disseminating them around Australia. The net effect has been to pigeonhole them.

The health report was referred to an interdepartmental committee. In other words, the report was taken back into the secret structure of government, taken away from parliament, taken away from the public, taken away from Aborigines and put into the heart of bureaucracy. That is where it sits today. We do not know anything about what is to be done about the recommendations in that health report or, indeed, of the previous report on alcoholism among Aborigines. Some of the recommendations certainly have been carried out and implemented. But by and large the priorities of this Government are: Let us meet the profit motive first; let us get the profits high first; let us get the economic structure working first; let us invite all the investment we can from overseas first even if we sell out the farm - let us do all those things - and, if there is any time and money left, we will look after the needs of the poor, the poverty stricken and the Third World component in Australia.

That is not good enough for an enlightened and humane community. We are an affluent and well-off country - one of the richest in the world - and yet one in seven of our population lives below the poverty line. That is unacceptable. Yet when those Aborigines, elected by Aborigines to speak for them, advise this committee to investigate the oppressive regimes of Queensland and Western Australia, of which the United Nations is ashamed and of which we should be ashamed, the response is to change the terms of reference of the proposed committee. These are the same tactics that are used by the Premier of Queensland in discrediting any grassroots move for democracy in Aboriginal settlements in Queensland. He says that the Aborigines are being influenced by outside stirrers and by overseas black communist money. He will not give them even a communal ownership cattle lease. Yet he sold freehold land to foreigners to develop a luxury hotel complex at Yeppoon. It is not good enough to clip the wings of our own investigating committees and put them in the hands of an administration, an executive, which has shown itself to be incompetent, unrealistic and inhumane in its administration of these affairs. The Opposition protests at the proposal and supports the amendment.

Mr LES JOHNSON:
Hughes

– The House has considered this matter previously. Most of the arguments in support of the Opposition’s amendment have been enunciated in very considerable detail and with supportive argument. I was interested to hear the speech of the honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham) who was a former shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I think he has made some very important points in support of the Opposition’s amendment. The Standing Committee of this Parliament which undertakes the work of inquiring into the problems of Aboriginal communities engages in very great sacrifice. I have served as a member of the Committee and have gone around that seemingly endless circuit - around and around the back blocks of Australia - in parliamentary recesses when other members are devoting their time to serving the interests and needs of their constituencies. One would like to feel that the time being spent is being spent effectively.

I have often felt that there has been a circumvention of the potential prowess, capacity and opportunity of the collective wisdom and interest of Committee members.

I remember at one time spending a very long period - many non-parliamentary sitting days, weeks and months - inquiring into the problems of Aboriginal alcoholism. It seemed to me to be such a disjointed approach to reach isolated communities by chartered aircraft or service aircraft after many, many hours of travel and then to be confined to the consideration of the effects of alcohol on Aboriginal people.

I do not think it is a sensible proposition to separate the issues. A great range of problems beset members of Aboriginal communities. 1 have often thought that they were befuddled about the arrival of members of parliament who exhibit great interest in the affairs of Aboriginal people. Obviously it would be an important occasion for the community. The Aboriginals would become frustrated when they learnt that we were there to talk only about for example, alcohol. They have other aspirations and many other problems. Foremost among them at that time were other aspects concerning their health and problems related to housing, education, employment opportunities and the like. Yet, the Committee was locked into this one eccentricity, if one likes, or one consideration to which the Committee had been referred by the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.

It would seem to me to be a sensible proposition for the Committee to have the capacity to determine how best it could deploy itself when it sets off around the circuit and how it could best utilise its time and resources. If we happened to come upon a community which did not have a great alcohol problem, it seems to be a ritualistic thing to have to go through the tedious inquiry and say:

Well, we have established that you do not have an alcohol problem. Why do you not have an alcohol problem?’ We still have to go on with the routine. The Aborigines would be busting their sides to tell us that their real problem was the destruction of their dignity, unemployment or whatever. It would make sense to me if the Committee was able, with the specialised knowledge that it has and with the benefit of the advice that comes from the Government and especially with the advice that can come from the National Aboriginal Council - the representative council of the Aboriginal people - to set off into a community and look at whatever problems present themselves.

It is tremendously important for members of that Committee to go off and build up their overall knowledge and expertise in respect of Aboriginal problems generally. I think the Committee could find its own way. There is no question that there are communities that are identified with wholesale deprivation, where morale is down and where all sorts of statistics indicate serious deficiencies relating to nutrition, other health aspects or whatever. Those communities should be looked at. The Committee ought to have, in my view, the prerogative to look objectively at those communities with a view to ascertaining the manner by which problems can be overcome. That would involve a consideration of all of the matters that have been the subject of separate inquiries from time to time undertaken on a community by community basis.

So, nothing of a political nature is being put to the House tonight in this alternative proposal. The feeling prevails, predominantly among members of the Opposition, that the Committee ought not be just the pawn or tool of the Executive which sometimes could want to relegate the Committee to a relative backwater rather than put it into the mainstream of confrontation with Aboriginal problems. So, if this amendment is carried tonight those honourable members who will become members of this Committee can look forward to an opportunity and an experience whereby they will have the chance, community by community - I hope on a basis of priority in terms of deprivation - to learn about Aboriginal problems in their entirety. I think that the suggestion ought not to be regarded as a disparagement of the Committee’s work by any means nor as a disparagement of the Chairman’s role. The other night I thought that the Chairman was acting as if he was personally affronted by the alternative proposition moved by the Opposition. Rather it is a supportive attitude that has been proposed with a view to having the Committee undertake its work in a more constructive and effective way. When the Committee leaves the community it should be able to come back and make recommendations to the Minister and to the Parliament as to how that particular community’s problems could be overcome.

I earnestly ask honourable members to consider this proposition put by the Opposition especially as it has been put by former Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs, a former shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and by a number of people who were devoted in their work to Aboriginal affairs over many years. They must be evincing the great sincerity which has caused them to activise themselves over such a long time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Before I put the question, I wish to say one or two words. All new members and, indeed, old members are required by the Standing Orders to pay their respects to the Chair when they enter the chamber, when they pass the table or catch the eye of the Deputy Speaker or Chairman of Committees. Two honourable members in the last few minutes have passed between me and the honourable member who was speaking previously. That is not allowed under the Standing Orders. I trust that other Deputy Speakers will pull those honourable members up in future.

Question put:

That the paragraphs proposed to be omitted (Mr Lionel Bowen’s amendment) stand part of the question.

The House divided.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr G. O’H. Giles)

AYES: 64

NOES: 46

Majority……. 18

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendments negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 352

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION

Motion (by Mr Ellicott for Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That a Standing Committee be appointed to inquire into and report on:

environmental aspects of legislative and administrative measures which ought to be taken in order to ensure the wise and effective management of the Australian environment and of Australia’s natural resources, and

such other matters relating to the environment and conservation and the management of Australia’s natural resources as are referred to it by -

the Minister responsible for those matters, or

resolution of the House.

That the committee recognise the responsibility of the States and the Northern Territory in these matters and seek their co-operation in all relevant aspects.

That the committee consist of 8 members, 5 to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip and 3 to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip.

That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker.

That the members of the committee hold office as a committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time.

