House of Representatives
4 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 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 369

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 humble 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,

Petitions received. by Mr Birney, Mr John Brown and Mr Lusher. Petitions received.

Family Law Act

To the Honourable the 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,

Petitions received. by Mr John Brown and Mr Ellicott. Petitions received.

Anti-discrimination Legislation

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament in Canberra assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth:

That the right to work without discrimination on any ground including, inter alia, discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, pregnancy, marital status, sex and/or sexual preference, is a fundamental human right; and

That it is both the duty and the responsibility of society to fully support those denied work and therefore those who are unemployed as a result of society’s inability to provide full paid employment should be guaranteed an adequate income without discrimination on any ground, including inter alia discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status, sex and/or sexual preference, or pregnancy.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray -

That appropriate and adequate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of persons by statutory bodies and quasi-governmental organisations, in employment of individuals under federal awards, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and

That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to race, ethnic origin, marital status and/or sex.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petitions received. by Mr Ellicott and Mr Hodgman. Petitions received.

Taxation: Child Care Expenses

To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth:

Taxpayers who incur child-care expenses in order to earn income should be able to have those expenses exempt from income taxation in the same way as other taxpayers can deduct business expenses from their assessable income.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petitions received. by Mr Ellicott and Mr Hodgman. Petitions received.

Pharmaceutical Benefits: Goats Milk Formulae

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

Its objection to the removal from the Parmaceutical Benefits Scheme of all goats milk formulae. We request that the Government restore to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme this basic natural food which is essential to many babies who are allergic to both cows milk and soy and corn substitutes. The failure to do so will place an intolerable cost burden on their parents and no alternatives for the child as the only manufacturer will cease production if the product is withdrawn.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petitions received. by Mr Hodges and Mrs Kelly. Petitions received.

Great Barrier Reef: Oil Exploration

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth submits:

That off-shore oil exploration within the Great Barrier Reef Region constitutes a serious threat to the richest and most varied living system on earth.

Your petitioners request that your Honourable House will

  1. ) Prohibit oil exploration within the Great Barrier Reef Region,
  2. Declare the entire Great Barrier Reef Region a Marine Park under the Federal Government’s Great Barrier Marine Park Act 1975,
  3. Provide the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority with the staff and resources for effective management of the Region.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Hodgman. Petition received.

Great Barrier Reef: Oil Exploration

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens.

That the undersigned are of the opinion that the Great Barrier Reef and region must be protected in entirety from the potentially destructive effects of mining and respectfully demand that you ensure this by declaring a continuous marine park of the reef zone from Fraser Island to the Torres Strait in 1 980, for which management plans of the type devised for the Capricornia Section can be prepared and discussed in due course.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Millar. Petition received.

Preston Institute of Technology

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

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

Whereas a fully-accredited degree course in chiropractic has been established at Preston Institute of Technology, and

Whereas three hundred students who pay their own fees are in all five years of the programme, and

Whereas students and the profession can no longer carry the financial burden amounting to over $1,000,000 per year, and

Whereas a debt of $240,000 is being incurred in 1 980, and

Whereas if funding is not approved by August the course will close and students’ careers placed in grave jeopardy, your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should ensure that funding of the Preston Institute of Technology Chiropractic Programme by the Tertiary Education Commission be no longer delayed.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petitions received. by Mr Hodgman and Mr Ruddock. Petitions received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore pray:

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound wilt ever pray. by Mr Adermann.

Petition received.

National Health Insurance Scheme

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 through deliberate action of the dismantling of Medibank, the overwhelming majority of citizens have been extremely disadvantaged and denied economic ability to secure preventative medical care. The ever rising charges for medical services coupled with government’s appeasement of the private medical health scheme hierarchy have added unwarranted burdens on the peoples resources.

We therefore demand, as a basic human right, the introduction of a universal, non-contributory, national health insurance scheme, to ensure access by all citizens to adequate health care.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to bring about the wishes expressed in our Petition so that our Citizens may live their lives in dignity.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received. by Dr Blewett, Petition received.

Abortion

To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That we support your efforts to strengthen our family and community life.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will:

  1. . Cease paying out taxpayers money for unlawful abortion procedures.
  2. Eliminate subsidies for abortion referral centres.
  3. Ensure that Australia’s Human Rights Charter will include rights for unborn Australians, primarily the right to life.
  4. Introduce further benefits for pregnant women to assist them in continuing with their pregnancy.

  5. Obtain each year from each of the State AttorneysGeneral:

    1. written details as to the reasons for which procedures were carried out under item 6469 of the Medical Benefits Schedule,
    2. Declaration that no procedures in respect of which a claim is made within the Health Insurance Act are unlawful abortions.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr John Brown. Petition received.

Labelling of Cosmetics

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 continued use of animal ingredients in cosmetic products and the inhumane use of animals in scientific research for cosmetic products is abhorrent and barbaric.

That the Industries Assistance Commission, because of the Commission’s terms of reference, seems unable to impose any regulation or recommend any regulation which might restrict the activities of Cosmetic Companies which produce cosmetics in which animal ingredients have been used, or for which animals were subjected to research.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will:

Legislate to require comprehensive labelling of perfumes, cosmetics and toilet preparations to indicate:

  1. whether a product contains any animal derivative. If so, the ingredient and source should be indicated.
  2. whether the research and development of that product or any of its ingredients involved experimentation on animals.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Humphreys. Petition received.

Employment

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

We, the people of Flemington, request that work be found for the unemployed, especially for all unemployed school leavers in their first two years after school, and that all social security and welfare payments be adjusted to a guaranteed adequate minimum income above the poverty line.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Innes. Petition 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. 1 ) Adjust all pensions and benefits quarterly to the Consumer Price Index.
  2. Restore items deleted from the pharmaceutical benefits scheme and to add other necessary items.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Dr Klugman. 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,

Petition received. by Mr Ian Robinson. Petition received.

Australia Post Services

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned residents of Clayton North, Victoria, respectfully showeth:

That the removal by Australia Post of the postage box from the corner of Clayton and Stewart Roads, Clayton North, Victoria, has severely inconvenienced those residents living nearby.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray for the provision of a new postage box at the corner or the return of the original from its new location.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Falconer. Petition received.

In Vitro Fertilisation

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned electors of the Division of Mallee respectfully showeth that:

  1. A new human life begins at fertilization. To destroy this new life is to deprive a human being of the rest of his or her life. We cannot in conscience be accessories to such killing.
  2. Therefore we oppose any Government support of invitro fertilization or so called test tube baby experiments or procedures which expose newly conceived human lives to destruction, abandonment or unnatural risks.
  3. We also oppose the fertilization of human ova for the purpose of experimentation for mere microscopic evaluation as is currently being done at the Royal Women’s Hospital in Melbourne.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that steps be taken so that there is no Government involvement in any of these indignities.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Fisher. Petition received.

Australian Capital Territory: Development in Hall

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of the Village of Hall, surrounding districts, and the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth:

That officers of the National Capital Development Commission gave a commitment to the Village of Hall and District Progress Association committee members at a special meeting in September 1980 that no further development would take place in the Village of Hall until the plan for the future development of Hall had been discussed in detail with the residents of Hall.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Department of the Capital Territory withdraw Block 12, Section 2,

Victoria Street, Village of Hall, from the auction sale set for February 1 2 until such time as the residents of Hall have had sufficient time to study in detail and make comments about the National Capital Development Commission’s plan for the future development of the Village of Hall.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Hodgman. 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 ever pray,

Petition received. by Mr Kerin. Petition received.

Community Health Centres

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned electors of the Division of Lowe respectfully showeth that:

  1. There should be no more staffing reductions in Community Health Centres for 3 years and that all vacant positions should be filled.
  2. A Commonwealth/State community health agreement should be introduced for a 4 year duration to provide guidelines for the planning and management of services.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that there be no more staffing reductions in Community Health Centres and a Commonwealth/State community health agreement be introduced.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray,

Petition received. by Sir William McMahon. Petition received.

page 372

INTEREST RATES

Notice of Motion

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

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

That this House - 1 . Notes with concern:

That yesterday was the third anniversary of the 3 December 1977 statement by the present Prime Minister that ‘a 2 per cent reduction in interest rates in the next 12 months is a target that can and will be achieved’.

That yesterday was the day that publicity was given to a decision of the present Government leading to one of the largest ever–

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman is making a statement of fact. I think that he should consult–

Mr HURFORD:

– The Notice of Motion continues:

  1. Therefore condemns-
Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

page 372

PERSECUTION OF BAHA’I FAITH

Notice of Motion

Mr CARLTON:
Mackellar

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

That this House -

. expresses its grave concern over the persecution of the 200,000 adherents of the Baha’i faith in Iran by the regime of the Ayatollah Khomeini, and notes with alarm the recent execution of a member of the Baha’i faith in Tabriz solely on the grounds of his religion;

calls upon the government of Iran to release from custody those Baha’is including 9 members of the National Spiritual Assembly of Baha’is of Iran, who have been unjustly detained, and to restore the holy places, properties, community centres and companies that have been confiscated;

commends the Australian Government for its assistance to Australian Baha’is in expressing their protest to the Iranian Government.

requests the Australian Government to lend its support to moves in international forums designed to restore to the Iranian Baha’is their freedom to live their lives in peace and practise their religion in harmony with their fellow citizens of other faiths.

The motion is seconded by the honourable member for Tangney.

page 372

APPOINTMENTS TO PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY

Notice of Motion

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

That this House requests the Presiding Officers not to proceed with the appointment of any person to the proposed Level 2, 2nd Division, position in the Parliamentary Library until any restructuring of staff positions has been referred to the Parliamentary Library Committee for its consideration.

page 372

UNPARLIAMENTARY WORDS

Notice of Motion

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

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

That this House is of the opinion that the words ‘hypocrisy’ and ‘hypocritical’, defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as simulation of virtue or goodness, are not unparliamentary.

page 372

AUSTRALIA’S NATURAL RESOURCES

Notice of Motion

Mr MOUNTFORD:
Banks

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

  1. That a select committee be appointed to inquire into and report on the proper and orderly exploration, development and marketing of Australia’s natural resources to the benefit of present and future Australians.
  2. That provisions relating to membership, powers and proceedings of the committee be contained in a subsequent resolution.

page 373

ELECTION BROADCASTS

Notice of Motion

Mr CHARLES:
Isaacs

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

That a select committee be appointed to investigate and report on the following matters relating to televised election broadcasts:

The desirability of prohibiting very short advertisements and fixing a minimum of S minutes as proposed in several submissions to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal’s inquiry of 1977.

The failure of election advertisements to comply with the Broadcasting Tribunal’s specified purpose in relaxing limits on advertising.

The benefits or otherwise of maintaining the broadcasting ‘blackout’ on the two days preceding an election.

The laws and practice relating to political broadcasts in the United Kingdom and other countries, particularly where the mixture of government and commercial television is very similar to the set-up in Australia.

The desirability of setting up an authority to deal specifically with political broadcasting and consisting of representatives of political parties, employer and employee bodies in the media industry together with representatives of consumer organisations.

page 373

ROAD SAFETY

Notice of Motion

Mrs DARLING:
Lilley

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

That this House, while observing that jurisdiction for motoring regulations is rightly the reserve of the Governments of the States, is nevertheless of the opinion that every level of government needs to bring to bear its own authority, in cooperation with other governments, to achieve a reduction in road carnage, and commends those news media which, by reporting regularly, prominently, and in detail the results of road accidents, have attempted to reduce the road toll.

Finally, appeals most sincerely to all Australians over the forthcoming festive period to observe the varying State motoring regulations and drive soberly and carefully.

I believe that this Notice of Motion would be seconded by every member in this House.

page 373

HANDICAPPED PERSONS

Notice of Motion

Mrs KELLY:
Canberra

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

That this House expresses its concern at the failure of the Minister for the Capital Territory to assist the transportation of the handicapped in the Australian Capital Territory through assisting the maxi-taxi project.

page 373

EAST HILLS RAILWAY LINE

Notice of Motion

Mr MOUNTFORD:
Banks

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

That, in the opinion of this House, additional funds should be provided to the State Government of New South Wales to enable amplification of the East Hills railway line between Riverwood and East Hills so that adequate rail services can be made available to residents in the Electoral Division of Banks.

page 373

DISALLOWED NOTICE OF MOTION

Mrs Darling proceeding to give a notice of motion -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member’s notice of motion is out of order.

page 373

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 373

QUESTION

HOUSING FINANCE

Mr LES JOHNSON:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister for Housing and Construction and refer to the fact that the latest increase in interest rates reduces by $2,000 the maximum entitlement of mortgage advance for a person on average weekly earnings. I ask: Does this not effectively preclude people who are on average weekly earnings and below from obtaining a home savings grant?

Mr McVEIGH:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Resources · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

– I remind the honourable member for Hughes that unfortunately the recently announced interest rates will increase the overall cost of housing to people who have to take advantage of a loan. I also remind him that at the present time the parameters have not been set by bodies such as the savings banks which advance finance. I particularly draw the honourable member’s attention to the statement in this morning’s Press by Mr Ron Cameron, representing the Australian Bankers Association, in which he said that it was quite probable that the length of the loan would be extended so that a person will not pay a greater amount per month than he is paying at the present time, although quite obviously he would pay off the loan over a greater period.

I also remind the honourable member that in a speech last week I indicated quite clearly, quite specifically, the guidelines under which the Home Savings Grant Scheme will operate. I cannot visualise the situation about which he spoke occurring. Finally, I remind the honourable member that in the period from 1972 to 1974, under his Government, when he was for part of the time the Minister for Housing–

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister now is not being relevant to the question.

Mr McVEIGH:

– Finally, I make the point that even though increased interest rates will cause increases in home loan repayments, these are insignificant compared to the $12 to $14 increase between 1972 and 1974 under his Government.

page 374

QUESTION

STANDARD OF LIVING

Mr HYDE:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and concerns the Government’s rejection of the Industries Assistance Commission recommendations for the motor vehicle industry. Using gross domestic product per head as a measure of standard of living, in 1960 did the Federal Republic of Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Luxembourg and Denmark enjoy a higher standard of living than Australia? Did Norway in 1970, France in 1971, Belgium in 1972, and the Netherlands and Iceland in 1977 surpass Australia? On present trends, will Japan surpass Australia in this coming year and Singapore in 1991 ? Has Australia been surpassed because of inadequate resources, poor macroeconomic management or exceptional institutionally created bottlenecks, including high trade barriers? If none of those is the reason, what is?

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

– I am not nearly so well travelled as the honourable member; I have not been to a number of the countries to which he has referred. I can say that I am quite convinced that the future of Australia is assured and I am convinced that the policies being pursued by the Government are correct for the development of this nation. I can say also that in the years in which I have taken an interest in financial affairs the standing of Australia in the world has never been higher. I have never known an occasion when so many people have been interested in this country and concerned for its development.

Mr Cohen:

– They are looking for a bargain.

Mr MOORE:

– The honourable member for Robertson says that they are looking for a bargain. I do not know whether he got one. The question asked by the honourable member for Moore certainly raises technical matters, but I would say to him that the policies being pursued by the Government will lead him to the right answers by 1983.

page 374

QUESTION

HOUSING FINANCE

Mr FREE:

– Is the Minister for Housing and Construction aware of the fact that a single income family of one adult on average weekly earnings with a dependent spouse and two children, even if able to save 25 per cent of its disposable income after tax and paying $60 a week rent, could have accumulated only $1,959 in 1979-80? Does the Government’s decision to increase the deposit gap as the result of the increase in interest rates totally wipe out these savings? What steps will the Government take to compensate these people?

Mr McVEIGH:
NCP/NP

– I remind the honourable gentleman that the establishment of deposits is a matter for the respective lending and financial bodies. I remind him that under various forms of Commonwealth assistance, such as the increase last year in general purpose grants to all States of 9.9 per cent and the allocation of quite substantial sums of money under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, finance is available -

Mr Hayden:

– You are not answering the question.

Mr McVEIGH:

– The Leader of the Opposition should stop going red. He is furious with the frustrations of his impotence. In conclusion, I remind the honourable member for Macquarie that, owing to the good economic and financial policies of this Government, the position in regard to the percentage of average weekly earnings required to pay back a home loan is much better. The amount required under the Labor Government was 29 per cent of average weekly earnings and under this Government it is some percentage points less.

page 374

QUESTION

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION LEGISLATION

Mr DEAN:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Is it a fact that the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and the regulations thereunder are both unwieldy and complicated and were once described by Mr Justice Moore as a lawyer’s nightmare and, I think, by the Minister himself as a can of worms? Does the Minister intend to take action to overhaul the Act and regulations?

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

– I have noted that the President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission made that remark, and of course the honourable member quoted me correctly. The Conciliation and Arbitration Act and regulations provide the framework and processes upon which the Federal system of industrial relations is based. If that system is to operate properly, of course the framework and those processes must be understood, accepted and observed by the parties directly concerned in their operation, by the people they represent and, indeed, by the general public.

Perhaps I should re-emphasise the first point, namely that the system must be understood. That means that the Act and regulations must be understood. Most leading personalities who have an interest in industrial relations are on record as criticising the existing state of the legislation and calling on the Commonwealth Government to initiate a consolidation of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and the regulations made thereunder. Over the past few weeks I have naturally read the Act in some detail and carefully considered the arguments that have been put down by leading critics. I consider that they have a great deal of merit to them. I am satisfied that the Department should initiate an examination of the Act and regulations with a view to simplifying what should be a basic tool of our industrial system. I have therefore directed it so to do.

page 375

QUESTION

HOUSING FINANCE

Mr MILTON:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for Housing and Construction noted the confirmation by Mr Ron Cameron of the Australian Bankers Association, at the housing stock conference in Melbourne last year, that 70 per cent of families with incomes below average weekly earnings who apply for bank housing loans receive only 27 per cent of the total housing loans allocated and as little as 10 per cent of the money lent? How will the increase in interest rates on bank housing loans benefit these moderate income families?

Mr McVEIGH:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the first question is no. The answer to the second question is as previously given, that is, that people on low incomes will have access to welfare housing. On account of the economic policies of the Government they are better placed to overcome the great problems which are thrust down upon them.

page 375

QUESTION

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS LIST

Mr HODGES:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for Health aware of criticism by the public and by some members of the medical profession of recent deletions of drugs from the pharmaceutical benefits list? Were these deletions announced before the recent Federal election but did they become effective on 1 December? What is the expertise of the body responsible for assessing and recommending whether drugs are added to or deleted from the list and are drug costs a major consideration? Will the Minister give consideration to the production of a leaflet for use by doctors and pharmacists, explaining to patients in general terms why drugs are added to and deleted from the list?

Mr MacKELLAR:
Minister for Health · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Yes, I am aware that there has been some criticism about deletions from the pharmaceutical benefits list, but I would point out to the honourable member that these deletions were announced well prior to the recent Federal election and that they took effect from 1 December last. Of course, a continuing aspect of the administration of my portfolio is that drugs are added to and deleted from the list from time to time. This is done as a response to advice obtained from a body known as the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee which is a statutory body established under the National Health Act. The Committee is composed of people of high expertise. For instance, it comprises six medical practitioners who are nominated by the Australian Medical Association, one pharmacist nominated by the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, a pharmacologist and also a Department of Health pharmacist. So the Government is given advice by a high-level expert committee.

In relation to the other matters raised by the honourable member, I am concerned that the reasons for deletions and additions can be misunderstood both by practitioners and by the general public. I take on board the honourable member’s suggestion that more advice should be given to the doctors for handing on to their patients. I will definitely take into account his suggestion in that respect. I point out to the honourable member that in fact a certain amount of advice does go to the medical and allied professions in relation to drugs being listed and delisted. However, if we take into account the amount of criticism that has been engendered in this respect in the recent instance, obviously there is a need for further information to be provided and I will have my Department look at ways in which that can be done.

page 375

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

Mr Campbell having addressed a question to the Treasurer -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The question is out of order.

page 375

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for Communications aware that there is an increasing number of complaints from country people that Telecom Australia is providing only a second-rate service during the concessional call period? In particular, is he aware that in the 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. period the rate of successfully connected calls can be as low as 50 per cent? Will the Minister ensure that the success rate standard which Telecom maintains for metropolitan and full tariff STD calls will also be required for country and concessional STD calls?

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Communications · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

– It is true that throughout Australia there are variable standards of Telecom performance. However, I believe that the concessions which have been obtained flow largely from the introduction of technological changes in the system itself. The concentration of calls immediately after the beginning of the concessional period, and I understand in the hour immediately before it ends, can lead to congestion, with sometimes less frequent connection than would otherwise be the case. I share the honourable gentleman’s concern that concessions should be meaningful and reasonably available to those who wish to take advantage of them. I will draw his question to the notice of those responsible within Telecom.

page 376

QUESTION

INTEREST RATES

Mr MOUNTFORD:

– My question is directed to the Treasurer. I refer to his statement on the Australian Broadcasting Commission radio program PM last night that the adverse effect on small businesses from yesterday’s interest rate rises would be lessened because the increased cost would be a tax deduction for businesses. Will the Treasurer consider introducing similar concessions for home buyers to offset the drastic effect which an extra $22 a month will have on their living standards? If not, does the Treasurer’s statement indicate that he favours the Government subsidising the interest cost of business at the expense of home buyers?

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

– No, my statement does not indicate that. It is just an observation on the obvious, that is, that an outgoing which is incurred by a business in earning its assessable income is tax deductible. It would be an extraordinary state of affairs, under our present taxation system, if that were not the case. Also, I think that the honourable gentleman has missed a fairly obvious point; that is, that the announcement I made two nights ago regarding interest rate increases displayed a continuing preference for home buyers in that the increase, so far as housing loans are concerned, has been limited to one per cent. I think it needs to be emphasised that the Government, with the cooperation of the banks, is quite directly, deliberately and openly giving a preference to home buyers and continuing the long-standing support that governments of our persuasion have given to the concept of maximum home ownership by Australians.

page 376

QUESTION

METRIC SYSTEM: SEIZURE OF GOODS

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Is the Minister for Science and Technology aware that a crack squad from the Bureau of Customs recently seized goods consigned to a Melbourne businessman from communist China? Has the Minister requested the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs to give the squad a special citation for devotion to hazardous duty? Will the Minister tell the House what he proposes to do with the seized items, namely, 25 dozen rulers that show imperial and metric measurements? Does he think that this incident highlights how petty and stupid we are being in thrusting metrics down the throats of people? Finally, will the Minister have this excessive law changed?

Mr THOMSON:
Minister for Science and Technology · LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

– The answer to the first part of the honourable member’s question is yes; to the second part, no; and to the last part, no. I will make just one other comment: Yesterday the Metric Conversion Board met to consider the problem mentioned by the honourable member. I will be pleased to let him know the results of that consideration when I receive them.

page 376

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BUREAU

Mr HAWKE:

– I ask the Minister for Industrial Relations: Firstly, is it a fact that the staffing of the Industrial Relations Bureau increased from 115 in March 1978 to 203 in June 1980- an increase of 77 per cent? Secondly, is it a fact that the number of inspections declined from 23,868 in 1977-78 to 14,072 in 1979-80- a decline of 40 per cent? Thirdly, as the Minister’s predecessor said, when introducing the IRB legislation, that the Bureau, in taking over the functions of the Arbitration Inspectorate, would ensure that they were carried out more effectively, will the Minister say how that has been achieved and what the IRB has done better than what was performed under the previous arrangements?

The honourable member for Wills proceeding with his question -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman’s first three questions are in order but the subsequent two questions are not in order. I ask the honourable gentleman to resume his seat and I will call the Minister for Industrial Relations to answer those questions which were in order.

Mr PEACOCK:
LP

– As the honourable member will be aware if he is following what is transpiring in the Parliament and not merely reading newspapers, the report of the Industrial Relations Bureau was tabled by me yesterday and the figures to which he alludes are contained in that report. It is a fact that following the completion of the period covered by the report figures are available which show that the inspection rate has gone up beyond that contained in yesterday’s report. But, as his reading of the newspapers would make him aware, I have said on a number of occasions that I am testing the frequent criticisms that are made in regard to the IRB. They relate not merely to the reduction in the number of inspections but also to questions such as waste and duplication. I am testing them very thoroughly with the alleged performance of the Bureau and I have indicated to the Prime Minister that 1 will be making a report to the Government in due course regarding the future of the Bureau.

page 377

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Mr GOODLUCK:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Communications. The Minister is no doubt aware of the profit by Telecom Australia. In the light of that profit, will the Minister consider, firstly, increasing the span of Access 80 and, secondly, reducing charges, particularly for the aged and infirm in this country?

Mr SINCLAIR:
NCP/NP

– First of all, I say to the honourable gentleman that he, like the rest of us on this side of the House, does not believe that the word ‘profit’ is bad. In fact, if a fair return is not gained on capital invested, it being the capital of the shareholders - the taxpayers of this country - I am afraid that the whole of the business of government suffers and the ability of my colleague, the Treasurer, to fund operations with a minimal level of tax is threatened. Therefore, I hope that he and others in the community recognise that when statutory authorities such as Telecom show a return on funds invested they are doing no more than what every wage earner seeks to do when he invests his labour and at the end of the week receives a pay envelope. It is significant that the apportionment of funds and where they are spent now lie within the responsibility of Telecom.

I share the honourable gentleman’s concern that Access 80 should reflect a widening ability of people in regional areas to gain local call access or extended community access at a reasonable charge. That demonstrably has been achieved, although some areas, including areas in Tasmania, to which the honourable gentleman directs his particular attention, have sought further extension. 1 am happy again to bring those particular extensions to the attention of Telecom to see whether further adjustments are possible. I assure the honourable gentleman that it will certainly be my intention to try to persuade Telecom that to the maximum it provides concessions in that area as well as in other areas. The honourable gentleman asked finally about concessions for the aged, invalid, infirm and pensioners. That is another area where this Government demonstrably, across all its policies, has shown real continuing and human concern. I assure him that it will continue to do so.

page 377

HOUSING FINANCE

Mr HAYDEN:

– I refer the Treasurer to his statement to the House yesterday when he said that the principal reason for the Government’s decision to increase interest rates was to make more funds available. I put to one side the spectacular contradiction and the manifest economic illiteracy the statement represents to the purpose of his recent monetary policy actions, and ask: Is he aware of estimates made by the Housing Industry Association–

Mr Nixon:

– What was that all about. Bill?

Mr HAYDEN:

– I am sorry that I did not use monosyllables, Peter.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Leader of the Opposition will ask his question.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I forgot about the necessary qualifications I should have added to get the message across to the National Country Party.

Mr Anthony:

– Those behind you certainly do not understand it. They are all goggle-eyed.

Mr HAYDEN:

– They have to look at you; that is why. I ask: Is the Treasurer aware of estimates made by the Housing Industry Association that, for every 0.5 per cent rise in interest rates for home loans, over 4,000 people are pushed out of the loan market because they are unable to afford the extra interest payments? Is he concerned that, because of interest rate increases of up to 3 per cent this year for home loans, over 24,000 hopeful home buyers will not be able to get loans? Is he also concerned that interest rate increases of this order have reduced by about $6,000 a year the capacity of the family on average weekly earnings to borrow? Is he further concerned at the consequences for home buyers with existing mortgages, whose monthly repayments will have increased by between $44 and $65 this year due to his Government’s decisions on interest rates?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

– I have made it clear that the Government naturally and very genuinely regrets the fact that finance will become dearer to ordinary home buyers, to small businessmen, and to a large number of people in rural Australia as a result of the announcement made two nights ago. I do not pretend that increases in interest rates are anything other than regrettable and unpopular. 1 reiterate the point I made then: If unrealistic restrictions are placed on what lending institutions can charge for money which is made available to a particular section of the community, it is a matter of commercial inevitability that less money will be channelled into those areas and more money will be channelled into higher cost areas. That, demonstrably, is what was occurring under the interest rate ceilings that were adjusted two nights ago. There is all the evidence in the world, in terms of both the experience of people trying to borrow money and the lending policies adopted by the banks, to underwrite that proposition. That was and remains the principal reason, but not the only reason, why the Government acted as it did. In all the criticism that the Leader of the Opposition makes of the Government’s announcement, one is left with the inevitable conclusion that, if the Opposition had been in our shoes the other night, the Opposition–

Mr Hayden:

– We would never have got into the mess.

Mr HOWARD:

– The Leader of the Opposition says that the Labor Party would never have got into the mess. I remind this House of what happened - -

Mr Hayden:

– We would not have the National Country Party standing over us.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Leader of the Opposition will remain silent.

Mr HOWARD:

– I remind this House of what happened in 1974, when bill rates hit 30 per cent at one stage. That was an indication of what the market thought interest rates should be. Certificates of deposit were bid for at rates of up to 22 per cent and 23 per cent, which is an indication of what the market thought interest rates should have been at that time under the Labor Government. It is quite clear that, faced with the economic necessity of putting up interest rates, a Labor government would have run away from the problem. It would have pretended that one could unrealistically hold down interest rates. It would have simply allowed the money supply to blow out and, inevitably, we would have had a much higher rate of inflation. I repeat that no government can responsibly try to control both interest rates and the money supply. If a government believes, as this Government does, in the use of monetary policy as an anti-inflationary weapon, it must on occasions be prepared to allow interest rates to rise; otherwise it is jettisoning its antiinflationary policy, which is one thing that this Government will never be prepared to do.

page 378

QUESTION

CO-OPERATIVE FARMERS AND GRAZIERS DIRECT MEAT SUPPLY LTD

Mr FISHER:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– I refer the Treasurer to loan guarantees made by the Commonwealth and the State of Victoria to the Co-operative Farmers and Graziers Direct Meat Supply Ltd. Has the Treasurer received a submission from the directors of the co-operative setting out the current position? Is it a fact that financial assistance is sought in the form of both working and share capital in order to enable the co-operative to remain in the hands of the farmer shareholders? Is the Treasurer concerned that unsatisfactory terms of sale which would disadvantage both the Commonwealth and the shareholders may have to be considered?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

– I am aware of the developments. I think the House would be aware that some two years ago the Government entered into an arrangement which was, by any measure, a generous response to a problem that was causing a good deal of concern amongst a community in a section of Victoria. I am aware of the interest of the honourable gentleman in the problems of the co-operative. I would have to say to the honourable gentleman, though, that I believe that on that occasion the Government acted very generously. I would not wish to raise any expectation that there could be a continuation or an extension of that generosity in the future.

page 378

QUESTION

INSULIN SYRINGES

Mr DUFFY:
HOLT, VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Health been drawn to the fact that the insulin formula has been standardised, that new syringes were introduced along with the new formula, and that such syringes are not available under the National Health Scheme and have to be purchased by pensioners? If so, will action be taken to provide such syringes free of charge to pensioners?

Mr MacKELLAR:
LP

– I am aware that insulin has been standardised and that new syringes are required. A number of representations have been made in relation to the cost of the syringes. Naturally enough, there are representations seeking government support or government subsidy for a broad range of items. Whilst this Government is pursuing a policy of restraint, obviously such requests have to be looked at very carefullly. The matter is under consideration but I am not in a position to make any statement about it at this stage.

page 378

QUESTION

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN RAILWAY SERVICES

Mr WALLIS:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Transport aware that the Australian National Railways Commission intends to curtail country passenger rail services in South Australia, such as the Peterborough-Adelaide and Adelaide-Gladstone lines? As the South Australian Minister for Transport has announced that the South Australian Government is to exercise its rights under the rail transfer arrangements in regard to curtailment of services, can the Minister inform the House whether the services threatened with closure will remain in operation until such time as the issues are arbitrated?

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

– I am not in a position to make any statement as to the future of those lines. Next week I will be talking to the Minister for Transport in South Australia about a number of proposals that the Australian National Railways Commission has submitted in respect of its operational activities in the rural areas of South Australia. I must say that the Commission has a corporate plan to trade into a profit situation by 1988. Therefore, as it has a very important responsibility to ensure that the services it is operating are economic, it has had to curtail some services that are not being profitably undertaken in some rural areas of South Australia. As soon as I am in a position to do so I shall inform the honourable member of the Government’s intention.

page 379

QUESTION

HOUSING LOANS INSURANCE CORPORATION

Mr CADMAN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Housing and Construction. He will be aware that the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation has continued to play a significant role in mortgage insurance for home buyers. Can he inform the House whether the Government will proceed to sell the Corporation, which was set up under the personal guidance of Sir Robert Menzies?

Mr McVEIGH:
NCP/NP

– The honourable member for Mitchell has shown a long and keen interest in the operations of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. I advise him that, following the tabling of that Corporation’s annual report in Parliament yesterday, I have received many inquiries concerning the Government’s intention as to the disposal of that body. I remind the House that in July 1979 the Government decided to sell it. However, following numerous representations from such bodies as the permanent building societies and the Real Estate Institute of Australia, my predecessor was instructed to re-examine the situation. I can well understand the concern in the public’s mind about the Government’s intention.