That the committee elect as Chairman of the committee one of the members nominated either by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip.

That the committee elect a Deputy Chairman who shall perform the duties of the Chairman of the committee at any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the Chairman and Deputy Chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the Chairman at that meeting.

That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and refer to any such sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine.

That the committee appoint the Chairman of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the Chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to perform the duties of the Chairman at that meeting.

That a majority of members of a sub-committee constitutes a quorum of that sub-committee.

That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may take part in the public proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote or move any motion or constitute a quorum.

1 2) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.

That the committee have power to move from place to place.

That any sub-committee have power to move from place to place, adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment.

That the committee or any sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it.

1 6) That the committee be provided with necessary staff, facilities and resources.

1 7) That the committee in selecting particular matters for investigation take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication.

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report.

That the committee or any sub-committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Standing Committees on Environment and Conservation appointed during previous parliaments.

That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The Opposition does not approve of the motion in terms of the numbers on the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. The proposal is that five members be nominated by the Governnent and only three members be nominated by the Opposition. We make the point that the Opposition is anxious to be more adequately represented in line with the numbers it now has in the House. I move:

That is much more equitable representation and reflects our representation in this House.

Mr Dean:

– Did you do that in 1974?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– Yes, we did it before. If honourable members look at the other matters on the Notice Paper they will see, for example, that the representation on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure is six members from the Government and five from the Opposition. Honourable members will see these sorts of inconsistencies as to representation. When one looks at the other committees which have senators in their membership, it always seems that the senators can at least get parity from the point of view of representation. It is quite unreasonable in this important area of environment and conservation, where there is a lot of interest and perhaps a lot of evidence to be taken, to have more members involved in committee work. I do not want to delay the House any longer. I have asked the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) to consider this matter. He is not here this evening. I hoped that he would have been able to agree to the amendment. The Leader of the House, when I last spoke to him, felt that he could not vary the instructions he had received. However, the Minister in charge of the House, the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott), may agree to a very simple amendment which we have circulated?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Yes, I second the amendment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The original question was: That the motion be agreed to. To this the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has moved:

Omit paragraph 3, substitute the following paragraph: “(3) That the committee consist of 9 members, 5 to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip and 4 to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip.”.

The question now is: That the paragraph proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I draw the attention of Government members to the fact that whilst it was stated in this House that this is a traditional practice, in fact it is not. Government numbers on these committees were adjusted upwards in line with its increased majority after the last election. Restoring the additional member to the Opposition, as is requested, would restore the balance and reflect the results of the previous election. It would not cost the Government its majority on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation and would be a gesture which would help the Committee to perform its task in a harmonious manner. I think that the restriction that has been placed on this by the Government is shortsighted and does not reflect the attitude it used on the last occasion in order to change the balance.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– I would like it to be noted that the Opposition does not intend to call a division because there is other business to be dealt with.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 353

QUESTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURE

Motion (by Mr Ellicott for Mr Sinclair) proposed:

1 ) That a Standing Committee be appointed to:

consider any papers on public expenditure presented to the House and such of the estimates as it sees fit to examine;

consider how, if at all, policies implied in the figures of expenditure and in the estimates may be carried out more economically;

examine the relationship between the costs and benefits of implementing government programs, and

inquire into and report on any question in connection with public expenditure which is referred to it by the House.

That the committee consist of 6 members nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 5 members nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, and the Chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts or his nominee who is a Member of the House of Representatives.

That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker.

That the members of the committee hold office as a committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time.

That the committee elect as Chairman of the committee one of the members nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip.

That the committee elect a Deputy Chairman who shall perform the duties of the Chairman of the committee at any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the Chairman and Deputy Chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the Chairman at that meeting.

That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and refer to any such sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine.

That the committee appoint the Chairman of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the Chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to perform the duties of the Chairman at that meeting.

That a majority of the members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee.

That members of the committee who are not. members of a sub-committee may take part in the public proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote or move any motion or constitute a quorum.

That the committee or any sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.

That the committee have power to move from place to place.

That any sub-committee have power to move from place to place, adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment.

1 4) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it.

1 5) That 5 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee.

That the committee be provided with necessary staff, facilities and resources.

1 7) That the committee in selecting particular matters for investigation take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication.

That the committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report.

1 9) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Standing Committees on Expenditure appointed during previous Parliaments.

That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– - The Opposition has no objection to the motion, lt adequately reflects what we have been about in all the other amendments we have moved. Honourable members will notice that representation on this Committee is six Government members and five Opposition members. Accordingly, we have no objection to this motion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 354

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ROAD SAFETY

Motion (by Mr Ellicott for Mr Sinclair) - proposed:

That a Standing Committee be appointed to inquire into and report on:

the main causes of the present high level of the road toll in Australia;

the most effective means of achieving greater road safety in Australia;

the particular aspects of the problem to which those concerned with road safety could most advantageously direct their efforts, and

the economic cost to the community of road accidents in Australia in terms of -

material damage,

loss of man-hours and earning capacity, and

cost of treatment of accident victims.

That the committee recognise the responsibility of the States and the Northern Territory in these matters and seek their co-operation in all relevant aspects.

That the committee consist of 8 members, 5 to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip and 3 to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip.

That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker.

That the members of the committee hold office as a committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time.

That the committee elect as Chairman of the committee one of the members nominated either by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip.

That the committee elect a Deputy Chairman who shall perform the duties of the Chairman of the committee al any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the Chairman and Deputy Chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the Chairman at that meeting.

That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and refer to any such sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine.

That the committee appoint the Chairman of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the Chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to perform the duties of the Chairman at that meeting.

That a majority of the members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee.

That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may take part in the public proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote or move any motion or constitute a quorum.

That the committee or any sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.

That the committee have power to move from place to place.

That any sub-committee have power to move from place to place, adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment.

That the committee or any sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it.

That the committee be provided with necessary staff, facilities and resources.

That the committee in selecting particular matters for investigation take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication.

That the committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report.

That the committee or any sub-committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Select Committee on Road Safety appointed during the 28th Parliament and the Standing Committees on Road Safety appointed during previous Parliaments.

That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The Opposition is opposing this motion in the same terms as those I put in relation to the other committees. The representation is not sufficient adequately to represent the Opposition. It is limited to three Opposition members as against five Government members. I move:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I second the amendment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The original question was: That the motion be agreed to. To this motion the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has moved by way of amendment:

Omit paragraph 3, substitute the following paragraph: “(3) That the committee consist of 9 members, S to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip and 4 to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip.”.

The question now is: That the paragraph proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 355

QUESTION

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Motion (by Mr Ellicott for Mr Sinclair) - proposed:

I ) That a Joint Committee be appointed to inquire into and report on:

all proposals for modifications or variations of the plan of lay-out of the City of Canberra and its environs published in the Commonweatlh of Australia Gazette on 19 November 1925, as previously modified or varied, which are referred to the committee by the Minister for the Capital Territory, and

such matters relating to the Australian Capital Territory as may be referred to it by -

the Minister for the Capital Territory, or

resolution of either House of the Parliament.