The report tabled yesterday advised that last year there was a 38 per cent increase in claims amounting to $3.6m. There was a return to the Government - I know that the Treasurer will be delighted with this- of 20 per cent of the capital. A million dollars flowed through to the Treasury coffers and $721 ,000 was transferred to reserves. I also remind the House that last year applications for re-finance for insurance were received from 55,000 home owners in Australia. As a rural member, I am delighted to know that one-third of that number lived in rural areas. I also remind those who sit opposite that 65 per cent of the loans granted last year covered high ratio loans - that is, where 75 per cent of the finance was provided by the lender- and 14 per cent of the total loans were in the very high ratio area of 90 per cent. Over the next few months, in view of the many representations received, the Government will be addressing itself to the proposition of selling the HLIC - consistent with its private enterprise philosophy in a free economy and consistent with that excellent report which I had the honour of tabling in the Parliament yesterday.

page 379

QUESTION

SALES TAX LEGISLATION

Mr SHIPTON:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA

– My question, which is directed to the Treasurer, concerns the review of taxation that he is undertaking. Will this review include the possibility of reforms to the existing sales tax legislation and system, both as to time in which to pay and rates of tax payable? Will he agree that if sales tax were paid at the final point of sale rather than by the wholesaler or manufacturer, as at present, some prices to the consumer would be reduced?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

– The review that I have asked for is essentially one that will enable the Government to examine the broad options that would be available if it were minded to bring about a change in the existing taxation base. As the honourable member is aware, although Australia’s overall taxation take is five or six percentage points below the average for member countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development - a point which is sometimes lost sight of in debates that go on in our community about taxation - we do rely far more heavily than most other industrialised countries on personal income tax as a source of revenue. Obviously we have to ask ourselves some fundamental questions in that area. I do not need to remind the House that there are powerful arguments for and against a change in the taxation base. It is a difficult and challenging matter which ought to be objectively addressed. I hope that it is possible to have a rational debate on the taxation base. Of course, in relation to the generality of sales tax one of the options that can be looked at in terms of a change is some alteration to the incidence of wholesale sales tax. There are various combinations and variations of that. I think the honourable gentleman has in mind a more detailed review of the sales tax legislation. That review would be separate from the review about which I have spoken, which is more about taxation systems than the detailed operation of individual systems. I will examine whether there can be some review of sales tax legislation; but I think any detailed review in that area should, quite properly, await the outcome of the Government’s more general review of the taxation base.

page 380

QUESTION

DOMESTIC AIR FARES INQUIRY

– Mr MORRIS- Does the Minister for Transport recall telling the House on 18 September last that the Government was anxious to establish the facts relating to the domestic air fare structure and had appointed a public inquiry to do this? How does the Minister expect that inquiry committee to carry out its task responsibly, following his recent instruction that the committee curtail its activities and report six months ahead of schedule? Is he aware of public statements from the committee that its report will be quite different from that which the Government would have got if it was given its full time to report and that the report will have to be much narrower in scope and depth? How does the Minister propose that the inquiry committee prepare a comprehensive report on the fare structure when public hearings have not been announced for South Australia, Victoria or Queensland, and substantive submissions have not been made by the Bureau of Transport Economics, his Department or Ansett Airlines of Australia? Finally, as the inquiry committee is still advertising for staff, will he now restore the committee’s report date to the previous July 1981 deadline to enable a comprehensive report to be prepared on the domestic air fare structure, or will he once again yield to the interests of the proprietors of Ansett Airlines and his Department?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

– The Holcroft Committee has been instructed to terminate its inquiry by 31 January. Its initial instruction was to complete the inquiry by January. It was a six months inquiry. The Committee did seek an extension of time but, because of the decision of the Government to legislate for a two-airline policy, it has been decided to require the Committee to report to the Government so that the Parliament and the Government will have the benefit of that inquiry before proceeding to debate the two-airline policy.

page 380

QUESTION

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION ACT

Mr MacKENZIE:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister for Communications. Are the rumoured changes to the Broadcasting and Television Act likely to take place? What effect would any such changes have on the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal?

Mr SINCLAIR:
NCP/NP

– There are a couple of instances of recent times which have caused the

Government to consider the implications of the present provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act. One is the decision by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal with respect to Channel 10 in Melbourne. The other is inadvertent transgressions of the provisions of the Act as a result of stock exchange dealings for the takeover of the Ampol company, which causes us to look at the present provisions to see whether they do need modification and, if so, in what way. This consideration will involve not only the machinery provisions within sections 90 to 92KA of the Broadcasting and Television Act but also the consequences and implications of inadvertent stock exchange transactions and the way in which they should or should not be approved.

The Government is concerned that there should be, at the same time, an examination of networking, which has been examined only minimally within the Australian context. It is concerned that there should be three major networks operating, if at all possible, in the Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide context. The Government is equally aware and concerned that there should be protection of the regional stations to ensure that their operations function effectively and viably. In this overall embrace, therefore, the Government is looking at the provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act to see what changes, if any, are necessary to ensure the maintenance of reasonable competition and an adequacy of broadcasting and television services within the overall objectives of the Government. For this reason there will be consideration of the matter and, if there are any policy changes to be made, they will be announced in due course in this place.

page 380

QUESTION

COMMUNITY YOUTH SUPPORT SCHEMES

Dr JENKINS:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs been drawn to a statement by the Prime Minister, reported in the Melbourne Sun-News Pictorial of 24 November 1980 - that explains why I have been hopping up and down for the last five sitting days - in which the right honourable gentleman expressed his Government’s commitment to youth gaining employment through, amongst other things, training and manpower programs including the Community Youth Support Scheme? If so, does this commitment include providing finance for, firstly, new Community Youth Support Schemes where need is demonstrated; secondly, extra project officers for CYSS schemes where need is such as to strain present staffing; and, thirdly, an administrative component in such schemes to cover secretarial duties and the keeping of financial records?

Mr VINER:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister · STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– Quite clearly there is a commitment to maintain CYSS throughout Australia. In the last Budget $1 1.6m was provided to maintain about 285 projects throughout Australia. It is believed that that amount was sufficient to allow for up to about 10 new projects. One must bear in mind that some projects cease to operate because they have been successful in meeting the needs of young unemployed people in the particular locality in which they are situated. In fact, that has happened. It has happened in the electorates of members of the Opposition. The CYSS projects need to operate in accordance with the guidelines and on the basis of proper principles of accountability for the use of taxpayers’ money.

We now have a wide network of CYSS projects throughout Australia which are operating effectively to help the young unemployed maintain their motivation and morale and to build up some basic confidence. The attitude of the Government is clearly contrary to that of the former shadow Minister for Employment who described the projects as only engaged upon cuddle therapy–

Mr Young:

– That is exactly what they do.

Mr VINER:

– No, they do not do that. The honourable member knows that they do not do it. He ought to be ashamed of so criticising those who have performed such a fine service for the young unemployed.

Dr Everingham:

– Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. You have been very strict this morning in ruling out of order questions and, indeed, notices of motion which have asked for an expression of opinion. All the Minister is doing is expressing opinions. He is not answering the question and his answer is not relevant.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Standing Orders permit the Minister to do what he is doing. The Standing Orders do not permit questioners to ask for an expression of opinion. That is the Standing Orders. I can only interpret them as they exist. There is no point of order.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– Mr Speaker, I want to make this point on those Standing Orders. I understand the Standing Orders have been treated with some laxity in the past on the basis that the Ministers can generalise in reply. I have looked at the Standing Orders. It is stated that the answer must be relevant to the question. If we look at the word ‘relevant’ we see that the answer must be related to the substance of the question. One cannot separate the two. The answer should be relevant to the question that is asked. If you look at the Standing Order which inhibits the questioner, you will see that the question is not to be argumentative or inferential. There are all sorts of restrictions. My submission to you, Mr Speaker, is that we would get along very well if the inhibitions applied to the questioner were also applied to the answerer. I submit that there is weight in the submission made to you.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order.

Mr VINER:

– For the information of the honourable member for Scullin, I point out that the requests for funds for individual Community Youth Support Scheme projects are handled by a State committee. That committee assesses the need for staff, materials, tutorial fees, accommodation, and the like. A recommendation is then made to me and I, within certain limits, accept the recommendation of the State committee. If the request is for an expenditure of more than $4,000 a month, then it requires my personal approval. If a new project is to be established, that requires my personal approval. If the recommendation is that a project be disbanded, that also requires my personal approval.

page 381

QUESTION

OMBUDSMAN

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member for Corio has indicated that he wishes to ask me a question. I do not know where he assumes there is a right to do so, but I will hear him.

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

- Mr Speaker, I wish to ask whether, in accordance with the Act of this Parliament requiring the Ombudsman to report to the Parliament, you will make inquiries about why that report has not been made available to the Parliament, as it is in the hands of the Prime Minister. As I understand it, there is no right under that Act to withhold the report from the Parliament, and this is the last day of sitting.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I will make appropriate inquiry.

page 381

NATIONAL ENERGY AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the National Energy and Advisory Committee 1979-80.

page 381

FORMER DEPARTMENT OF PRODUCTIVITY

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Industry and Commerce · Flinders · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report 1979-80 of the former Department of Productivity.

page 382

SUPERANNUATION FUND INVESTMENT TRUST

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

Pursuant to section 162 of the Superannuation Act 1976, 1 present the interim annual report for 1979-80 of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and the Commissioner for Superannuation.

page 382

SUPERANNUATION FUND INVESTMENT TRUST

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

– Pursuant to section 162 of the Superannuation Act 1976, 1 present the annual report for 1978-79 of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and the Commissioner for Superannuation.

page 382

NORFOLK ISLAND

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of Norfolk Island 1979-80.

page 382

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL GALLERY

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

– Pursuant to section 42 (1) of the National Gallery Act, I present the Australian National Gallery review for 1979-80.

page 382

AUSTRALIAN WAR MEMORIAL

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

– Pursuant to section 48 (1) of the Australian War Memorial Act 1980, 1 present the annual report of the Australian War Memorial for 1 979-80.

page 382

SPORTS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

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

– For the information of honourable members I table and seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard details of grant allocations for the Sports Development Program 1980-81.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows -

page 384

SEA TRANSPORT: TORRES STRAIT AREA

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

– For the information of honourable members I present a report on sea transport serving the Torres Strait area for 1980.

page 384

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report for 1979-80 of the Department of Social Security.

page 384

NATIONAL INQUIRY INTO TEACHER EDUCATION

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Education · Farrer · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report of the National Inquiry into Teacher Education, which was conducted by a committee under the chairmanship of Professor James Auchmuty

page 384

BANKRUPTCY ACT

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

– Pursuant to section 314 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966, 1 present the annual report for the year 1979-80.

page 384

PRICES JUSTIFICATION TRIBUNAL

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

– Pursuant to section 35(1) of the Prices Justification Act 1973, I present the annual report of the Prices Justification Tribunal for 1979-80.

page 384

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report 1979-80 of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs.

page 384

PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLES

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

– For the information of honourable members I present a report of the Industries Assistance Commission on passenger motor vehicles.

page 384

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

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

– Pursuant to section 45 (1) of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973, 1 present the annual report of the Industries Assistance Commission.

page 384

REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for Administrative Services · Bass · LP

– Pursuant to the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973, 1 present a report and determination of the Remuneration Tribunal, November 1980.

page 384

BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report for 1979-80 of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics.

page 384

AUSTRALIAN WHEAT BOARD

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

– Pursuant to section 45( 1 ) of the Wheat Industry Stabilisation Act 1974, 1 present the annual report of the Australian Wheat Board for the year ended 30 November 1978, together with the text of a statement relating to the report.

page 384

AUSTRALIAN DAIRY CORPORATION

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

– Pursuant to section 29(4) of the Dairy Produce Act, 1924, 1 present the annual report for 1979-80 of the Australian Dairy Corporation.

page 384

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr CUNNINGHAM:
McMillan

- Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr CUNNINGHAM:

– Yes, Mr Speaker. At Question Time yesterday I asked a question regarding workers who were sacked from the Loy Yang power station construction site in Victoria. A report on Question Time in the Melbourne Age this morning stated that the question asked was about the withholding of unemployment benefits from striking Loy Yang construction workers. I wish to make the point that at no stage yesterday did I mention striking workers. These workers were sacked. I think that the public should be aware that those men were not on strike, they were sacked, and they were denied unemployment benefits in those circumstances.

page 384

QUESTION

JAPANESE TUNA LONG-LINE FISHING

Ministerial Statement Mr NIXON (Gippsland- Minister for Primary Industry) - For the information of honourable members I present a subsidiary agreement between the Governments of Australia and Japan concerning Japanese tuna long-line fishing. I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

Mr NIXON:
NCP/NP

– The subsidiary agreement between Australia and Japan on Japanese tuna long-line fishing is the second to be concluded under the head agreement on fisheries with Japan. It specifies the terms and conditions under which Japanese tuna long-line vessels may operate in the Australian fishing zone for the 12 months from 1 November 1980. The agreement represents a most satisfactory outcome from Australia’s point of view and, for the benefit of honourable members, I would like to summarise its major features, especially as so much public interest has been shown on the question of Japanese long-line fishing activities in Australian waters.

It is worth noting that both this agreement and the last one were made possible only because of the 200-mile Australian fishing zone. Prior to the establishment of the zone, Japanese fishing vessels were free to operate anywhere they liked outside the 12-mile declared fishing zone. The new agreement provides for a substantial extension of areas closed to Japanese fishing vessels. Perhaps the most significant area is the black marlin fishery off north Queensland. The agreement also increases the access fee payable to the Commonwealth Government, and it provides for the establishment of a joint Japanese-Australian working group to examine the feasibility of achieving greater Australian participation in the tuna longline fishery.

I have attached to the circulated copies of my statement, to assist members’ understanding, a map showing the areas of the Australian fishing zone from which Japanese long-liners are now excluded, either permanently or on a seasonal basis, including those areas negotiated under the first agreement. One of the prime purposes of these closures is to protect Australian commercial and non-commercial fishing interests, particularly where, in the Government’s view, continued Japanese operations might interfere with or inhibit the development of viable Australian fishing activities. The new closures made involve additional waters off the New South Wales and Victorian coastlines south of 30 degrees south latitude; additional closures off Port Lincoln in South Australia; and an area of water adjacent to Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory. Japanese long-line vessels will be excluded from additional areas of the black marlin fishery off north Queensland, covering approximately 48,000 square miles running parallel to the coast from just north of Townsville to almost the top of

Cape York Peninsula, and extending an average of 110 miles beyond the outer edge of the Great Barrier Reef. Furthermore, there will be no fishing whatsoever by Japanese long-line vessels in the Great Barrier Reef region. In taking these decisions, the Commonwealth has recognised the international importance of the marine ecology of the Great Barrier Reef region, and the economic importance of the black marlin sport fishery to the Cairns region. Indeed, I have every belief that closing those waters to long-liners will enable the Cairns region to become the world’s foremost black marlin sport fishing area. I was proud to note that my announcement on the matter received acclaim from game fishing organisations around the world.

The new access fee of $1.8m represents an increase of 29 per cent over the previous fee of $1.4m, despite a loss to the Japanese in their potential catch of about 20 per cent. The Government considers the new fee is commensurate with the increased value to the Japanese of their catch in the Australian fishing zone. Under the agreement to establish a joint working group, Australian and Japanese government and industry representatives will study the feasibility of commercial co-operation, particularly possibilities for establishing joint ventures in tuna long-lining. The working group will also examine the prospects for making tuna available on a commercial basis to Australian processors. The group is to report prior to the commencement of negotiations for a new agreement next year.

As a result of the study, the Government will be in a better position to assess the scope for greater Australian participation in the tuna long-line fishery. Representatives of State governments and the Australian Fishing Industry Council were present during all negotiations for the new agreement. The Fishing Industry Council has welcomed it and recognises that it will facilitate the expected expansion of Australian tuna fishing activities in 1981. I believe honourable members will agree that this agreement clearly demonstrates the Government’s concern to protect the interests of Australia’s commercial and noncommercial fishermen and to preserve the unique features of Australia’s marine environment.

Mr KERIN:
Werriwa

– by leave- The Opposition acknowledges that the statement of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) provides an improvement in respect of the AustraliaJapan tuna long-line fishing agreement, but it cannot agree that, to use the Minister’s terms we are not at a most satisfactory stage. The additional closures are welcome in the interests of the Australian fishing industry, but the problem with the statement is that it still leaves a lot unsaid. Overall, one could still put forward the criticism that there has been a failure to negotiate enough out of this agreement, because they are our fish.

The basic point about the operations of the Japanese tuna long-line fishing fleet in the 200-mile Australian fishing zone is that it is not there principally for the catch; its predominant interest is in gaining port access, for which the fleet pays only nominal charges. The long-line fleet operates from Japan to New Zealand waters across the Tasman and the Southern Ocean, and right over to South Africa, in pursuit mainly of the blue fin tuna, which is a highly migratory species. Without access to Australian ports, it would be extremely difficult for the Japanese to operate on such a scale. That is one reason why the Taiwanese and South Korean tuna fleets are no match for their Japanese counterparts. The access of the Japanese fleet to Australian ports pre-dates by many years the declaration of the 200-mile fishing zone. At one stage Japan was the only foreign fisher to have port access at all.

The point I make is that the price we have negotiated with the Japanese does not reflect the value of port access to them; it reflects merely the tuna that the Japanese will catch in our zone. Of course, most of their catch comes from international waters where they have to pay no fees at all. The principle is an extremely important one. In the future, many countries may ask for access to the Australian fishing zone for the sole reason of gaining port access, without catching any fish in the zone. For example, it may suit the Soviet Union or other Eastern European countries to base, say, a krill fishing operation in Antarctic waters at an Australian port. In such circumstances the only benefit to Australia would be the port fees. In short, should not the access fee reflect the general value to foreigners of zone access and not simply the fish they may catch? In any case, it appears that the access fee is paid straight into Consolidated Revenue. Should it not be used directly for the development of the Australian fishing industry?

The Australian fishing industry has had considerable difficulty in obtaining secure access to the Japanese market for fish and fish products. When the first tuna long-line fishing agreement was signed last year, the Japanese gave an undertaking that they would look into problems of this sort experienced by the Australian industry. The implication was that Australia could rely upon greater access to the Japanese market. This is one of the matters that has been left unresolved by the Minister’s statement. It would be interesting to know what progress has been made in penetrating the Japanese market for fish and fish products in the past year.

As the Minister has said, the cost of $1.8m to the Japanese is an increase over the previous amount of $1.4m. Admittedly they do lose the Cairns grounds, but what does this amount cover? After all, we are still up for the cost of surveillance. I am not sure that this agreement will not cost more than we will get from it. In regard to conservation, the second page of the attachments to the Minister’s speech refers to tuna, all forms of bill fish and incidental fish. We can infer from ‘bill fish’ that marlin are no longer ‘incidental’. That is fair enough. I want to talk about the incidental fish. Why was there no direct reference to dolphins and porpoises? I think they should be specifically excluded and the Japanese should have no right at all to catch them. Marlin will not be as vulnerable under the new agreement as they were before, but we must still closely monitor the numbers to ensure that marlin are not taken at the high levels of last year. I think there were about 4,200 marlin taken last year, with about 2,500 having been taken in the year before that. Perhaps the number appeared to be much higher last year because the numbers were counted accurately for the first time. Even so, I think there should be some monitoring. The only other matter I raise is that of inspection. I refer to the United States case, where it is legislated - -

Mr Nixon:

– Monitoring outside the 200-mile zone? They are excluded from the 200-mile zone.

Mr KERIN:

– What about monitoring within the zone?

Mr Nixon:

– They will not be fishing within the zone.

Mr Humphreys:

– How do you know? Are you going to catch them?

Mr Nixon:

– If I catch them, God help them.

Mr KERIN:

– I take that point. The United States legislation ensures that inspectors are on the vessels. I would have liked some comment on that. Apart from those matters, the Opposition acknowledges that this is an improvement. It welcomes the fact that there has been much discussion with the fishing industry and it welcomes the additional closures. However, the Opposition still thinks there has been a failure to negotiate properly

page 386

MEMBERSHIP OF COMMITTEES

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

- Mr

Speaker wishes me to inform the House of nominations of members to be members of the following committees of the House of Representatives:

Standing Committee on Road Safety

Mr Goodluck, Mr Groom, Mr Katter, Mr Shack and Mr Tuckey have been nominated by the Government Whip and Mrs Darling, Mr Charles Jones and Mr Morris have been nominated by the Opposition Whip.

Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation

Mr Burr, Mr Ewen Cameron, Mr Drummond, Mr Hodges and Mr MacKenzie have been nominated by the Government Whip and Mr Howe, Dr Jenkins and Mr West have been nominated by the Opposition Whip.

Standing Committee on Expenditure

Mr Braithwaite, Dr Edwards, Mr Hyde, Mr Lusher, Mr McLean and Mr Porter have been nominated by the Government Whip and Mr John Brown, Mr Robert Brown, Mr Leo McLeay, Mr Morris and Mr Mountford have been nominated by the Opposition Whip.

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs

Mr Groom, Mr Ian Robinson, Mr Ruddock, Mr Tambling and Mr Tuckey have been nominated by the Government Whip and Mr Campbell, Mr Dawkins and Mr Holding have been nominated by the Opposition Whip.

page 387

PARLIAMENTARY RETIRING ALLOWANCES TRUST

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

That in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Act 1948 Mr Keating be appointed a trustee to serve on the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust.

page 387

AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF ABORIGINAL STUDIES

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

That in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Act 1964 this House appoints Mr Ruddock to be a member of the council of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies and to continue as a member until the commencement of the Thirty-third Parliament.

page 387

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr SPEAKER - I have received a letter from the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Fraser Government’s failure to introduce urgent measures to stimulate Australian research and development, especially appropriate to labour complementing technologies.

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 Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Fraser Government has betrayed Australia’s national interest by adopting a colonial mentality in research and development. Australia, the poor little rich country, has fallen almost to the bottom of the list of technologically advanced nations in expenditure on research and development with a mere 0.9 per cent of Budget outlays. The private sector has made an absurdly small contribution to this area as well. In terms of patents taken out each year per million people, which is the standard international test, or per $ US 1,000m of gross domestic product, Australia ranks eighteenth and twenty-first respectively out of 24 advanced nations. This is a national disgrace.

What prevents us from following the Swiss or Swedish models other than our own feeble national will, retarded political system and backwater education? Unlike Switzerland and Sweden the Fraser Government does little to encourage the development of Australia’s greatest national resource - people. It is complacent enough to accept the vision of Australia as the land that produces the Chiko Chicken Roll, Violet Crumbles, the lamington, the Hills hoist, Vegemite and the Computer Sock. Of royalty payments for technical know-how, 94 per cent are paid overseas, more than half to foreign enterprises.

There are two basic models of acquiring technology from its country of origin - the national model and the colonial model. The United States, Japan, Sweden and Switzerland adopted the national model when they were importers of technology and they are now technological exporters in their own right. When the United States built its railways in the 1 860s, loans were raised, locomotives bought and engineers borrowed from Britain, but ownership remained in American hands. After World War II Japan acquired licences to use United States technology where appropriate, modified it to met local needs and produced Toyotas, Datsuns and Mazdas rather than inviting American corporations to set up Ford or General Motors plants.

Sweden, with a population of only eight million and a low resource base, has developed its own technology in competition with Britain, the United States, West Germany and Japan. Swedish high technology companies, some of them multinationals, have won world wide markets - Volvo and Saab in motor manufacturing, SKF in ballbearings, L. M. Ericsson in telecommunications equipment, Bofors in armaments, Electrolux in vacuum cleaners and Hasselblad in cameras. If we were to go into the parking lot outside Parliament House we would find 35 Volvos or Saabs. If we were to go into the parking lot outside the Riksdag we would have to wait a long time before we found a Holden.

Australia, like India, Mexico and much of South America, adopted the colonial model of technology transfer. Technology was developed abroad, its owners exported it to Australia and its local manufacture was largely under foreign control. Australia remains a technology importer and is an insignificant exporter. Sweden, located close to large, rich markets, has one apparent disadvantage - its small population and the fact that no other nation speaks Swedish. This fact is an advantage which forced Swedes to develop their own human resources. They see their greatest national resource as people, not something that one digs up out of the ground. Australia has an apparent advantage - its role as part of the English speaking world. In reality, the ease of penetration by English-language corporate interests leads to Australia’s being swamped by products and technologies from the United States and Britain which contributes to a sense of complacency or pessimism. Our attitude seems to be: ‘Why invent the wheel? If it is any good, the Americans will sell it to us at a little over cost price’.

Multinational corporations dominate the commanding heights of the Australian economy - coal, copper, aluminium, uranium, motor manufacturing, food processing, computers, drugs, chemicals, plastics, petrol and advertising. Australia’s media monopoly and oligopoly has done nothing to stimulate debate on the multinational corporation/technology transfer linkage. In Australia the multinational corporations pushed against an unlocked door and were probably more powerful, and less subject to effective or widely reported scrutiny or criticism, than in any other nation. Australia has developed this colonial mentality which discouraged any sense of striking out for itself economically as Japan, Sweden and Switzerland have done. It depressed research and development, made higher education seem pointless and led to a ‘brain drain’ of able graduates to Britain or the United States of whom Sir Bruce Williams of Sydney University is the most recent example. The Foreign Investment Review Board in its 1 979 annual report stated: . . . the amount of funds provided by Australian investors to [foreign controlled enterprises] is significant and has been steadily increasing throughout the 1970s … Of the net increase in funds employed in 1976-77 by these enterprises, more than half was derived from Australian sources. It is estimated that in the eight years between 1969 and 1977, total Australian loans to these enterprises increased five-fold.

The phenomenon of Australians lending money to multinational corporations to enable them to acquire foreign control of the Australian economy with local money because they are not prepared to take investment risks themselves, illustrates a fundamental diffidence in the Australian character. There is a basic hesitancy about local capital formation and a fatalistic sense that foreign takeovers are part of the natural order. It confirms the impotence of Australia’s political system and the failure of its government to grasp the nature and extent of technological and economic change. Australia had significantly lost control of its economic destiny by 1 980.

It is equally significant that not one member of the Liberal Party is in the House at the moment. That is a measure of the interest that they show in this very important subject. Australia had the economic history and corporate profile of an aging country, not a new one. R. W. Connell points out that of the 45 largest companies operating in Australia, only four - Chrysler Australia Ltd, Comalco, Alcoa and Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Ltd - were set up since 1936, and all were foreign owned.

In the United States, where new industries such as television or computer chips were developed, new companies were formed and the highest growth rates have come from companies which did not exist 40 years ago. In Australia the tendency is towards consolidation in already existing companies and new industries are developed by foreign corporations. Motor manufacturing from 1948 was absorbed by General Motors and Ford, television was swallowed up by newspapers, publishing corporations and transport companies. Xerography and computers were fully imported by multinational companies. The great mining boom of the 1960s led to the creation of new enterprises which were then taken over by foreign corporations. Food processing was dominated by multinational corporations.

The blockbuster king-hit megatechnologies about which so much is written and so much is hoped, are prodigous producers but - the point needs to be stressed over and over again - they are not great employers. An article ‘Aluminium expansion and its impact on the Australian economy’ published by the Department of Industry and Commerce in the Journal of Industry and Commerce for December 1979 gives a predictably enthusiastic and optimistic account of proposed aluminium developments in the 1 980s. The article states:

Total investment (that is, industry expenditure in bauxite mining, aluminina refining and aluminium smelters as well as investment in new power stations) amounts to over $5,600m which, if adjusted to allow for inflationary effects, gives a volume of capital expenditure approximating the total accumulated gross fixed expenditure (private) in the mining industry ‘boom’ years of the late sixties.

The article continues:

Current employment in the bauxite extraction, alumina refining and aluminium smelting industry is approximately 8,000 persons. The smelter expansion plans recently announced, together with the proposed additional alumina refineries, are expected to require a further 6,000 permanent employees.

I interpolate that this amounts to almost $lm of capital investment to create one job, or, if we apply a multiplier of 1 to 4, $ 1 m for four jobs. The article goes on:

About 7000 construction workers will also be employed, in total, at the respective peak of the construction phases of these plants. The flow on effects into other sections of the economy as a result of the investment can be large in terms of the economic impact on employment. In a review study of the proposed Comalco Gladstone smelter, it was estimated that the establishment of the smelter (peak operating workforce of 1,080) would lead to a maximum of some 4,000 new jobs being created by the project throughout Australia. This means that the additional smelters, and alumina refineries, could generate, directly, a further 24,000 jobs in Australia by 198S.

Those are not my words. They are the words of the Department of Industry and Commerce. However, in the period 1981-85 an additional 850,000 people of labour force age would be offering for work. The aluminium industry will provide 0.7 per cent of the jobs needed directly and, if one uses the 1 to 4 multiplier, a total of 2.8 per cent, leaving 97.2 per cent which must be created elsewhere. If aluminium is our greatest potential growth area, what do we do for an encore? What comes second, third or fourth? We cannot put a smelter in every suburb. We cannot put one in the electorate of Henty, the electorate of Holt, the electorate of Hotham or the electorate of Ballarat.

Mr Young:

– Or Port Adelaide.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Or Port Adelaide. We need to follow the lead of Switzerland and Sweden in creating jobs which are specifically labour complementing rather than labour displacing. A labour complementing technology is intended to increase the actual number of people employed in the area technologically affected, not reduce the number, as happens with labour displacing technology. The spade, the manual telephone exchange and the car are labour complementing technologies, but the bulldozer, the automatic telephone exchange and the computer are labour displacing.

There are good examples of what can be accomplished if alternative technologies are promoted. Following the massive introduction in the 1970s of high technology, Lucas Aerospace in Britain reduced its labour force from 18,000 to 12,000. The Lucas Aerospace Combine Shop Stewards’ Committee reacted by producing a corporate plan in which more than 150 ideas for new products were proposed. All could be built with existing machine tools and skills and were nonalienating, non-fragmenting and energy saving. Predictably, the Lucas Aerospace management resisted the corporate plan on the basis that it threatened the traditional prerogatives of management. Among the new product proposals were the following: a machine called the Hobcart to enable children with spina bifida to propel themselves; portable, low cost, life support systems to keep acute cardiac patients alive on their way to the hospital; gaseous hydrogen fuel cells to conserve energy and avoid the absurdity that, for example, it takes more energy to cool New York in summer than to heat it in winter; a hybrid power pack for vehicles which could combine the take-off torque of petrol engines and the long distance performance characteristics of electric motors; low cost kidney dialysis machines which would save thousands of lives each year in Britain alone; telechiric - that is to say, ‘hands at a distance’ - devices permitting workers to use and develop personal skills in controlling sensitive but dangerous processes.

Another product developed was a hybrid roadrail vehicle, a bus fitted with railway bogies so that it could run on tracks as well as on tyres. Such a vehicle was developed for ten thousand pounds in Britain but could have phenomenal implications for Australian urban transport systems. Think of the impact on fuel consumption, and in saving costs of road maintenance and building. It could have an absolutely revolutionary effect in such cities as Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide. But what are we doing about it? Where is the Australian equivalent of the Lucas Aerospace corporate plan? We have nothing like it. We have produced innovative technology in certain fields but local support and funding have been lacking.

Solahart. a manufacturer of solar water heaters, had to sell half of its holding to the Shell organisation in order to obtain the finance that it was not able to raise locally. It received no assistance from this Government. At Sydney University a high temperature solar collector is being developed by the use of funding from the Saudi Arabian Government, not from the Australian Government. This is a national scandal. The Fraser Government has succumbed to the siren songs of the multinational corporations. It accepts the myth that Australia’s future economic growth and employment prospects will be secured by relying on the development of capital intensive and high volume industries. The Fraser Government has failed to innovate. It has shown every characteristic of the colonial mentality. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short extract from the 1979 report of the Senate select committee which inquired into Industrial Research and Development in Australia.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows -

The Australian National Paper on the United Nations Conference on Science and Technology for Development 1979, contains some useful comment on foreign owned firms in Australia:

Many foreign firms have said that their presence benefits Australia by the resulting inflow and quality of technology. They stress their close association with parent firms which engage in or have significant access to research and development. They say that they provide better and earlier access to the latest technology because of their continuous exposure to new developments. They further claim to have more ability and experience than many Australian firms in applying overseas technology. . . .

Not everyone accepts that foreign firms offer unqualified advantages in terms of their access to technology and their efficiency in technology transfer. Transnational companies naturally take a world-wide view of their operations. What is best for a transnational may not be best for its Australian affiliate, or for Australia as the host country. Australia’s technology is, in the main, derived from abroad and reflects the resource endowment and market size of its originators. Technology development abroad is not always appropriate to Australian conditions. It could not be expected that specific local problems would be given the attention overseas with the same priority as they might receive in Australia. Local research and development is necessary.