That the committee consist of 10 members, 4 Members of the House of Representatives nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 2 Members of the House of Representatives nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 2 Senators nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and 2 Senators nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators.

That every nomination of a member of the committee by forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

That the members of the committee hold office as a joint committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time.

That the committee elect as Chairman of the committee one of the members nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, or by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

That the committee elect a Deputy Chairman who shall perform the duties of the Chairman of the committee at any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the Chairman and Deputy Chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the Chairman at that meeting.

That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and refer to any such sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine.

That the committee appoint the Chairman of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the Chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to perform the duties of the Chairman at that meeting.

That a majority of the members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee.

That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may take part in the public proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote or move any motion or constitute a quorum.

That the committee or any sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.

That the committee have power to move from place to place.

That any sub-committee have power to move from place to place, adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment.

1 4) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it.

That the committee be provided with necessary staff, facilities and resources.

1 6) That the committee in its inquiries take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication.

1 7) That the committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report.

That the committee or any sub-committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on the Australian Capital Territory appointed during previous Parliaments.

That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The Opposition has no objection to this motion. Again I draw the attention of honourable members to the fact that the Senate representation is two Government members and two Opposition members. If we could get that consistency in all the Government’s proposals, we would not be delaying the House with amendments.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 356

QUESTION

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Motion (by Mr Ellicott for Mr Sinclair) proposed:

1 ) That a Joint Committee be appointed to consider and report on:

foreign affairs and defence generally, and

such matters as may be referred to the committee by -

) the Minister for Foreign Affairs;

the Minister for Defence, or

resolution of either House of the Parliament.

That the committee consist of 8 Members of the House of Representatives nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 6 Members of the House of Representatives nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 4 Senators nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and 3 Senators nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators.

That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

That the members of the committee hold office as a joint committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time.

That the committee elect as Chairman of the committee one of the members nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, or by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

That the Chairman of the committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the committee to be the Deputy Chairman of the committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the committee at any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee.

That the committee have power to appoint not more than 3 sub-committees consisting of a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 7 of its members and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider.

That the members of a sub-committee shall elect one of the members of the sub-committee to be the Chairman of that sub-committee.

That the committee or any sub-committee have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place and to meet and transact business in public or private session and notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament.

That the committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report.

That 7 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee and 3 members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee.

1 2) That in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy Chairman when acting as Chairman, have a casting vote.

That the committee have power to consider and make use of the minutes of evidence and records of Joint Committees on Foreign Affairs and Defence, appointed in previous Parliaments, relating to any matter on which those committees had not completed consideration.

1 4) That the committee or any sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it.

That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered, with the approval of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee.

That the committee in selecting particular matters for investigation take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication.

That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The Opposition opposes this motion, although not because of the representation, which is adequate. The number of Opposition members is six compared with eight Government members in the House of Representatives. The objectionable provision is paragraph 7, which states:

That the committee have power to appoint not more than 3 sub-committees . . .

In other words, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence is being restricted as to the number of sub-committees it can now appoint. In the previous Parliament the Committee had power to appoint such sub-committees as it thought fit. Prior to this Parliament, I understand that four sub-committees were created under the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee. Committee members have advised me that they think it is weakening their powers. Placing this restriction on them means that committee members are being treated as people who are not able satisfactorily to conduct their own affairs. I think that any committee of parliamentarians which is able to satisfy itself that it needs sub-committees should not have any inhibitions placed on it. If in the past it has needed four sub-committees, and at the present time there are four, why should the number be reduced to three? Perhaps I am being unfair, but I understand that the reduction in the number of sub-committees is due to the inability of the Parliament to staff them. If that is so, it is an atrocious set of circumstances. If Parliament is to perform effectively, the committees have a role to play. To suggest that because they cannot be staffed we cannot have them only weakens the standing of Parliament, and it could restrict the investigations and reports that are required. Accordingly I move:

Omit paragraph 7, substitute the following paragraph:

That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 4 or more of its members and to refer to any such sub-committee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider.’.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is the motion seconded?

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I second the amendment. I do not intend to delay the House for very long. The significant part of this motion is that the Government is writing into the terms of reference of a committee a capitulation by this House and by the Government on the rights of Parliament to appoint and staff its committees. It should be clearly understood that what is happening is that this restriction is being placed on the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence in order that the staff which has been utilised by the Committee in the past can be transferred from the Joint Committee to the Senate committees, which in many instances duplicate the inquiries.

I am not arguing whether or not the staff ceilings in the Senate are adequate, but I point out to the House that early last year, because the Senate felt that it could not staff and administer this Committee, it was proposed that it be transferred to the control of the House of Representatives. That proposal fell through because the Senate felt that it would lose some influence and status by losing that Committee, even though it is not prepared to provide the staff to enable the Committee to operate correctly.

There are at present four sub-committees of that Committee. One sub-committee has to be a sub-committee on defence, otherwise there would be no defence committee in the Parliament. I believe that the Government would do well to reconsider its attitude to having a separate defence committee. The relevance of that to the matter being discussed is that the Government, after spending 20 years putting forward the importance of this Committee to the Parliament and establishing it ultimately in a manner agreed to by all parties in the Parliament, has decided in a token gesture to its directions on staff ceilings and to satisfy the demand of some senators for additional staff for their committees to sacrifice a joint committee in a manner which I think is an insult to the Parliament and a disgrace to the members who support it.

Amendment negatived.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, the Opposition did not request a division because of the lateness of the hour.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 357

QUESTION

JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE NEW PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Motion (by Mr Ellicott for Mr Sinclair)- proposed:

That a Joint Standing Committee be appointed to act for and represent the Parliament, as the client for the new Parliament House, in all matters concerned with the planning, design and construction of the new Parliament House and all matters incidental thereto.

That the committee reconsider and, as necessary, amend the Parliament House Competition Stage 2 Brief, dated November 1979, which when revised shall be used as the basis for the design and construction of the new Parliament House, unless both Houses resolve to vary any section of the brief or have any section reconsidered by the committee.

That the committee also consider and report on matters coming within the terms of section 5 of the Parliament Act 1 974 as may be referred to it by -

the Minister responsible for administering the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957, or

resolution of either House of the Parliament.

That the committee consist of-

the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;

the Minister responsible for administering the Parliament House Construction Authority Act 1979;

6 Members of the House of Representatives, 3 nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip and 3 nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, and

6 Senators, 3 of whom shall be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and 3 shall be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators.

That the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives be Joint Chairmen of the committee.

That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

That the members of the committee hold office as a Joint Standing Committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time.

That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to appoint the Chairman of each sub-committee, and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter that the committee is empowered to inquire into.

That the committee or a sub-committee so appointed have power to send for persons, papers and records, to move from place to place and to sit during any adjournment of the Parliament.

That the committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report.

That 7 members of the committee, one of whom is the President or the Speaker, constitute a quorum of the committee and a majority of the members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee.

That in matters of procedure, each of the Chairmen, whether or not occupying the Chair, have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman occupying the Chair have a casting vote.

That in matters other than those of procedure, each of the Chairmen, whether or not occupying the Chair, have a deliberative vote only.

That the committee or any sub-committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Standing Committees on the New and Permanent Parliament House appointed during previous Parliaments.