Foreign firms appear to be at least as active as Australian firms in terms of local research and development expenditure. Some foreign firms, on taking over local firms, have closed down local R&D departments with the aim of centralising R & D in the country of origin. In at least one case, this action has had to be reversed because of losses incurred through being then unable to adapt to local conditions. There is a feeling, however, that since the work done in Australia concentrates on adapting basic work done abroad, the expansion of the skill base opportunities for Australians are thereby limited. It is not certain in all cases, in fact, that local affiliates are granted immediate access to the latest technology. Access is sometimes conditional upon the acceptance of restrictions on its use, especially in competition with the parent or another subsidiary.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I thank the House. Will technology be left in the hands of business, of government, of community groups? Will political decisions be taken or will matters be resolved by natural selection, without any political debate? Australia’s tendency to follow historic trends automatically, that is, literally like automata, is a major cause for anxiety, but who among our major political leaders takes the faintest interest in the matters described earlier? Will Australia have the intelligence, energy or guts to impose democratic and pluralist forms on the new technology, or will its ambiguities all be resolved in favour of the rich, the powerful and the status quo? Our timorous social history, the feeble grasp of complex matters that is exhibited by too many of our leaders, the low level of intellectual vitality, our lack of national self confidence, our national tendency towards bureaucracy, conformity, obedience and fatalism, and the mediocrity of the business and academic establishment do not give us much ground for optimism.

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

– Upon listening to the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones), I was inclined to think that, firstly, he did not want Australia to exploit its natural resources, did not want us to process them in Australia.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Yes, but I want to develop people too.

Mr THOMSON:

– By doing that we do develop people. Of course, new technologies, new processes, sometimes displace labour, but also can have a job creating effect. One can quote figures in that regard. A great deal has been done. I imagine that people listening to or reading his speech might tend to despair about Australia. Quite the reverse of what he has said is true. Historically, we have been a very inventive and innovative nation. Our record in developing primary industry might well be mentioned. We have become the most efficient primary producer in the world, mainly by the use of technology. We use technology in the very best way and have shown a lead to the rest of the world. We can do the same in many other fields and we are. The Government has given a lead. It is a slow process. The honourable member suggested, at the end of his remarks, that the Government should take over and direct what should be done.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– No, you should give a lead.

Mr THOMSON:

– That is exactly what we are doing. Let me point to some of the leads. The Committee of Inquiry into Technological Change in Australia represented a beginning. It was an investigation conducted by a university academic, an industrialist and a union leader - representatives of three very important fields. It came up with some very interesting recommendations, which are being processed at the moment. They cannot be imposed. The Government can only give a lead. In 1976, the Government set up the Department of Productivity to increase productivity in this country. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), in announcing the creation of the Department, said:

This initiative has been taken in recognition of the need to provide a technologically oriented agency with the responsibility of providing increased industrial productivity. It is the Government’s aim to encourage innovation and the exploitation of inventions so that Australian industry might benefit in two ways - firstly by reducing cost structures on the domestic scene and secondly by assisting our competitive position overseas.

These are very important problems, as I am sure the honourable member will agree. He went on to say: . . . having regard to the central importance of people in the field of productivity improvement, the new Department will take over all those elements of the Government’s administration that relate to the working environment - human, organisational, social and physical.

The Department of Productivity has done a great deal to improve innovation and productivity in Australia. The next step, taken after the last election, was to create a new Department of Science and Technology, integrating the old Department of Science with the innovative and productivity sections of the Department of Productivity. I believe that is a very forward looking step. By the way, a previous Labor Minister for Science told me last night that in 1972 the Australian Labor Party Government wanted to create a ministry of science and technology but failed to do so. We have now done that. This Department will play an increasingly important role in trying to solve and in giving a lead with the problems mentioned, very rightly, by the honourable member for Lalor.

There is a great deal to be done. It will not be done all at once. A lead is given and just as one throws a pebble into a pool the ripples spread. In this case they will spread throughout the community. That is what the Department of Science and Technology will be doing from now on and what the Department of Productivity was doing for some time. The Department will bring together, within the one department, the whole range of sciences and technologies - from the fundamental research by scientists, through to the introduction of new technologies on to the factory floor and discussions with unions. That is going on all the time.

Mr Young:

– How will you monitor the multinationals bringing in technology?

Mr THOMSON:

– The multinationals will bring in technology. Does the honourable member not want them to bring in technology?

Mr Young:

– But how will you monitor it? How are you going to tell us what they are doing?

Mr THOMSON:

– We will tell you what they are doing. We see all the time what they are doing.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide will remain silent. I draw to the attention of honourable members the fact that the honourable member for Lalor was heard in commendable silence. The Minister has a similar entitlement.

Mr THOMSON:

– There is no doubt that the Opposition is almost paranoid about multinationals. It would like to ban them from Australia. It would like to stop them coming in. It would like us to go back into some dream society of our agricultural past.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Sweden or Switzerland will do me.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! The time of the honourable member for Lalor for debate has expired. He will remain silent. I call the Minister.

Mr THOMSON:

– The honourable member can cite Sweden and Switzerland but they are quite different countries. Australia is a great continent with great resources and we must develop them. The finance to develop those projects is not always available in Australia. To develop one project, the Rundle shale oil project, will cost up to$10,000m.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– But how much of that money is coming from Australians?

Mr THOMSON:

– Some of it.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– About half.

Mr THOMSON:

– That is right. Of course, the honourable member knows that the Government’s policy is to have 50 per cent Australian ownership and that is being progressively and vigorously pursued. I want to deal in more detail with what is being done to encourage Australian innovation and Australian productivity. Here we do have a good record but the introduction of new products is what we really need. We need new products, new technology, and industries using the new technology to create employment. Many things are being done. We in Australia are very good at inventing things. There is no doubt that we are an inventive nation and a well educated nation. What we have not been very good at is the entrepreneurial side of putting those inventions into practice. The Government is encouraging the entrepreneurial spirit of Australians. On Monday in Melbourne I am opening an adventure workshop in innovation and entrepreneurship. This is the second workshop sponsored by my Department and is an excellent example of what we are about. A group of young Australians from all sorts of disciplines will be brought together and encouraged by experts in many fields. They will divide themselves into teams, select an invention - an Australian invention if possible - and develop a plan to produce that invention for the marketplace, taking into account the capital and the manufacturing required. The winning team will get a trip overseas to look at technological innovation and entrepreneurship overseas.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– You certainly would not find it here.

Mr THOMSON:

– On the contrary, look at the agricultural field where there are all sorts of entrepreneurial activities going on all the time.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– A mere 93 per cent of us don’t work on farms.

Mr THOMSON:

– We can do the same thing in manufacturing.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Well we haven’t.

Mr THOMSON:

– We have a great manufacturing industry and of course much needs to be done. But it is knocked continually by the Opposition and never given any encouragement. The industry needs encouragement, it needs inspiration and it needs a certain amount of guidance and leadership.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– That is right, which it is not getting.

Mr THOMSON:

– Of course it is getting it. I will go through some of the divisions of the new Department of Science and Technology. There are divisions looking at industry programs, technology development, occupational safety and health, technology transfer, inventions and innovations, the physical distribution of all our goods and the modern methods for doing so. These are important projects which have an effect by spreading through the community. I hope that in this very important field of technology transfer we can develop a bipartisan approach because it is important that we should.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– If you have labour complementing technology you will get it.

Mr THOMSON:

– That is exactly what I am talking about.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– It must be labour complementing.

Mr THOMSON:

– I agree entirely that they must be labour complementing. Some public interest projects are in the pipeline at the moment. One of these is the bionic ear - a project involving the very highest technology. We hope it will be produced in Australia. It will have a fairly high labour content. There are also the water treatment programs which will be labour intensive in that they will involve the production of equipment which we can export. These are the things we must do.

I believe that a great deal is being done. I propose a program publicising what is being done. That is badly needed. At the moment my Department is looking at methods of publicising in the widest possible way what is being done in the productivity and innovation field in Australia. That is very important. We must get people excited about what can be done. The adventure workshop to which I am going on Monday will do just that. I looked up the definition of productivity in the Concise Oxford Dictionary and its states that productivity is the application of technology to the production process.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– It is also a ratio of output over input.

Mr THOMSON:

– Of course it is. We have to choose the technology with which we can be competitive. We must also import technologies to get our great resource projects off the ground and to process the minerals produced. We have not got that technology; we have not needed it in the past but now we do. It will create all sorts of spin-offs. I know the honourable member will be aware of the great need to produce more training engineers, scientists, geologists, and geophysicists

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– And intelligent people of all types as well.

Mr THOMSON:

– Of course, we must train people. The Government is looking at these procedures. I have had discussions this week with the Minister for Education (Mr Fife), the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Macphee) and the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) to start a dialogue to see what we can do to make sure that we produce the right skills that we need - right from the technicians on the workshop floor to the scientists and engineers of all sorts. That is very important indeed. We went through a period in the 1960s and 1970s when engineering, science and mathematics - the hard subjects - became unpopular, encouraged by many people on the Opposition side. They were against development.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Against inappropriate development.

Mr THOMSON:

– They were against development of any sort.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– That has never been our policy.

Mr THOMSON:

– It is the effect of what the Opposition has been saying for the last 20 years. I hope that we can get together to try to persuade the public that we need to change the educational bias to those disciplines which will produce the people we need to take advantage of the new technology.

I understand that for the Rundle project alone we will need 700 engineers. That figure can be multiplied many times to give an indication of the total numbers needed. It is estimated that in the next decade we will need 10,000 engineers. I am not sure of the correctness of that estimate; I heard it the other day. We must produce those engineers, and we need to start producing them now in the secondary schools. We should encourage students to undertake mathematics and science. If members of parliament go out into their electorates and make people aware of the importance of mathematics and science in the production of the experts such as technicians, technologists and scientists we will need in the future, they will do a great deal of good for Australia.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– It cannot be looked at in isolation.

Mr THOMSON:

– Of course it cannot be looked at in isolation. It is no good having these experts unless we can employ them, but the great resource projects will produce employment. The 700 engineers required at Rundle will need the assistance and help of all sorts of technicians. The jobs are highly paid, and we will be in competition with the rest of the world to obtain the services of these experts.

I would like to spend a lot more time on this important subject. I mention one other point. In 1977-78, $14m was spent by way of Government grant to encourage industrial research and development. The grant has been increased this year to $53m.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– It is the same percentage. Take it up with the Treasurer.

Mr THOMSON:

– It is a big increase. In absolute terms it is a big increase. Research and development and technology transfer are some of the most important things on which this Parliament can give the whole of Australia a lead. Let us do so. Let us not knock what we have done in the past. Let us increase our awareness and our ability to grasp the exciting things that are happening around us.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The Minister’s time has expired. The discussion is concluded.

page 393

CRIMES (TAXATION OFFENCES) BILL 1980

Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.

In Committee

Consideration of Senate’s amendments. Senate’s amendments.

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

-I move:

The amendments were put to the Senate by the Government following consideration by me of representations on the Bill. Since this Bill was introduced into the Parliament it has, not unnaturally, attracted a lot of comment, both within and outside the Parliament. Without exception, representations have supported the concept that actions of the kind that the Bill is aimed at merit appropriately severe punishment. The Government believes very strongly that the measure is needed and is determined that it should pass, and pass before the present sitting ends. I believe it is vital that that be achieved. Since the Bill was foreshadowed, literally millions of dollars in revenue appear to have been lost as operators around Australia have rushed through company strips before the Bill becomes law.

While being determined that the Bill should quickly be put on the statute book, the Government has throughout been concerned to see that the legislation does not go any further than is needed for its purpose. Let me say immediately that we do not think that the Bill as originally proposed fails in these respects. We believe that, if it were passed into law in that form, the procedures under it, and the way in which it would have been interpreted and applied by the courts, would have ensured that its impact would be in the areas that we have in mind, and in those areas only. However, representations have been received from responsible professional quarters suggesting that the Bill could be clarified or varied in some ways. Following consideration of these representations, it was decided that the Bill could be changed in some ways that would serve to eliminate areas of genuine professional concern but still ensure that the basically intended effects are retained.

I will now outline for the benefit of the House the amendments that the Government has proposed and the Senate has adopted. Each of the offences proposed by original clauses 5, 6 and 7 incorporated as an element of the offence the existence of an arrangement or transaction involving either reduction in capacity to pay tax or securing inability to pay it. Representations have suggested that, because the concept of reduction in capacity to pay is not spelt out in detail, it may be held to have too wide a meaning. The Government does not believe that this would have happened if the Bill had been left unchanged. Nevertheless, we have concluded that the point ought to be met so as to put at rest the uncertainty felt in some quarters. This is to be done by deleting reference to what I may call the ‘reduction in capacity’ element - amendments 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 - and modifying the remaining element so that the one test will extend to the whole of the ground that the two tests in the alternative would have covered in the original Bill.

One of the modifications is that by amendment 1 the Bill will specify that ‘securing’ is to be read as including ‘achieving the result’. Another is incorporated in amendments 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8, under which it will be directed that, in considering the question of inability to pay, other debts of the company are to be taken into account. Amendments 2, 10 and 12 are no more than clarifying amendments to say explicitly that references to tax that may reasonably be expected to become payable are to be taken as references to tax which the person who is charged may reasonably expect to become payable. This will serve to dissipate any doubts about whose expectations are relevant.

Amendments 6 and 9 are drafting amendments to put it beyond all doubt that, in aiding and abetting cases, it is the person who aids and abets who can be prosecuted. The final amendment - amendment 11 - responds to concern expressed that it could happen that a person, on the basis of the necessary evidentiary certificate of assessed tax proposed by clause 10 or, indeed, on the basis of a failure or inadvertence to lodge an objection to a taxation assessment in circumstances where it was within the control of that person to lodge such an objection, might be convicted in circumstances in which, because he or she does not have the capacity to see that the Commissioner’s assessment against the company concerned is contested, a contest which would bring the assessment down is not undertaken. When it is taken into account that the person could be convicted only if the court had found it proved beyond reasonable doubt that all elements of the offence had been contravened, the case supposed is one that is, in practice, most unlikely to happen.

Nevertheless, the Government wants to remove doubts that justice might not be done in such situations, and it therefore has proposed a new provision to the effect that a prosecution under the Bill can be launched only with the consent of the Attorney-General or an officer of his Department to whom he gives such an authority. I add that it is, in any event, the position under the Judiciary Act that a person could be sent to trial for an offence constituted by the Bill only by the Attorney-General or someone appointed for that purpose by the Governor-General. The Government believes that these amendments are a very fair and appropriate response to the representations it has received. I trust that the Committee will see its way clear to adopting these amendments quickly so that this important measure can be presented for royal assent. It goes without saying that the measure will be kept under close review and, should representations received on the operation of the law in practice indicate that further amendments are appropriate, the Government will not hesitate to act accordingly.

It has been suggested in a number of the representations that the proper course of action for the Government would be to allow this Bill to lie on the table during the summer recess. Although I do not suggest that all of the people who have made those representations to the Government are acting out of other than appropriate motives, I think it would be blindingly obvious to the members of this chamber that to leave a Bill of this kind lying on the table during the summer recess would quite properly leave the Government open to the charge of not acting in a responsible fashion.

This Bill was not lightly prepared. It took many months to prepare. It involved a great deal of consideration not only by the Australian Taxation Office but also by the Attorney-General’s Department, the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs, the taxation committee of Cabinet, and the taxation committee of the Treasury committee of Government members, which gave it very careful consideration. It also involved a considerable period of examination by the Taxation Advisory Committee appointed some 12 months ago to advise the Government in relation to taxation matters. One can never achieve - particularly, I suppose, when one is dealing with legal opinions - a total unanimity of view about a measure. I believe and the Government believes that in all the circumstances this measure is appropriately drawn. It ought to be passed into law without further delay and, therefore, it is not the intention of the Government to do other than to seek Parliament’s approval to its immediate passage.

Many of the representations regarding this Bill, particularly those arguing for a delay, have been based upon two legal opinions obtained and circulated among many members of this chamber by a firm of solicitors in Melbourne. Because of the importance attached to those opinions by many of the people who have urged that the Bill be delayed, I have had a commentary on those opinions prepared. This commentary has been prepared by the Crown Solicitor in consultation with senior officers of the Attorney-General’s Department and also in discussion with officers of the Taxation Office. I would like to table that commentary. I think it deals in a comprehensive and effective fashion with the matters that have been raised in those opinions. By way of further comment, I thank the Opposition for the cooperation it has provided to the Government on this measure. I would also like to take the opportunity of thanking the members of the taxation committee of the Treasury committee of Government members for the work and assistance that they have provided to the Government in connection with the measure. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

– The Opposition does not oppose any of these amendments. Generally, we agree with the Government in that we think they are unnecessary, although we think in a couple of instances they make the Bill easier to understand and simplify it somewhat. We do not see them as being absolutely necessary. One of the changes which I think is a worthwhile improvement, however, relates to clause 10. In my speech in the second reading debate I expressed some concern on our side about the certificates of assessed tax being taken as conclusive evidence of a tax liability. I think the measure which will now be incorporated in the Bill adequately covers that point from our point of view.

However, I still have some concern about the possible ineffectiveness of the Bill as passed by this Parliament in respect of bottom of the harbour schemes. I expressed this doubt in the second reading debate. Unfortunately, the Treasurer (Mr Howard) was too busy organising the increasing of interest rates to reply to the second reading debate and so we have not had a response to this point, or, actually, to many other points which were raised in the second reading debate in this chamber. The point of concern of the Opposition is not that the Bill does not address itself to bottom of the harbour schemes but rather that there may be great difficulty in actually being able to penalise promoters of such schemes. Our fear stems from our concern that those schemes involve the destruction of records, usually with false names of directors and false addresses. In that situation it is extraordinarily difficult for the Government to find anyone to penalise because the owner of the scheme, being the promoter, is simply not able to be found. The essence of the scheme is to hide his tracks.

If our concern in this respect is borne out, this Bill will not be anywhere near as effective as we hope it will be. I hope that our concern in this regard will not be borne out. This Bill will be less effective if it is. The Government might like to consider another measure which would seem to me to overcome this possible deficiency in the legislation and that is the introduction of a requirement for interim tax returns on sales of private companies. For instance, if a company is sold to a promoter and if the vendor-shareholders have to provide an interim tax return, so that the tax is paid at that time by the company or the shareholders selling the original company, that would seem to overcome the company stripping way that the scheme has operated. I suggest that to the Government as an alternative which it might like to take up if it in fact proves extremely difficult to penalise promoters of these schemes because one simply cannot find them.

One other point I would like to make at this stage is that the Opposition is concerned also that the Government has not sought to attempt to get back any of the revenue which has been lost through this scheme. Certainly, if the Bill is effective it will stop future loss. We hope that is the case. But an enormous amount of revenue has already been lost through the operation of this scheme. It would seem that the Government lost many hundreds of millions of dollars prior to the introduction of this Bill. While this Bill has been before this chamber, as the Treasurer has said, there has been very active promotion of this scheme with undoubtedly many millions of dollars more being lost in the last week or so. Newspaper reports have it that just one Sydney promoter has put through some $8.5m worth that we know about. So an enormous amount of revenue is at stake.

We are not arguing in any way that this kind of legislation should be made retrospective so as to impose a penalty by way of retrospective application. We do not seek to have gaol sentences or fines imposed by restrospective legislation. But we do say that the Government ought to have made some attempt to try to get back all that revenue which has been lost. In the Bill as it stands I do not think that it would be possible to bring that about by some minor amendment about the date of operation because that would tend to bring in clause 9, covering the penalties of gaol and fines, and clause 12, which relates to additional penalty

It seemed to us that it might have been possible simply to have clause 12 operable from the date in the past when the scheme was first known to have operated, but not to apply clause 9, whereby gaol sentences or fines would be imposed. However on further consideration it seems that clause 12 as currently drafted would still be construed as a penalty rather than as an attempt by a government to regain the amount of tax evaded and that other drafting changes probably would be required. But it does seem to us to be a grave deficiency in this legislation that the Government has not sought to make it retrospective in the sense of trying to get back the revenue which has been lost. I do not see any real reason why that cannot be done with some drafting changes. That is our basic regret about this piece of legislation. Otherwise, I support the amendments now before the Committee.

Mr BAUME:
Minister Assisting the Minister for National Development and Energy · Macarthur · LP

– As a member of the Government members’ tax subcommittee I wish to suppo2t the amendments that the Treasurer (Mr Howard) has introduced and the general thrust of the legislation, which has been under some attack by sections of the community, as the Treasurer noted, particularly by sections of what one might call the Victorian legal fraternity, perhaps with the emphasis mainly being on the first syllable of the word sections.

This Bill, the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Bill, is significant because it exposes to penal sanctions persons who enter these kinds of arrangements which are obviously phony and which have been an assault on the revenue. It disturbs me that people have been criticising the Government for this measure by saying that the manner of its drafting indicates that the Commissioner for Taxation has a siege mentality. These people do not recognise that the Commissioner has been under siege and that the revenue has been under massive assault. It seems to me that without the banging of drums, which has been the procedure by the Opposition rather than the doing of actions, this Government has proceeded in a positive way, having been given what I believe is the right sort of advice from the Public Service advisers, from the Commissioner and from people who have been selected by the Treasurer to provide advice from the private sector.

It seems to me that this Bill and these amendments are a very useful amalgam of that advice from those sections of the community. It seems to me that many of the critics of the Bill both in its initial stage and in what I would presume to be its amendment stage, following the passing of these amendments which are not opposed by the Opposition, appear to have ignored sub-clause 3 of section 7. 1 believe that clause provides an immense safeguard to people who may feel that there is a degree of vagueness in the Bill which may enable people to be unfairly pursued. This clause points out that anyone or any company undertaking these arrangements is not in fact caught within the web of this Act, if any one of the purposes - not even the main purpose - of these arrangements is to obtain financial benefit for that company. Clearly we seek not to prevent anyone acting in such a way that would advantage a company, but to prevent the assets of a company being stripped off - so that the company is in fact a company of straws to the benefit of some outside agency. This is the essential point. I suppose one could say that we are protecting the company under this legislation. We are saying that nothing can be done to destroy the capacity of the company to meet its tax obligations. Quite clearly, clause 3 has been massively underrated in the discussion of this Bill by the learned legal people, who I believe are totally misdirected. I am very glad to see that the Treasurer has withstood with vigour suggestions that this Bill should not be proceeded with immediately and that it should lie on the table for further discussion and advice. That would provide an open gate for people, who have now been put on notice that the procedures will be stopped, and they could rush into arrangements in an improper way. That people in responsible positions in legal organisations in Australia should have made such a ridiculous recommendation shows a reckless indifference for the welfare of our community. I think for those people to have made those suggestions in the context of what they know to be happening in our community shows a total lack of appreciation of the responsibility of their offices. I commend both the amendments and the Bill, but in particular I commend the manner in which the Treasurer has introduced this legislation.

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

– I shall briefly reply to a couple of matters raised by the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis). A suggestion has been put to me about interim tax returns or what are in effect tax clearances when a change in the ownership of shares occurs. Without dismissing that suggestion I make the initial observation that of course it would add to a normal, proper and in no way tax-evading commercial transaction a good deal of additional expense. I think that is a fairly significant hurdle but nonetheless I recognise that it is something the Government should keep in mind if legislation in this area proves to be inadequate. But as a threshold point it has that particular problem.

Quite naturally the honourable member raises a concern about whether in the bottom of the harbour situation this legislation is to be totally effective. I cannot give a guarantee that the legislation will be totally effective. I can only say that within the constraints of respecting the liberty of the subject and within the constraints of ensuring that penal statutes do not go too far, this is an attempt effectively to deal through criminal law with a problem that quite clearly involves fraudulent conduct. Like any other prosecution, a prosecution under the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Bill will need to be supported by evidence. When records are destroyed and when false names and addresses are given, the evidentiary problem is that much more difficult. But in that respect this particular offence is no different from any other which involves the putting together of circumstances to establish that people behaved in the way that is alleged.

The third point that the honourable member for Gellibrand raised is that related to the recovery of the revenue that has been lost. Quite apart from the general observations that are well known to this House about the question of back dating legislation and whether it involves a penalty, there is of course the other point that ought to be made and that is that the recovery provisions under this Bill, which are contained in clause 12, are triggered by a conviction obtained under the legislation. Quite obviously if it is objectionable to have any retrospectivity regarding the penalties, as the honourable member for Gellibrand believes it is, that means that the recovery of the back tax, even if that were an acceptable thing to attempt, would involve an entirely separate set of proceedings. I think that is the immediate problem.

I am conscious of the fact that since this Bill was introduced there has no doubt been a great deal of activity. Frankly, there has been no alternative to that situation, for reasons which I know everybody in the House would support. It is totally unacceptable to have any suggestion of retrospectivity so far as criminal penalties are concerned. It would not have been acceptable in my view to have allowed no public or professional examination of the Bill. This would have been the case if it had been introduced and passed immediately. The Government has allowed a period of about a week for the Bill to be looked at. It has made it abundantly clear that it will see that the Bill goes through and it rejects the proposition that the Bill be allowed to lie around. So in all the circumstances I believe the Government has reached an appropriate compromise. I thank the Committee for the support and for the speedy passage given to the Bill.

Amendments agreed to.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 398

ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR INTER-GOVERNMENT RELATIONS AMENDMENT BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · Farrer · LP

– I move:

The Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations was established by legislation in 1976 following agreement reached between the Commonwealth and the States, for the purpose of improving inter-government co-operation in accordance with the Federalism policy. Membership of the Council comprises five members of the Commonwealth Parliament, one member from each of the six State parliaments, six local government representatives and five distinguished citizens, one of whom, Professor R. C. Gates, is Chairman.

To give effect to its object of improving intergovernment co-operation the Council has two principal functions. The first, which must be exercised subject to and in accordance with directions given at the Premiers’ Conference, is ‘to inquire into and keep under consideration and review matters relating to inter-government co-operation and, in particular, ways and means of improving inter-government co-operation’, and to make recommendations to the participating governments and the Australian Council of Local Government Associations on these matters. The second is to inquire into, and report on, any matters relating to inter-government co-operation referred to it by a majority of the Premiers at a Premiers’ Conference.

Since its establishment, the Council has provided valuable advice to all spheres of government in respect of the relationships between them and such matters as interchange of staff between the various spheres of government. It is now some four years since the original Act establishing the Council was enacted. In that time the Council’s operations and changes in governmental arrangements have brought to light the need for amendments to the Act. These amendments are aimed principally at reinforcing the Council’s independence in the performance of its functions by providing for the Council to become a body corporate with its own bank account, to have control over its staffing arrangements, exempting the Council from Commonwealth and State taxation laws and by making it clear that the Council is not subject to direction by or on behalf of the Commonwealth. These changes require consequential amendments to ensure appropriate financial accountability in relation to auditing, accounting procedures and financial reporting.

Another important amendment provides for the change in title of the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly, which has observer status in the Council. There are also machinerytype amendments relating to the appointment of an acting chairman and to enable the Council to prescribe by resolution procedures for meetings and administration. The amendments embodied in the Bill have been agreed to by State Premiers, the Australian Council of Local Government Associations and the Advisory Council for Intergovernment Relations. I also draw to the attention of the honourable members the fact that, although the Northern Territory does not at present have representation on the ACIR, it has sought admission as a full member of the Council on the same basis as each of the six States. The Commonwealth supports this change which will require a future amendment to the ACIR Act. We are actively seeking the agreement of all states to this measure. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr John Brown) adjourned.

page 398

LONG SERVICE LEAVE (COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · Farrer · LP

– I move:

This Bill is consequential to the Commonwealth Teaching Service Amendment Bill 1980. Staff employed by authorities of the Northern Territory, other than the Northern Territory Public Service, presently derive their lonf service leave entitlements from the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976. Since the attainment of self-government, the Commonwealth Government and the Northern Territory Government consider that it is appropriate that staff of Northern Territory authorities should be covered by Northern Territory long service leave conditions rather than by conditions specified in Commonwealth legislation.

The purpose of this Bill is to exclude from the coverage of the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act staff of the proposed Teaching Service of the Northern Territory thereby enabling Northern Territory conditions to be applied to them. The Bill also amends the Act so as to enable staff of other Northern Territory authorities to be excluded by regulations from Commonwealth long service leave provisions. This will avoid the necessity of having to amend the Act further to exclude where it is desirable so to do from the Commonwealth long service leave scheme, staff of future Northern Territory authorities. The opportunity has been taken to make at the same time a minor drafting amendment to the Act. Clause 4 amends section 10 of the Act to put beyond doubt the intention that the long service leave scheme does not apply to persons employed by the Commonwealth and remunerated solely by fees, allowance or commission. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr John Brown) adjourned.

page 399

COMMONWEALTH TEACHING SERVICE AMENDMENT BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Education · Farrer · LP

– I move:

The main purpose of the Commonwealth Teaching Service Amendment Bill is to provide for the compulsory transfer of Commonwealth Teaching Service personnel based in the Northern Territory to the Northern Territory Teaching Service. The Bill also provides for an amendment to the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act directed at the categories of administrative staff that the Commissioner may employ. Honourable members will be aware that up to 30 June 1979 responsibility for the provision of educational services in the Northern Territory rested with the Commonwealth. While this responsibility was transferred to the Northern Territory Government on 1 July 1979, it was decided that the Commonwealth Teaching Service would for the time being continue to provide teachers for Northern Territory schools. The Northern Territory Government has now decided to establish a Northern Territory Teaching Service and has requested the Commonwealth to transfer Commonwealth Teaching Service personnel working in the Northern Territory to this Service. Complementary legislation has been introduced in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly to set up this Teaching Service and to cover the transfer of Commonwealth Teaching Service personnel to this Service. The two Bills are seen as complementary, and there has been close consultation with the Northern Territory Government on the arrangements for the transfer.

The provisions of the Bill concerned with this transfer follow, in general, similar amendments made to the Public Service Act to effect the transfer of Australian Public Servants to the Northern -Territory Public Service. In order to ensure that the existing terms and conditions of employment of transferred officers and employees are maintained, clause 7 provides for the Minister for Education to declare through a notice published in the Gazette that he is satisfied that the laws of the Northern Territory comply with the requirements of the Bill. The Minister may revoke this declaration if a change occurs in Northern Territory laws so that they no longer comply with these requirements. The Bill provides for the preservation of the rights and entitlements of transferred officers and employees in respect of such matters as salary, recreation and sick leave, and long service leave. The Bill also specifies the conditions under which a transferred officer may be reappointed to the Commonwealth Teaching Service by way of transfer or promotion. Special reentry to the Commonwealth Teaching Service is provided for in circumstances where an officer has been disadvantaged by the compulsory transfer. A Re-appointments Review Committee is to be established to determine eligibility for reappointment to the Commonwealth Teaching Service under the conditions specified in clause 4 of the Bill.

In addition to providing for the transfer of personnel to the Northern Territory Teaching Service, clause 3 of the Bill amends section 18 of the Act to enable administrative staff required by the Commissioner to be persons employed under either the Public Service Act or the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act. This will enable the Commissioner to secure the best qualified people for these positions. I believe that the Commonwealth Teaching Service has made a significant contribution to the development of education in the Northern Territory since its inception in 1972. The Government takes the view that it is now more appropriate that teachers in the Northern

Territory should be members of the Northern Territory Teaching Service. This Bill provides for this transfer while at the same time preserving the terms and conditions of employment of the transferred officers and preserving the right of re-entry to the Commonwealth Teaching Service in appropriate circumstances for transferred officers. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr John Brown) adjourned.

page 400

CRIMES (TAXATION OFFENCES) BILL

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

– I table a document, which is a commentary on certain legal opinions in relation to the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Bill. I neglected to table this document at the conclusion of the other debate.

Sitting suspended from 1.2 to 2.15 p.m.

page 400

ACADEMIC SALARIES TRIBUNAL

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for Administrative Services · Bass · LP

– Pursuant to section 12DD of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973, 1 present the Academic Salaries Tribunals interim salary review, containing one determination and two reports. Funds will be provided to enable the payment of salaries at the levels determined and recommended.

page 400

QUESTION

PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE

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

That, unless otherwise ordered, for this session, standing order 26 (Committee of Privileges) be amended to read: ‘26. 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 LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– As I understand it, the motion adds the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) and myself to the membership of the Committee of Privileges. I have no objection at all to that. I think I am there in another capacity at the present time. The Opposition approves of the proposal. It would appear now that I will need to have a replacement - and that I will have the right to come onto the Committee in my position as Deputy Leader of the Opposition - I assume that the Government has no objection to that course. Having noted that, we support the motion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 400

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

Motion (by Mr Fife for Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That, unless otherwise ordered, for this session, standing order 107 be amended by omitting the words ‘One hour’ and substituting ‘two hours’.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– I regret to say that the Opposition cannot agree to this motion. Without making any personal reflection on the Minister at the table (Mr Fife), I point out that we have had no discussions about this matter. The motion suggests that two hours’ notice be given of matters of public importance. I make the point to the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) that he might consider withdrawing this matter and we may be able to come to some arrangement. For example, I think he would agree that on a Thursday morning it is difficult to find Mr Speaker at 8.30 a.m., if he is here. I am not casting any aspersions on Mr Speaker, but it does place the Opposition in a rather ridiculous situation if we have to give two hours’ notice.