That the committee be provided with necessary staff, facilities and resources.

1 6) That the committee or a sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it or any information obtained in the course of its inquiries or any document presented to it.

That the committee be authorised to provide, on behalf of the Parliament, all necessary information concerning the functional requirements for the new Parliament House and matters incidental thereto direct to the Parliament House Construction Authority as the authority responsible to Parliament to undertake or arrange for the planning, design and construction of the new Parliament House.

That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The Opposition agrees with the motion. It provides for the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House to consist of six members, three being nominated by the Government and three being nominated by the Opposition. Accordingly, there is no problem.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 358

HOUSE COMMITTEE

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

That Mr Katter be discharged from attendance on the House Committee and that in his place Mr Lusher be appointed a member of the Committee.

page 358

ADJOURNMENT

Pharmacists - Overseas Students in Australia - Community Health Centres - Cystic Fibrosis - Loy Yang Power Station - Northern Territory Administration - Pharmaceutical Benefits

Motion (by Mr Ellicott) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr MORRISON:
St George

– Many members of this House will remember that 119 members of the Thirty-first Parliament signed a petition which was directed to the President of South Korea, Chun Doo Hwan, and which read:

We the undersigned senators and members of the Australian Parliament appeal to you on humanitarian grounds to commute the death sentence imposed upon Kim Dae Jung, former member of the Korean National Assembly and former presidential candidate.

Respect for your nation will be strengthened by this action.

That petition was signed in September of last year. The history of Kim Dae Jung is well known to members of this House. In fact, he is a colleague of all members of parliament throughout the world. We believe that it is very important that members of parliament, particularly members of democratic institutions throughout the world, stand in support of one of their colleagues in whichever part of the world he may find himself. Kim Dae Jung was first elected to the National Assembly of Korea in 1960. 1 think the significant feature of his career is that in 1971 he was a presidential candidate for the National Democratic Party in the Korean election. In that election he polled some 47 per cent of the vote. That was both his achievement and the reason for his subsequent downfall. The subsequent history of Kim Dae Jung is one of political victimisation. He has been hounded by the present regime in Korea to the point where a military court has sentenced him to death. A little later I will go into the details of that procedure. I am very glad to note that colleagues on both sides of the House as well as members of the Australian Democrats are members of the parliamentary group of Amnesty International. Today, on instructions from the parliamentary group, I sent a telegram to the President of the Republic of Korea in these terms:

The Parliamentary group of Amnesty International comprising members of all political parties in the Australian Parliament appeals to you to commute the death sentence if upheld by the Supreme Court on Kim Dae Jung.

Today the parliamentary group also had a meeting with the Ambassador of the Republic of Korea. We put to the Ambassador the grave concern of the members of the parliamentary group of Amnesty International and also the grave concern of those 1 19 members of this Parliament who signed the petition in September. We pointed out that it was our belief that Kim Dae Jung was being victimised for his political beliefs and that the whole process in the Korean judiciary was one of a denial of human rights. We explained this position to the Ambassador of the Republic of Korea. I thank him for his courtesy in receiving the delegation. Members of the delegation included Senator Missen, Senator Mason, Senator Coleman and the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). We pointed out our belief that any action against Kim Dae June would be an act against human rights in Korea and throughout the world. I am sure that members of this House, irrespective of the side of the Parliament on which they sit, would support our actions today and the actions that members of the Parliament took in September. I add that people who hold certain political convictions should feel free to pursue those political convictions without a denial of human rights.

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

Mr McLEAN:
Perth

– I wish to speak on a matter of some concern to me regarding an aged persons home complex in my electorate. I refer to the Maurice Jeffert Memorial Home, which provides accommodation for the aged members of the Jewish community in Perth. It is a substantial complex involving independent accommodation, hostel and nursing home accommodation, and a wide range of medical and paramedical services. The whole history of this home, which has been developed under the auspices of the Perth Jewish Aged Homes Society, has been characterised by a massive amount of self-help by a most generous and hard-working Jewish community. For example, the National Council of Jewish Women in Western Australia has raised by its own efforts the necessary funds to establish, firstly, an occupational therapy room and, more recently, a physiotherapy centre.

In addition, throughout the history of this complex there has been a building fund to which many people have contributed, as well as there being a number of substantial individual donations and bequests from members of the Jewish community. In short, although the building program has benefited from Commonwealth Government subsidies, there has been a great degree of community self-help. The problem at present is a shortage of nursing home beds in the complex. The home has sought to convert a number of hostel beds to approved nursing home beds. In this way a greater degree of ongoing care could be provided for the hostel residents. To date, this has not been possible because many of the vacancies have of necessity been critical or short term admissions coming from outside the hostel. As a result, the number of hostel residents who would qualify for admission to the nursing home is steadily increasing but they have little prospect of securing admission. Already there are a number of residents in the hostel part of the complex who qualify as extensive care and ordinary care patients. This care, of course, increases costs considerably without any commensurate increase in subsidies.

To date, all attempts to gain approval to convert a sufficient number of hostel beds to approved nursing beds have failed, although the State Government has indicated it has no objection to such a conversion. Approval has been given with respect to two beds only. I can understand the need for the Government to abide by certain guidelines in these matters. The present situation, as outlined by the Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar) last week, is that where the ratio of existing nursing home beds exceeds 50 per 1,000 persons aged 65 and over additional beds should not be recommended for approval unless there are special circumstances. I submit that in this case there are compelling special circumstances and to date these have been ignored by the Government.

This home is the only establishment in Western Australia in which the strict dietary laws and customs of the Jewish faith are observed and maintained in both the preparation and serving of food. No other establishment in Western Australia is equipped to handle such dietary laws. In addition, regular weekly services are conducted in the home by a resident rabbi and special services are held on high holy days throughout the year. In other words, the home provides more than just normal accommodation catering for the physical nursing care of patients. It is concerned with the spiritual and religious needs of resident members of the Jewish faith. Therefore, it is not good enough to ignore this request simply on the basis of a geographical spread of nursing home beds, particularly in view of the imbalance which presently exists within the home as between nursing home and hostel beds.

For that reason, I support the Perth Jewish Aged Homes Society in requesting that the Minister consider the matter as a special circumstance rather than according to the dictates of general guidelines and principles. The matter is of great concern to my constituents, who have done so much to establish this home. It is also of great concern to me, as their representative in this Parliament. I again ask the Minister to review this matter favourably and urgently because it has already been proceeding for 12 months and in my view that is just not good enough.

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

– Last Thursday, during Question Time I raised the issue of the penalty imposed on pharmacists by the fact of the one month lag in adjusting the price paid to them in accordance with the price rise for drug items granted to manufacturers in the Budget. If I may briefly state the background to the issue. On 1 November an across-the-board price rise of 20c per national health service item was granted to drug manufacturers - mainly, of course, multinationals - but no compensating adjustment for retail pharmacists, who are mainly small businessmen, was made until 1 December. For one month the cost of governmental generosity to the multinational drug manufacturers has been borne by the pharmacists.