I do not know what difficulties the Government is facing in this matter. I assure the Government that we will be prepared to give adequate notice to it as well as to the Speaker. One hour’s notice gives us sufficient time as an Opposition party to discuss what ought to be the matter of public importance. The Government has at least two hours’ notice before the debate commences and there should be no element of surprise. It should be borne in mind that on Tuesdays we have our executive meeting, when we discuss what matters ought to be considered. There must be some time to consider such a matter. On Wednesdays we have our party meeting, when again matters of that nature are discussed. I make the point) and I think it is irrefutable, that it is extraordinary that on a Thursday notice has to be given as early as 8.30 a.m.

Mr Bungey:

– Is that too early for you?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– No, it is not a matter of that. I have not heard one reason as to why this should be altered. I think, as a matter of normal discussion in the Parliament, we might be given some reason. If more adequate notice needs to be given to the Government we can arrange that. We have to look at it from the point of view of the problems the Government is facing. We do not know of any. Certainly it should not be a case of shortage of time because, in the main, notices are given at a more reasonable time than is suggested here. We have to look at it from the point of view of what we are about. We object to this motion for the reasons I have given, namely, that it creates unnecessary restrictions on the rights of the Opposition to consider adequately what matter ought to be discussed and then get that notice to Mr Speaker. I make those points, and I would be grateful for some explanation.

Mr SINCLAIR:
Leader of the House · New England · NCP/NP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, there are several reasons why this motion has been introduced. The first is that the Opposition has no prerogative to matters of public importance. It is not for the Opposition; it is for members of Parliament. The second reason is that two hours is not the time within which the motion needs to be submitted; it is the time when Mr Speaker is required to take a decision. There is little point in those members who submit a motion advising the Government or the Opposition of it; it is only relevant at the time when Mr Speaker has determined which motion is the one to which the House’s attention will be drawn as a result of his election of the motion that will be before the House.

The third reason is that as far as the business and procedures of the House are concerned, there is a significant disadvantage on the two days when the House sits at 2.15 p.m. At 1.15 p.m. it is almost impossible to find members around this place simply because they are either on the tennis court, going for a run around the lake, or perhaps - for those few of us who like to eat - having lunch in the dining room. It is extraordinarily difficult for the Whips to get people together between 1.15 p.m. and the time the House sits and muster speakers and arrange for adequate, sufficient and proper scrutiny of the measure. The fourth point is that Thursday morning tends te be a morning when, essentially, private members are allocated other responsibilities. It is the/day on which we have General Business day alternating with Grievance Day. General Business day, of course, gives members of the Parliament an opportunity, through motions which are the product of notices given in this place, to consider those general matters. There is an allocated period on Grievance Day when members are able to deliberate on issues.

The general question of whether or not matters of public importance should be debated on a Thursday is one to which the Government has given some consideration. While there is no Grievance or General Business day, I have little doubt that there should be, but I do not know that that should necessarily always be so. Of course, when there is a matter of public importance it comes after the other business of the day. We try to defer a number of statements and so on until after the matter of public importance has been debated. So the general priority accorded to private members in the conduct of their business on a Thursday is also allowed.

I think therefore that from the Government’s point of view, for all that I hear and understand the concern of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, we would be looking towards persisting with this amendment. We feel that two hours, certainly on the two initial sitting days - Tuesday and Wednesday - does enable an adequate consideration by the Whips of those who should respond to a matter of public importance. As I have said, it is not specifically a matter for the Government alone or for the Opposition. Any private member can submit a matter of public importance and it is up to Mr Speaker to determine which matter should be debated. This motion is really setting down the time for decision. The matter, of course, can be submitted quite easily the night before.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN (KingsfordSmith)With your leave, Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not know that the matter can be submitted the night before, for a number of practical reasons. The Standing Order clearly indicates that the matter should be presented to Mr Speaker at least one hour before the time fixed for the meeting of the House. That obviously relates to the meeting of that day. Having heard what the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) has said, I think this alteration will cause more difficulties for the Opposition. It appears very clear that the Leader of the House and the Government are not convinced that matters of public importance ought to be debated on a Thursday. I would object to a requirement that the terms of a proposal be submitted the night before. The Opposition would find it extremely difficult, and so would the Speaker, if it had to present it at 8.30 in the morning.

Standing Order 107 states that a member shall present a written statement to the Speaker at least one hour before the time fixed for the meeting of the House. For some reason the Leader of the House is of the opinion that he is not getting adequate notice. The Opposition has been presenting details of the matters of public importance an hour or an hour and a half before the meeting of the House. The Opposition is happy to co-operate with the Government to enable its members to be on tennis courts or somewhere else, but the point is that these matters of public importance are about subjects of interest to the nation and we give notice of the matters that we feel ought to be raised. I accept that matters of public importance can be raised by any member, but I think the Leader of the House would agree that in practice 99.9 per cent of the matters of public importance originate from the Opposition and are judged on their merits by the Speaker.

Mr Sinclair:

– Merits!

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– I knew the Leader of the House would be worried about the reference to merits. The point is that the Opposition has a role to play, and I think it is helpful for the nation to elicit information through parliamentary debates on matters of public importance. If the Speaker considers that other matters are more worthy of discussion, obviously he will not decide in the Opposition’s favour. In practical terms, the Opposition is being disadvantaged because it is being deprived of opportunities to debate the matters it wants to put forward. Members of the Opposition do not decide these matters on their own initiative; the matter of public importance is decided on a party basis.

The Opposition objects strenuously to the abandoning of discussions of matters of public importance on Thursdays. Maybe I am wrong, but I thought we had come to an amicable arrangement whereby the Opposition would have five speakers a week on matters of public importance - two speakers on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and one on Thursdays. That was a concession to the Government because of the availability of time. The Opposition does not favour this proposition at all; it strenuously opposes it. I should have thought that for the future harmony of this House it would have been more intelligent for the Government to have discussed this matter with the Opposition to overcome any difficulties it felt it had because of a shortage of time.

Mr LES JOHNSON:
Hughes

– I am glad that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) has sought to use his persuasive powers and qualities to influence the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) about this matter. The Leader of the House has said nothing to allay the fears of members of the Opposition about this matter. The proposal is that Standing Order 107 be changed to read as follows:

The Member proposing the matter shall present to the Speaker at least two hours–

At present it is one hour - before the time fixed for the meeting of the House a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed . . .

That proposed change represents a very serious disadvantage not just to the Opposition but to the private members of Parliament. It is substantially the prerogative of the private members of this House and the Opposition to invoke or utilise this provision for the raising of matters of public importance. I say unequivocally to the Leader of the House that so far as one Whip is concerned - that is, the Opposition Whip - there is no problem at all. I am able to manage it. I have people who exercise around the lake and do all sorts of ‘Life. Be in it’ activities, but they are still able to submit their matters of public importance on time and are able to be here to speak to them as well. If the Government Whips are unable to overcome this problem, I invite them to come to me and seek advice, as they have done on other matters. I will be very happy to assist and show them how to operate effectively in our field of endeavour.

As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, this proposition affects the matters of public importance that traditionally should be raised every day. It affects especially the situation on Thursdays. During the last Parliament we were confronted with incessant endeavour on the part of the Government to dispose of the practice of discussing MPIs on a Thursday. Of course governments do not like matters of public importance. Standing Order 107 provides an occasion for the Opposition or private members rather than the Government to dominate the situation. Governments would prefer to be without that kind of nuisance. It is important from the Opposition’s point of view that this principle, which has been honoured from time immemorial, be continued.

Why has the change been proposed? I imagine that it is because there are some Ministers in the present Government who find it extremely difficult to respond to matters of public importance raised at just one hour’s notice. I can understand that some of them would need at least two hours, and some of them two days or two weeks, to formulate any kind of reply. A case in point is the matter of public importance raised today in relation to technological change. The honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) put a most convincing case. He was confronted by the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Thomson) who, despite the substantial size of his staff, the backup of the resources of the Parliamentary Library and the facilities of a great department, was unable to bring any kind of answer to bear. Why should the Government not want two hours notice? Members of the Opposition have not had any time to prepare for this matter but we were ready to put a case, through the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, which the Leader of the House, who proposed the motion, apparently cannot answer in an effective way.

One matter raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition needs looking at very carefully, and I would like the Leader of the House to face up to the proposition. Can he give an unambiguous and unequivocal assurance that in every circumstance the Speaker of this House will be available every Thursday at 8.30 a.m.? Can I have his assurance of that? I think it is a most onerous requirement to impose on the Speaker, who has extensive duties which often require him to be in the precincts of the Parliament until late at night. It is not likely that the Speaker would be here that early. In practice, the Opposition’s executive normally meets on a Thursday at 9 a.m. It is reasonable for that executive to have regard to the events that have occurred since the House rose at 1 1 p.m. the night before. It considers what are the great issues confronting the nation and what is the matter of public importance from the point of view of the Opposition and the public. At 9 a.m. the executive comes to a conclusion. It identifies the issue and formulates the motion. At 9.30 a.m. it is reasonable to take it to the Speaker’s office and it is reasonable for the executive to assume that the Speaker will be there. The Leader of the House is suggesting that the Opposition should meet at 8 o’clock on a Thursday morning, after a very late sitting the night before - at least until 1 1 p.m. and maybe until midnight, 1 a.m. or 2 a.m. if Standing Orders are suspended, which is not without precedent - and by 8.30 a.m. it should have a statement prepared and ready for the Speaker to receive and consider. The clear fact of the matter is that it is not a practical proposition. The Government should be prepared to face that fact. There will be a lot of scope for raising matters of public importance. In the new Parliament we will be dealing with issues such as that introduced late at night this week - I forget the hour - when the Treasurer (Mr Howard) came in and told the nation, through the Parliament, that interest rates would go up.

Mr Bourchier:

– That was two nights ago.

Mr LES JOHNSON:

– It was two nights ago when the Treasurer came in at a late hour. It is appropriate that such matters be raised as matters of public importance, as this matter was raised by the Opposition. What will happen in the new Parliament? Great issues will emerge such as the retail turnover tax or value added tax. We will see all kinds of departures from traditional forms of taxation. The burden of tax will be shifted onto the poorer people of this country. We do not want a diminution of the opportunities to raise these matters. We want an expansion of the power and effectiveness of the Parliament.

The trend in parliaments around the world is to be more reasonable in respect of these matters, not to become more restrictive. If the Leader of the House could give us one good reason for supporting this motion we would start to give it consideration. But from what has been said by the

Leader of the House I think it is as plain as a pike staff that the Opposition has no alternative but to oppose this motion. The Government is seeking to hobble the Parliament. It is seeking to inhibit private members in their expression of concern about matters of great public importance and significance. It is engaged in a circumventing process. I believe that the motion is totally without merit and that if passed it would tend to muzzle the Parliament. I hope that the Parliament will throw it out lock stock and barrel.

Mr HODGES:
Petrie

– I rise to support the arguments put forward by the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair). It would appear from the speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bo wen) that he considers that matters of public importance are almost exclusively the right of the Opposition. This is not the case. A number of matters of public importance are raised in this Parliament from time to time and it is only natural that the Opposition be given the opportunity to propose the majority of them. The nature of the issues put forward is usually very important and complex. The honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson), who is the Opposition Whip, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, suggested that matters of public importance necessarily come forward on the spur of the moment. What they are saying is that the Opposition wants to continue the unfair advantage that it now has. After all, whoever responds to these matters has about only two hours, perhaps two and a half hours or three hours at the most to prepare his speech. The honourable member who proposes the issue may have many hours or many days to prepare his speech whereas the honourable member who responds in most instances would have only a couple of hours. I suggest that the Opposition wants to see the maintenance of the unfair advantage which it has.

The people of this nation are entitled to have properly prepared debates from both sides of the House. I hope that the Opposition would agree with that point. From a purely practical point of view, from the Government Whip’s point of view, I would like to say this: We do not need any advice from the Opposition Whip as has been offered. I would also like to make the point that on occasions it is extremely difficult to have speakers well enough prepared to speak at such short notice. At least two hours notice in most cases would give a speaker from the Government side a little more time to prepare a good case which, as I said earlier, is surely expected by the people of this nation. I support the motion put forward on behalf of the Leader of the House.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 65

NOES: 46

Majority…… 19

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 404

STANDING COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURE

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) agreed to:

That the report of the Auditor-General on an efficiency audit of the Department of Administrative Services, Australian property function, be referred to the Standing Committee on Expenditure for inquiry and report.

page 404

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS- ORDERS OF THE DAY

On the matter of giving adequate notice to the Opposition, I put it that apparently the proposal implements an agreement that was made as far back as July 1980. Perhaps the Government will say that its consideration now is urgent because it must operate from 1 January next. That I understand, but the House will agree that Orders of the Day are not really in order if they are to be rushed through on the basis of giving the Opposition only 24 hours notice - insufficient time to consider them.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! The Chair cannot allow the honourable gentleman to proceed further. There is no substance to the point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Blaxland will resume his seat.

page 405

LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS (GRANTS) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 December, on motion by Mr Moore:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– I will labour under the handicap of inadequate notice and try to do justice to yet another dismal saga in the continuing liquefied petroleum gas charade of the Government. We have before us the result of a decision by the Government to extend the $80 per tonne subsidy now being paid to household consumers to industry, with the exception of the petrochemical industry, when LPG is used.

It makes no sense for the Government to continue to change its policy in this regard. In the beginning it argued that it wanted LPG to be used as a premium fuel in automotive applications, not be burnt up by industry/So we saw a change in policy to facilitate that. Then, when the policy started to pinch, when the Government moved to export parity pricing and the’ National Country Party began feeling’ the impact in the electorate, the Government dredged up this $80 per tonne subsidy for householders. Opposition members, who do riot believe in this crazy policy of making Australians pay the world price for their own fuel, agreed with this respite of $80 per tonne being paid to household consumers, particularly those in country areas whose homes are tied to a reticulated LPG service. I refer to people whose homes are not connected to a pipeline gas supply, people with small municipal town gas reticulation systems which use LPG and who are therefore paying the world price. We felt that those people were entitled to relief.

If one happens to be in the fortunate position of having one’s home connected to the Sydney pipeline system, or that of Gippsland, one gets gas for about $4 or $5 a barrel oil equivalent. If one’s home happens to be connected to a liquid petroleum gas supply in a provincial city of New South Wales or Victoria, such as Orange or Bathurst, one pays upwards of $25 a barrel oil equivalent for gas, or four or five times as much. So there was some sense in giving relief to households in that situation. But now the Governmentis extending this to industry. The Opposition finds this most perplexing, given the fact that the Government has been arguing that this fuel should only be used for transport applications, ‘ that it is a premium fuel and we should encourage industry to get away from its use.

This issue has figured prominently in the Australian energy policy debate of the last couple of years. The Government’s policy now is an absolute ad hoc one, which is simply changing with time. For what it is worth, the Opposition will support this legislation, not because we believe that industry ought to be glad-handed and given another subsidy but because we think that the Government’s LPG policy is on the verge of failing and it will have to come up with a new one which has some sense to it. For that reason, we will not cavil at the legislation; we will allow it to pass. The Government must overhaul its policy and come up with something decent.

We have seen in Australia a very dramatic rise in the price of LPG. It trebled in 12 months from $88 a tonne in January 1979 to $252 a tonne in January 1980. When that happened the conversion of motor vehicles to the use of liquid petroleum gas stopped virtually overnight. Householders complained and the policy was abandoned. In April we saw a new policy launched - the three tiered pricing structure for respectively, household, automotive and industrial use, with a bench-mark fixed at $205 a tonne. Why the Government chose $205 I do not know and probably will never know. It was just an arbitrary figure. The Government advised the oil companies either to carry the loss incurred by reducing the price from $252 to $205 or alternatively to spread the loss incurred through the reduced costs over the charges for other automotive products such as gasolene and distillate. In fact, one Minister- I think it was the current Minister - advised oil companies to go to the Prices Justification Tribunal and recover the costs involved in reducing the price of liquefied petroleum gas.

The contradictions in this policy have caused widespread confusion. For example, households have been paying $80 a tonne less but the price has again gone up. I am not sure of the current price but I think it is about $220 a tonne; so there is not much benefit from the change from $252 as the price was originally. This occurred when the Government moved away from allowing the refinery price of LPG to be the bench-mark price in Australia and moved to charge the export price. Of course, this occurred with the flaring of gas in Westernport in Victoria when the Prices Justification Tribunal raised the price of refinery produced LPG above the price of export LPG and the Gas and Fuel Corporation of Victoria started purchasing its gas from naturally occurring LPG in Bass Strait. The BP company at Westernport in Victoria decided to bring the issue to a head by flaring the gas and the Government then moved to try to overcome that problem by raising the price to export parity.

Under the Australian Labor Party’s LPG policy the price would always be lower than it would under a Liberal government simply because the feed stock price to refineries would be lower. The broken nexus policy of the Opposition would mean that crude oil feed stock would be going into the refineries at a lower price and that the products coming out of the back end of the refineries would reflect the lower cost of the feed stock. One of those products would be LPG. The Government has tied its price of $205 to something akin to the refinery cost price. The Labor Party’s policy is based upon the refinery cost and upward adjustments to this cost from the time that the Government moved to export parity pricing. Had the Opposition won the election just a few weeks ago, there would have been no increase in the price of Australian crude oil on 1 January. It will rise by something like $A4 a barrel which will mean even further price increases for LPG consumers as those increases percolate through refinery costs. So, under the Labor Party’s policy, LPG would be very much cheaper. It is very interesting that the Government offered tax incentives to people to convert from LPG. We had a plethora of tax incentives for people to convert from LPG and we now have the curious policy of the Government offering a subsidy for people to stay with LPG. The Government made it cheaper for industry to use LPG and then offered tax concessions to get out of it. That is how crazy and stupid the Government’s policy is. It does not have a sensible or coherent policy in relation to LPG. The problem really is that it does not have a national energy policy at all. This week I was involved in a discussion on a matter of public importance on the aluminium industry. I made the point then that without a national energy policy there can be no national policy in respect of power generation. And without a national energy policy seeking to use the right fuels in the right applications there can be no national policy on LPG. The Victorian Government is burning natural gas for base load power generation in Victoria yet the Federal Government is urging industry to use more LPG while offering tax concessions to people to move away from LPG. LPG can be a wonderful fuel for Australia. We have very large reserves of it. Bass Strait produces around two million tonnes of LPG per annum. Australia’s consumption is about 250,000 to 300,000 tonnes per annum, so there is an exportable surplus of between 1.6 million to 1.7 million tonnes.

When the North West Shelf project starts to come on stream there will be about another 650,000 tonnes of LPG available. If we have a pipeline system out of the Cooper Basin and as the Cooper Basin consortium moves into its wetter wells probably there will be about another 250,000 to 300,000 tonnes of LPG per annum. So, in not so many years’ time we could be looking at a situation where about 3 million tonnes of liquefied petroleum gas is available to the Australian market. That will provide for Australia a level of energy independence and insurance against a short fall of fuels, a situation which would be quite luxurious. Therefore liquefied petroleum gas is a very important fuel. The petrochemical industry has already recognised that fact. The ICI company at Botany in New South Wales and in Victoria is looking at quite substantial demands upon LPG production in Australia - I think 300,000 tonnes a year in the case of the Botany plant alone. The Redcliff petrochemical project, presently being considered, will create a heavy demand for LPG as well. So this fuel will occupy a very important place in Australian energy policy, particularly in respect of petrochemicals.

It can offer a very substantial degree of independence to motorists, particularly fleet owners who can get the benefit of very high mileage discounts from using LPG which at this stage is cheaper than petrol. In that respect, even the private motorist who is doing considerable mileage, could have the benefit of LPG. One can be certain of the fact that Australia is in a very fortunate position in having these gas supplies. While we may look in the future to various technologies such as coal to oil conversion we will not feel that great sense of urgency when we have such a substantial supply of LPG available.

It is a pity that so much of the conversion of motor vehicles to LPG has slowed down. There was a great rush to convert vehicles about 18 months ago but this was stopped dead in its tracks when the margin between the price of LPG and petrol started to shrink. Fleet owners were not sure that if they converted their vehicles to LPG the cost of conversion would be recouped because the differential between the cost of petrol and LPG was not as wide as the Government had promised. That situation arose because the Government had the Prices Justification Tribunal put up the price of LPG in line with the world parity price but the Government did not increase the price of oil in line with the world parity price. The Government was preaching import parity without having import parity. Therefore, the petrol from refineries was a certain price while the LPG price was reflecting the total world price. The petrol price was lower than should have been the case. Had the Government charged the world parity price for oil, there would have been a constant level of differential. Instead, that differential shrank and taxi fleet owners and other high mileage vehicle owners said: ‘Look, we’re not going to be in this. We’re not going to spend $700 or $800 converting each of our vehicles to LPG to find that we have to pay the same price or close to it for LPG as we pay for petrol’. Right along the way the Government literally has spoiled its LPG policy because it has no consistency. It is confusing. The public does not understand it. Fleet owners have no confidence that the gap between the price of petrol and LPG will be maintained. People who live in country centres think they will get some relief from these subsidies but they will not because the price of LPG will continue to rise under the Government’s import parity pricing policy.

The Government also talks in high minded terms of getting industry to move away from LPG by offering all these tax incentives. But it also wants to make LPG cheap enough for industry to decide that it does not want to convert from LPG and use up our other fuels. Frankly, I think there is a much more ambitious role for LPG to play in Australia than the one being played. At the moment, as I said, our exportable surplus goes mainly to Japan. We supply about 27 per cent of Japan’s LPG requirements, and one could feel pleased that we are able to do so. But there is no place like home, and we should be looking after home first and using LPG to its maximum advantage in Australia. Any exportable surplus could be sent overseas.

In contrast to this hotchpotch of Government policies, the Opposition offers a consistent policy on liquid fuels. Under our policy, the price would be broken away from the world parity pricing policy adopted by the Government, with adjustments, after a 12-months freeze, based upon the Australian consumer price index. This would give the benefits of correct resource allocation but would not bring about a rise in oil or petroleum product prices. There would be very little movement at all in the price of liquefied petroleum gas going to industry or to household consumers. The Government’s policy is changing virtually by the month. In addition, the basic price of LPG will continue to rise as oil and import parity prices percolate through refineries. It will be priced accordingly when the products are sold in the market place.

The Opposition supports this measure, but it does not do so with any enthusiasm. Industry should be able to pay for its liquefied petroleum gas. After all, the costs of industry are a deduction against earnings anyway. With company tax at 47c in the dollar, industry is paying only half the price for whatever it buys. I do not think this policy is appropriate, but until the Government completely overhauls its policy and comes up with a decent policy on LPG we will give the Government the benefit of the doubt and support the measure.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

– First of all, I congratulate the Government on extending the liquefied petroleum gas domestic subsidy of $80 per tonne which was introduced earlier this year, to commercial users of LPG in regional situations where natural gas is not available. There was considerable lobbying prior to and at the time of the introduction of the domestic subsidy to the effect that, because of the cost problems being encountered by industries in regional areas, the subsidy should apply also to industry. I am pleased that the policy speeches of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) included an extension of the subsidy for industrial use. I also congratulate the Government, and the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Moore) in particular, for the very prompt action taken to implement the subsidy. The Minister will be well aware of the many inquiries made since the night of the announcement about the items to be included, the starting date, and so forth. It is important that these matters be clarified and legislation introduced as quickly as possible.

I also commend the Minister and the Government for the generous eligibility criteria. The subsidy has been extended beyond the original concept of traditional users. I understand that the criterion caused a few problems of definition and practical application. Anybody in the commercial field in non-natural gas areas will be eligible for the subsidy. I ask the Minister in his concluding remarks to explain one aspect. If I understand correctly, the method of registration and administration of the subsidy will be the same as for the domestic subsidy. The process will begin by an application being made to an office of the Bureau of Customs in each State, and the subsidy will be back-dated to 30 September. If more detail is required to enable anybody who is interested in applying for this subsidy to proceed clearly and correctly, I hope that the Minister will include it in his summing up.

I also hope that we will not have the same four months’ delay in the practical implementation of this subsidy, as was the case with the domestic subsidy, which started in March. My understanding, through the Minister’s office, is that everything is about read to go and there will not be an undue delay. I hope that this will be the case now that everything is in place following the introduction of the domestic subsidy. Because of the delay in the earlier scheme - and one can understand that it was inevitable because of the new subsidy - I think some of the support or congratulations for the Government scheme was lost in that intervening period.

The Minister in his second reading speech emphasised that the $80 per tonne subsidy would apply for a 3-year period, the same as for the domestic subsidy. The Minister also warned that, as LPG is important to the nation’s future fuel and petrochemical requirements, users should be encouraged to find alternative energy sources during that period. I know that this will be a dilemma for a number of country people, particularly those in areas which do not have the alternative sources that will be available in some of the regional centres when natural gas pipelines are extended. I make the point to the Minister and to the Government generally that when the future of this subsidy comes up for consideration at the end of three years special consideration has to be given to those areas where natural gas will never be a reality. My understanding is that eastern Australia, particularly the south-eastern corner, is the major user of LPG and that it is essential in those areas.

Let me talk from the point of view of regional Victoria. This subsidy is absolutely essential if the growing disparity between the cost of natural gas, where it is connected, and other energy resources is to be in any way reduced or controlled. On the information given to me, the difference in price between natural gas and LPG in Victoria at present is about $200 per tonne. That is a tremendous difference. Basically, it has meant that in Victoria there are now no longer any brickworks outside areas where natural gas is available. In northern Victoria there are growing disparities in payments to farmers. This applies to dairy farmers or to fruit canneries across the river in the territory of the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Hicks). The payments depend on whether the factory has natural gas as its source of energy or some other form of fuel, of which fuel oil has been the main one in the past. This can make the difference between the continuing viability of a processing factory or its going under to competition from another factory which happens to be more strategically placed in relation to extension of natural gas pipelines. Even the $80 subsidy in no way levels the cost difference between natural gas and LPG which, as I have already stated, is about $200 per tonne in Victoria at present. The subsidy will be a help to people in a number of towns in Victoria, New South Wales and perhaps Queensland which rely on LPG. We hope that in some cases natural gas will be extended in due course.

The subsidy will apply to areas where natural gas is not presently available. Of course, once it is available a criterion will be used to reconsider future payments. The discussions at present between the Victorian Government and the Commonwealth Government become quite significant. This could be true of other States as well, although I can refer only to the Victorian situation. Several extensions to the natural gas pipeline in northern Victoria and western Victoria are under consideration. I speak as a northern Victorian and address my remarks to Senator Carrick, the Minister for National Development and Energy, who is responsible for policy in this area. My understanding is that Victoria has presented certain information to the Commonwealth and is awaiting a reply in relation to the offer made earlier this year by the Commonwealth to discuss with Victoria at least the possibility of an accelerated extension of the natural gas pipelines in certain parts of the State. I have every confidence that the Minister to whom I have just referred will soon reply to Victoria so that these discussions can proceed. I hope that the pipeline can be extended further in northern Victoria and western Victoria. Of course, the Victorian Government will be saved a considerable amount of money by the introduction of this subsidy. I am not sure of the cost to the Victorian Government of the special LPG subsidy which it makes available to approved decentralised industries in a number of regional centres in Victoria. I think it could be around $1.5m for the past year and $2.5m for the current year. Obviously that cost would have risen considerably following the increase in the LPG price earlier this year. There will be a saving to the Victorian Government from the introduction of this Federal subsidy and I hope that the Victorian Government will take that into account when it considers the extent to which the natural gas pipeline can be extended further through northern Victoria. To me that is a positive argument for Victoria, through the Gas and Fuel Corporation of Victoria, to be more generous in its criteria for extending that pipeline into those regional parts of Victoria.

A real dilemma has been caused in Victoria by the emergence of what appear to be contradictory energy pricing policies of two State Government statutory authorities. The Gas and Fuel Corporation, which controls natural gas, is deliberately maintaining a cheap energy policy, obviously with the support of the Victorian Government. As I said earlier, this is putting tremendous pressure on those industries which do not have access to natural gas and perhaps may not have access to it for many years. Their future really is being jeopardised by their inability to obtain access to natural gas.

It is also emerging that electricity, the major alternative to natural gas and/or LPG in those places where LPG but not natural gas is available at present, is ceasing to be a relatively cheap source of energy in Victoria. If one looks at the recently announced figures of the State Electricity Commission of Victoria and considers the inevitability of cost increases in electricity in Victoria for the ordinary user, as distinct from perhaps several very large bulk users, one can see that there will be a tremendous cost disparity between the two sources of energy, both controlled really by the State of Victoria. The State and several of its corporations - in particular, the Gas and Fuel

Corporation - have been critical of the Commonwealth for its energy pricing policy. I believe that the Victorian Government must look very hard at the effect its energy pricing policies will have on industry in various parts of Victoria, depending on whether they will be using electricity or natural gas in the future.

The Minister made it plain in his second reading speech that this is a temporary situation for ordinary industry, as distinct from industries in isolated areas and those areas where natural gas will never be available, while people are encouraged to look for alternative sources of energy. But it will be a very difficult situation in Victoria and perhaps in other States as there will be the lucky ones to whom natural gas will be available and the rest to whom it will not be available. When further discussions take place with Victoria on extension of the natural gas pipeline I hope that, firstly, the pipeline will be extended through regional Victoria as much as possible and that, secondly, the point will be made to Victoria that it is about time Victoria ceased criticising the Commonwealth for its energy pricing policy and took a good hard look at what is happening with its own pricing policy. I support the legislation and congratulate the Government for its speedy implementation.

Mr Ewen Cameron:
INDI, VICTORIA · LP

– The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Act. The purpose of the implementation of these amendments is to honour the Government’s election commitment to extend the $80 per tonne subsidy on liquefied petroleum gas. I would like to congratulate the Government for its speedy action in implementing this election promise. The object of the amendments is to extend the subsidy as from 30 September 1980 to commercial and industrial consumers in areas in which natural gas is not readily available. The subsidy will continue until 1983 and it is therefore to be regarded as transitional assistance allowing industry to adjust. At present this subsidy is available only to householders, non-profit residential institutions and schools that are disadvantaged by not being situated in a region where reticulated natural gas is obtainable.

The subsidy is to be extended to include a number of consumers in industry and commerce. Industries eligible for the subsidy are broadly defined. Consumers in primary, secondary and tertiary industries in various fields of government activity, in public or community services and in entertainment, sport and recreation are to be included. Provisions in the Act will, however, preclude industries which are situated in areas where reticulated natural gas is available. 1 understand that discussions are to commence immediately with the various State governments and natural gas suppliers in each State to determine which areas shall be prescribed as natural gas regions.

In my electorate of Indi one particular rural industry will benefit by the passing of this legislation. All the tobacco grown in Victoria is grown in the electorate of Indi. There are some 345 growers in this area. Presently 60 of the growers are using LPG in the curing of the tobacco leaf. The remainder use distillate which, due to its price and odour when burning, is becoming increasingly unacceptable. Distillate is also a valuable energy resource. LPG, on the other hand, is cheap and odourless. The use of LPG as an interim measure while researching a suitable alternative fuel is becoming increasingly popular among the growers. The extension of the subsidy to this industry will ease the burden on growers until a suitable alternative is found.

The tobacco growers in Victoria have been very active in developing alternative energy sources. The Tobacco Leaf Marketing Board of Victoria, in conjunction with the Victorian Department of Agriculture, is developing new combustion processes using solid fuels. Following a submission to the National Energy Research, Demonstration and Development Council, the Tobacco Leaf Marketing Board of Victoria was offered a grant of $43,750 to further its research. This research has involved the development of a process for the curing of tobacco leaf using the direct combustion and gasification of solid fuels and, in particular, briquettes, wood chips and, eventually, coal possibly from the relatively nearby Oakland area. The tobacco leaf industry in Australia uses annually about 20 million litres of oil and LPG in the curing process. A further 1 million litres is used in the hop growing industry. Present indications are that fuel for curing accounts for about 10 per cent of the total cost of producing tobacco. This, however, is increasing year by year. A typical Victorian tobacco grower currently spends more than $5,000 annually on fuel for curing his product. Present indications are that solid fuels