In response to my question, the Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar) said three things: Firstly, he could ‘see no need to change the present arrangements at this stage’; secondly, T have not heard a good argument which would require a change of the arrangements’; and, thirdly, that the arrangements were agreed to by the Pharmacy Guild of Australia and have been in operation for a great number of years. Let me see, therefore, whether I can present a good argument, challenge the conservative response and establish an argument for changing these adjustments. In passing, I note that the Minister’s assertion that he has not heard a good argument for change in this matter reflects poorly on the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) who might be described as the resident druggist in the House. I note that regularly his face appears in the Pharmacy Review but he does not seem able to present to the Minister a good case for adjustment of the month’s lag.

It is true that in the 1960s by agreement between the Pharmacy Guild and the Federal Government there was to be a lag of one month in the price adjustment procedure. This was agreed on both sides, partly because there were both increases and decreases in the cost of NHS drugs. The Department of Health was happy as it had a month in which to change administrative arrangements. On the whole the pharmacists were not disadvantaged. They accepted it because there were swings and roundabouts in the price changes. But increasingly in the late 1970s, apart from drugs coming off patent, price rises imposed by the manufacturers began to predominate as compared with price falls. This year there was a decisive across-the-board rise in manufacturers prices, with the 20c per item increase granted in the Budget. Moreover, as a result of that change, pharmacists normally could have expected an automatic flow-on increase through the mark-up formula. This was denied to the pharmacists on this occasion because of the earlier computerbased overpayment, and I do not quarrel with that decision. But in addition, pharmacists have had to bear the cost of the month lag in adjustment at a time when there are no swings and roundabouts, but nearly all manufacturers’ prices are moving in an upward direction as a result of Government action. The cost to Australian pharmacists as a result of this generosity on the part of the Government toward the multinational drug companies will be about $ 1.4m.

I suggest that the November 1980 situation was very different from that of previous Novembers and that therefore it is no good arguing that the arrangement has lasted for years and was agreed to by the Pharmacy Guild. There is, I think, a good argument for reconsideration of the adjustment mechanism on this particular occasion because of the decisions made by the Government in the Budget on increased payments to manufacturers. I suspect that the attitude adopted towards the pharmacists and the neglect of any reconsideration of the adjustment in the particular circumstances of this November derive in part from what can only be described as the rather punitive attitude that this Minister has adopted towards this group of small businessmen. A government which has presented itself as defending such interests has on this occasion been prepared to benefit the multinationals and, in fact, the cost has been borne by the small pharmacists.

Mr FALCONER:
Casey

– I draw the attention of the House to the present distribution of overseas students in Australian universities and the extent to which Victorian universities are bearing a disproportionate burden in respect of their education. That in itself may not be a problem at present but I wish to indicate the sorts of problems that may arise in the future. Firstly, just what is the position with respect to overseas students in Australia?

The figures that I have were current as of 13 April 1979 and are those of the Australian Bureau of Statistics. They show that in the 19 universities in Australia there was a total student population of 160,810. Of these, 7,103 or 4.4 per cent of the total, were overseas students. If we consider individual universities we find a wide disparity in the proportion of overseas students enrolled. The average figure is 4.4 per cent, but it varies from 18.8 per cent in the case of Deakin University in Victoria to very negligible figures in some other universities. The second highest enrolment, in percentage terms, is that of Monash with 9.6 per cent. The University of New South Wales, with 7.8 per cent, has the third largest. Then follow Adelaide University, with 7 per cent, and Melbourne University, with 5. 1 per cent. Therefore, of the top five universities with above average enrolment of overseas students, three are Victorian.

Now let us consider the restrictions at various universities concerning the enrolment of overseas students. Monash, in Victoria, has an open policy, except in respect of the medical faculty. There are certain restrictions upon the number of overseas students who can enrol in medicine but in all other faculties they are treated as is any other applicant for enrolment and ranked according to their academic achievement in the Higher School Certificate examination, or its equivalent, and admitted accordingly. Melbourne University does have certain overall restrictions, based upon a percentage of the average number of applicants admitted to a course over the previous three years. Queensland University has a finite number and limits to 30 each year the number of people from overseas who are admitted to bachelor degree courses. Sydney University has established a very small quota for overseas students and imposes a restriction based on the manner in which students are sponsored. It does prefer people who come sponsored by some formal aid program.

So, there is a range of restrictions. Interestingly enough, there is no restriction on the University of New England at Armidale, but that university attracts a very small proportion of overseas students. It seems that not many overseas students want to sample the delights of Armidale in New South Wales. Victoria seems to attract a number of overseas students, particularly because of the existence in Malaysia of Taylor’s coaching college which conducts the Higher School Certificate examination. That leads many people to enrol at Victorian universities. In particular, it leads them to enrol in large numbers at Monash University because of its open criteria. Because of the downturn in English teaching in Malaysia this tendency is likely to increase. The Cambridge examination is being phased out and therefore more Malaysian students wanting to study overseas are likely to turn their attention to Victoria, via the Victorian Higher School Certificate examination. I think education authorities and the people in charge of Australian aid programs ought to look at this tendency because Victorian universities are likely to become restive about the degree to which they are expected to take the burden.

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

Mrs CHILD:
Henty

– I wish to draw the attention of the House and of the Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar) to the problems suffered by community health centres throughout Australia. The Labor Government of 1972-75 introduced community health centres to fulfil a real community need. Over the past five years numerous community centres throughout Australia have serviced the needs of the community in areas of preventative health care. There are a couple of them in my electorate. Both started when I was here in my last term of office. The East Bentleigh community health centre has a range of services unrivalled by any other community health centre. It counsels in regard to alcohol and drug addiction and provides physiotherapy and chiropody services. It undertakes social work and offers the services of nurses and dieticians. It also operates many group courses including obesity programs, which are well attended, and socialisation programs for rehabilitation. These programs have rehabilitated not only those recovering from illness, strokes or amputations but also the volunteers who work in these socialisation courses. Usually they are lonely people.

All of the programs are designed to assist the patients to keep them out of hospitals, to allay anxiety and to strengthen the family. Community health centres have proved their worth and, considering the enormous cost of hospital beds these days - due mainly to the collapse of the hospital program, which has created such a shortage of beds - it makes good common sense to maintain and expand community health centres. However, this Government has effectively cut funds to community health centres by funding them during 1979-80 at the same levels that applied for the previous year. There has been a cut of around 1 1 per cent in real terms, taking into account the current level of inflation. Members of parliament rely heavily on the services of community health centres. In my electorate hardly a day goes past without myself or one of the three State Labor members in my area using their facilities.

In his 1979-80 annual report the DirectorGeneral of Health agrees with me that community health centres have promoted the early detection and treatment of illness and rehabilitation, and that community health centres provide an alternative to institutional care. His report also acknowledges that community health centres in Western Australia have saved the Australian taxpayer over $20m a year. He goes on to say that the community health centres are largely responsible for a 30 per cent drop in admissions to psychiatric and mental health hospitals in Victoria over the past 12 months. I am sure that the Minister for Health would endorse the report of his own Department. Bearing all this in mind, I urge the Minister and the Government to review immediately funding for community health centres. If the Government is serious about its new-found interest in the welfare of the family, as stated in the Governor-General’s Speech at the opening of this Parliament, it must immediately make supplementary grants to community health centres to cover the current level of inflation. Further, I urge the Minister to honour an early commitment to the East Bentleigh community health centre for the funding of a permanent building. The centre has been operating in a temporary building for the past five years. It is unfair to the staff and unfair to those who use its services. It is tremendously expensive for the taxpayer for the centre to continue to rent property. The centre needs, and deserves, a permanent home.

I am sure that the Minister endorses the report of the Director-General of Health, which further states that services provided by the community health centres contain demands for admissions to hospitals and other institutions. In other words, the community health centres are cheaper. The Government cannot cut these types of services that have been made available to the community - services which the community has shown it really wants - in the interests of saving money. I suggest that most of the services from the East Bentleigh community health centre cost around $10.57 each. If hospital beds were occupied more frequently than they are at the moment the cost to the Government would be a jolly sight greater than would be the funding of community health centres.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Dundas

– I wish to take the opportunity to address some comments to the House about the disease cystic fibrosis. I am particularly concerned that honourable members be made aware of this very tragic disease. Certain steps have been taken by the New South Wales Government, through the New South Wales Department of Health, to limit the assistance available to parents whose children suffer from cystic fibrosis. The Encyclopedia of Common Diseases suggests that some 37,000 children suffer from this disease with varying degrees of affliction. Prior to the 1950s the life expectancy for children was no more than five years. Of course, more recently, with new advances in therapy and medication, there has been an extended life expectancy into the late adolescent years. Therefore, I think honourable members would appreciate that this is a very tragic disease, one which causes parents a great deal of anxiety and one which can, in a family situation, lead to a great deal of distress and heartache. The disease is exhibited by extensive coughing and wheezing. It reduces the appetite extensively. Quite significant problems arise because of the extent to which the body is unable to absorb food and food values. The Encyclopedia of Common Diseases states:

The lubricating mucous secreted inside the body to help carry on the digestive processes, as well as other important body functions, is the source of the problem. Instead of the normal water consistency, the mucus in cystic fibrosis victims is as thick as molasses. It blocks ducts in the pancreas so that essential enzymes cannot be secreted, and, in the case of the lungs, oxygen cannot pass through as it should.

These children very often suffer agony as they undertake treatment. There is a need for the quite extensive use of drugs and the like. Therefore, it was disappointing for many parents to learn that the Royal Alexandra Hospital for Children, which has a specific clinic to provide for cystic fibrosis patients, saw fit, on instructions from the New South Wales Department of Health, to fall into line, as the hospital says, with the majority of other hospitals in restricting to one week’s supply the amount of medication issued from the hospital dispensary to each patient. In advising parents of this matter, the hospital suggesed that there might be ways in which they could avail themselves of other funds through the pharmaceutical benefits scheme if they would sign the appropriate authorities.

This will lead to quite extensive hardship in many cases. Parents who previously had available drugs free of charge will find that that is no longer the case. It seems to me that the problem arises essentially because of the difficulties that arise between the Commonwealth and New South Wales over the funding of hospitals generally and the unwillingness, in my view, of the New South Wales Government to bite the bullet as it should and look at an extensive number of inner city hospitals which are very old and run down and which ought to have been closed many years ago. Instead of adopting the technique of cutting back services in all hospitals across the board, it should have made the more effective decision to cut out some of these inner city hospitals. If the New South Wales Government had done that it could have made significant savings and so might well have been able to avoid this severe budgetary restriction. So that honourable members might be better informed about this situation I seek leave - I discussed this matter earlier with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for

Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) - to incorporate in Hansard a copy of the letter from the Royal Alexandra Hospital for Children, dated 4 September, and a letter from Mr R. Anderson of 9 William Street, Ermington in which he elaborates the problems in much more detail.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows -

ROYAL ALEXANDRA HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN

Camperdown, NSW 2050 Telephone: 51 0466 4 September 1980

Dear Doctor,

Because of the huge budgetary cutbacks imposed on the Children’s Hospital by the N.S.W. Department of Health, we have found it necessary to fall into line with the majority of other hospitals in this State, and to restrict to one week’s supply the amount of medication issued to each patient from the Hospital’s Dispensary, either at Outpatient attendances or on discharge from hospital.

In the past, cystic fibrosis patients have received free supply of every medicinal and food additive needed in their care, for unlimited periods, but this practice has to cease. Each patient is issued with a booklet, at the back of which is listed the medications they are currently receiving; we shall be most grateful for your co-operation in obtaining Authorities to Prescribe the appropriate agents as Pharmaceutical Benefits. Most of the agents used, including long term antibiotics, pancreatic enzymes, etc., are Pharmaceutical Benefits, but it is necessary to send in an Authority request to obtain a month’s supply, with two repeats.

We hope you will understand the need for this step, which we find most unpalatable. However, our budgeting shows that the cost of pharmaceuticals to the Hospital, for the current financial year, would be between $200,000 and $300,000 above the Government allocation, unless checked.

Yours truly,

Physician Cystic Fibrosis Cinic 9 William Street Ermington, NSW 21 15 27 November 1980

Mr Philip Ruddock, M.P. 1 60 Rowe Street, Eastwood, NSW 2 122

Dear Sir,

I have a seven year old daughter suffering from a crippling disease known as ‘Cystic Fibrosis’, the effects of which I have already outlined in a letter to you on 25 August 1976 when I complained about the deletion of MCT oil as a pharmaceutical benefit. I would like to point out at this stage that my child has been denied this product since its deletion, and has suffered, and is still suffering quite a deal of discomfort as a result. To refresh your memory, I have attached a copy of a brief explanation of the disorder, from a book called ‘The Encyclopedia of Common Diseases’.

Since the deletion of MCT in 1976 as a benefit, and the denial of supply from the hospital, there has been a gradual decline in the quality of treatment available to CF children at the Children’s Hospital, Camperdown. This decline in treatment has become so acute in recent months that these children, and their families, are being subjected to a rapidly increasing degree of suffering and hardship as a result.

In the past, these children were supplied free of charge all medicines and food additives, except MCT, needed for their care and treatment in the home. We have now been advised, that as a result of the huge budgetary cutbacks imposed on the Children’s Hospital by the NSW Government, as per attached letter, this practice is to cease. We now find ourselves in a position where it is necessary to obtain a prescription from our family doctor to procure the necessary preparations for the child. This arrangement falls far short of what is required for the proper treatment of these children. I have discovered that not all the preparations required are available on the National Health Scheme.

As my child currently has a respiratory infection, which, if left untreated, would undoubtedly develop into pneumonia and result in the death of the child, treatment with antibiotics is necessary. Long term treatment, lasting twelve to eighteen months, is often necessary. The antibiotic used is FluCloxicillin because of its low interference with the bacteria in the intestine which aids digestion. To assist the absorption of this antibiotic, two 50 mg probenecid tablets are taken with each 250 mg flu-cloxicillin capsule every six hours. The hospital has only supplied the child with three weeks supply of these preparations and I have discovered that they are hospital lines only and are not available at chemist shops on prescription. Consequently when the supply runs out the child will be denied proper treatment, she will become seriously ill and will require inpatient treatment at the hospital, and only when this occurs will she be supplied the necessary medicines for proper treatment. Many other preparations are also required for treatment, some of which are available on the NHS, and some of which are not, and the financial and emotional burdens which are being forced upon us are fast becoming too much to bear.

The result from all these cut backs can only mean poorer treatment for these children resulting in a much shorter life expectancy than before. With proper treatment, the life expectancy placed on my child by doctors at the hospital is a fifty, fifty, chance of reaching 1 7 years of age. U nder the latest system of treatment, the quality and length of life can be expected to be greatly reduced. This is simply because governments, both State and Federal, will not supply the hospital system with the small amount of money required to treat these chronically ill children in the proper way.

It appears to me that the State Government is shifting part of this financial burden on to the Federal Government, and partly on to the parents of the patients. By doing so, the system is only becoming more costly than before by using the NHS. The chemist and the wholesaler receiving their markup, plus the cost of administration for the NHS must almost treble the cost for the Federal Government to supply these preparations, as compared with the costs when they are supplied directly through hospitals. If this is so, then why can’t the Federal Government fund the hospitals to supply patients direct? This system can only reduce costs for the Federal Government and, at the same time, ease the burden placed on the parents.

It seems to me that as a result of Federal and State cutbacks in the area of health, both Governments are embarking on a campaign of extermination of the chronically ill, by denial of proper care and treatment beyond what the parents of these children can afford.

I believe that both the State and Federal Governments are being totally unfair to these Australian children, their parents and their families by running away from their responsibilities to these people. By the parents successfully treating these children in the home, I believe the savings made for both Governments must far outweigh the small amount needed to supply the medicines required. Now that the children are being denied the proper treatment, through no fault of their own, their health will no doubt suffer and they will require inpatient treatment in hospital more frequently than before, at great expense to all those concerned including governments.

The emotional strain that we as parents go through under normal circumstances trying to cope with this serious illness, sometimes becomes unbearable, not to mention the suffering the child goes through both emotionally and physically. I cannot bear to think of what the near future holds for my child and other children suffering from this crippling disease, Cystic Fibrosis. Please, in the name of God, do something to enable the hospitals to properly maintain the supply of medicines to these children, so they can receive the proper and necessary treatment to enable them to lead a reasonably comfortable life, they don’t deserve anything less.

Yours faithfully R. ANDERSON

Mr CUNNINGHAM:
McMillan

– I would like to raise a matter that I raised earlier in the day at Question Time. It concerns the situation in the La Trobe Valley as a result of the Loy Yang dispute. The settlement that has been reached by the Victorian Government in order to get a return to work has received a lot of publicity lately. The Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Peacock) attempted to relate the answer he gave today to there being a strike. I would like to place on record, as the representative in this place for the electorate of McMillan which covers the La Trobe Valley, that at no time were the men involved in the dispute on strike.

I will outline the situation to honourable members. Nine men who were batching the concrete imposed an overtime ban and under the law agreed to work a 40-hour week. That is not going on strike. For working a 40-hour week they were dismissed. Because of that, the contractors took the opportunity to sack another 600 men under the pretence that they did not have enough concrete to continue the work. Many of those men had six months work ahead of them without needing one shovelful of concrete for the work they were doing. Of course, three weeks after that situation occurred people started to run out of money. When the workers applied for the unemployment benefit they found that under the legislation passed in this House last year, a large percentage of them were denied their rights to receive the unemployment benefit when they had no income for their families. I helped to assist those men when they turned up at the union office in the La Trobe Valley with their families to get food vouchers. It is not very good to see in Australia in 1980 good Australian people, innocent workers who were not involved in an actual dispute, turning up to receive food vouchers to enable them to feed their families as a result of legislation passed in this House. Within three weeks, 30 families turned up to get their food vouchers. Three weeks later that number had increased to 75. People who could move left the district to go to other parts of Australia to find work. Some went as far away as Queensland. I doubt whether some of these people will ever come back to work in the La Trobe Valley and this will be a tragedy.

Industrial relations disputes will continue. We will always have disputes. But there is never any justification for a federal parliament which has very few powers in the industrial relations area to use the Social Services Act to beat workers around the head. The Act, as it stands, will do nothing for industrial relations. It must cause more and more confrontation. We do not say that the unions are always correct. We know that the Builders Labourers Federation and Norm Gallagher can be pretty difficult to deal with. But in this case the Government picked on the wrong union and the wrong bloke at the wrong time when it used this ridiculous legislation. The legislation should never have been put on the statute books and it should be taken off as quickly as possible because it will never do anything for industrial relations.

The Builders Labourers Federation was placed in the position of doing what the Government should have been doing - protecting the families of innocent workers who could not receive what is a natural right in this country, the right to receive their unemployment benefit. As I said before, these men were not on strike; they had been sacked. The Victorian Government has realised the futility of this situation and has decided that the dispute must be resolved. The Victorian Government has now been placed in the position of having to back down on this situation in order to get people back into the La Trobe Valley. People will come back to work there when they know that if the employer sacks them they will not have to starve. Their children will have food to eat. I invite the Government to get this legislation off the statute books as quickly as it can or it will never have peace in industrial relations.

Mr TAMBLING:
Northern Territory (10.56

– On 1 June 1976 John Armstrong England was appointed Administrator of the Northern Territory for a three year term.

Mr Dawkins:

– Jobs for the boys.

Mr TAMBLING:

– If that is what the honourable member thinks about that person I am afraid I do not have much respect for him. As I said, Mr England’s term was for three years. As a mark of recognition of the role he has played that term was extended a number of times. Mr England is retiring in several weeks’ time. I would like to pay tribute to the job he has done as Administrator of the Northern Territory. Mr England had held that post during the most critical and significant period of change in the Northern Territory since the Second World war.

Honourable members will know that Mr England was a member of this House for some 15 years and in fact he was elected to this Parliament on seven occasions. In his role as Administrator of the Northern Territory he has been even-handed. He has played a remarkable role during the terms of all political leaders in the Northern Territory. I am sure that if some Opposition members in this place spoke to their colleagues in the Northern Territory they would find that John England is held in very high regard. He has always been a gentleman and he has always displayed a very high standard of dignity. His role has always been one of caring for people. The leadership that he has given in the Northern Territory in the last four years has been outstanding. During his term as Administrator the reconstruction of Darwin was completed, Aboriginal land rights were implemented and the transfer of the first executive government powers to the Northern Territory was effected. I was pleased to serve for two years on John England’s Administrators and Executive Council. Self-government was implemented in 1978 and, of course, more recently we are seeing a boom in the basic mining, pastoral and tourist industries of the Northern Territory.

John England has always displayed very sound judgment and given guidance to many people throughout the Northern Territory. He has lent his patronage to a wide range of voluntary agencies and he has always wanted to know what has been going on in the Territory. Government House has always been open to anyone. Mrs Polly England, of course, is the sort of wife most men wish that they had. She is supportive and effective in her own right and in her interests in many community organisations of the Northern Territory. Their departure from the Northern Territory is going to be a sad loss.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 365

NOTICES

The following notices were given:

A Committee of Privileges, to consist of the Leader of the House or his nominee, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or his nominee and 9 other Members, shall be appointed at the commencement of each Parliament to inquire into and report upon complaints of breach of privilege which may be referred to it by the House.’

Mr Fife to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations Act 1976.

Mr Fife to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976.

Mr Fife to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1972, and for purposes connected therewith.

Mr Sinclair to move:

That the report of the Auditor-General on an efficiency audit of the Department of Administrative ServicesAustralian Property Function, be referred to the Standing Committee on Expenditure for inquiry and report.

page 365

PAPERS

The following papers were deemed to have been represented on 3 December 1980, pursuant to statute:

States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act - Amendment of the schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States of New South Wales and Victoria, dated 27 November 1 980.

Public Service Arbitration Act - Public Service Arbitrator - Determinations accompanied by statements regarding possible inconsistency with the Law -

1980-

No. 425 - Federal Fire Fighters’ Union.

No. 427 - Amalgamated Metal Workers’ and Shipwrights Union and others.

Nos. 428-431 - Federated Engine Drivers’ and Firemen’s Association of Australasia and others.

No. 432 - Australian Journalists Association.

No. 433 - Line Inspectors’ Association, Commonwealth of Australia and others.

No. 434 - Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders’ Labourers Federation.*

No. 435 - Merchant Service Guild of Australia.

No. 436 - Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service.

No. 437 - Administrative and Clerical Officers Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others.

No. 438- Professional Radio and Electronics Institute of Australasia.

No. 439 - Administrative and Clerical Officers Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others.*

No. 440 - Australian Telecommunications Employees Association.

No. 441 - Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service.*

No. 442 - Association of Architects, Engineers, Surveyors and Draughtsmen of Australia.

No. 443- Australian Society of Engineers.

No. 444 - Professional Radio and Electronics Institute of Australasia.

House adjourned at 10.59 p.m.

page 366

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Epidermolysis Bullosa (Question No. 73)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 26 November 1980:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the ABC TV Nationwide program broadcast in Adelaide, SA, on 5 August 1980 which concerned a disease called epidermolysis bullosa.
  2. Can he say whether the program stated that the Government discontinued funding of research into this skin disease approximately 4 years ago, and that the reason was that the research was not of a sufficiently high standard; if so, is there any substance in this statement.
  3. Was the research conducted by 2 professors and a dermatologist.
  4. If funds were curtailed because research was not of a sufficiently high standard, what justification existed for this decision.
  5. If funds were curtailed for any other reason, what was the reason.
  6. Will he urgently reconsider the decision, so that persons who suffer from the disease might retain some hope of relief.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (5) Yes. It is quite untrue however to suggest that the lack of support for a research project into this disease in 1978 was in any way related to prior research results. The facts are as follows:

An Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB) related research project undertaken by a research team which included two professors and a dermatologist was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NH&MRC) at the University of New South Wales between 1973 and 1977. However, an application for funding of a further project in 1978 was not successful. Each year there is intense competition for the funds available through the NH&MRC. To determine which projects will be supported, each research proposal is examined by independent assessors, and the applicants are then interviewed by a multi-disciplinary committee of eminent medical researchers. In 1978, those applications which were successful were assessed as being of a higher level of scientific merit than the EB proposal. The decision not to support the EB proposal was not a reflection on the standard of the research performed in the preceding five years, but was based solely on the scientific assessment of the proposed further research.

  1. Each year the NH&MRC advertises throughout Australia seeking applications from interested researchers for projects in all areas of medical research. Unfortunately since 1 978 there have been no projects submitted to the NH & MRC for research work in the area of EB and, since the Council does not initiate research, no support for work in this important area has been possible.

The NH&MRC would welcome applications for research in this area when next they are called. Should any such applications be received, they will be considered in competition with the many other applications for support which are expected. I can assure the honourable member that I would be pleased to approve funds for a project for research into Epidermolysis Bullosa if the NH&MRC recommends that this is merited.

Export of Historic Aircraft (Question No. 119)

Mr Les Johnson:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 26 November 1980:

  1. Has the Government initiated an investigation into the alleged attempted export of a Messerschmitt aircraft of historic value without authority.
  2. If an investigation has been initiated, have any customs special investigation officers been assigned to the investigation; if so, how many.
  3. Have any officers been transferred from the investigation since it commenced; if so, why.
  4. Does he expect to receive the report from the investigation team; if so, when.
  5. Will the report be made public.
Mr Moore:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Up to ten officers were at various times engaged in the investigation as warranted by the circumstances.
  3. The Department has an established practice of rotating officers through various areas of its operations. This is for the purpose of officer development. In accordance with this practice, two officers, a senior investigator and an investigator who did some work on the investigation were transferred to other areas.
  4. The report was received by my predecessor.
  5. No. Reports of investigations are not made public because of possible evidentiary use.

Export of Historic Aircaft (Question No. 120)

Mr Les Johnson:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 26 November 1980:

Is any legal action proposed to be taken in Australia in relation to a reported alleged attempt to export a Messerschmitt Bfl09 aircraft for which an export permit had not been issued; if so, what specific action is proposed.

Mr Moore:
LP

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

Yes. Authority to prosecute under the Customs Act has been issued.

Export of Historic Aircraft (Question No. 121)

Mr Les Johnson:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 26 November 1980:

  1. ) Has an investigation been carried out relating to the alleged export from Australia of an historic Spitfire aircraft in breach of the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations.
  2. If so, has it been established that a Supermarine Spitfire HF Mk 8 Serial No. M V 1 54 was taken from Australia.
  3. If the Spitfire was taken from Australia, (a) what action is proposed to be taken to recover it and (b) what action is to be taken against the parties for exporting it without permission.
  4. What action is to be taken to prevent future transgressions of the regulations.
Mr Moore:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Yes.
  2. Advice has been received from the DCS that the facts established in the investigation would support a prosecution. The question of prosecution and the appropriate charges is now being considered and it is expected that charges will be laid against those involved in the alleged illegal exportation.

There is a great interest in retaining aircraft of the type in question in Australia.

I have asked therefore the department to establish what steps are necessary to recover the aircraft should it be located.

  1. The Department of Business and Consumer Affairs exercises control over such exports through the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations.

Offences or attempted offences against this legislation render the persons concerned subject to the penal provisions of the Customs Act including the forfeiture of the goods concerned.

It would seem from recent events that there are persons who are prepared to become involved in schemes to circumvent known Customs controls over the export of aircraft of historical interest. Assurances can be given that the Department will investigate such attempts and take appropriate action wherever warranted.

Export of Historic Aircraft (Question No. 122)

Mr Les Johnson:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 26 November 1980:

  1. 1 ) Is the Bureau of Customs holding a rare World WarII German Messerschmitt aircraft of historic value which a company or individuals allegedly attempted to ship from Australia without the necessary Government approval.
  2. If so, will he provide full details of this alleged attempt.
  3. Did his Department decide to hold an historic Mustang for which an export licence had been granted; if so, was the alleged attempt to ship the Messerschmitt without approval connected with this decision, and will he provide full details.
Mr Moore:
LP

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

  1. A Messerschmitt Me 1 09 aircraft has been seized by officers of the Bureau of Customs under the provisions of Section 229 of the Customs Act.
  2. The matter is subject to legal proceedings and it would therefore be inappropriate to give further details.
  3. A Mustang aircraft and certain engines and aircraft parts have also been seized by Customs officers in connection with the seizure of the Messerschmitt aircraft.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 3 December 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1980/19801203_reps_32_hor120/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant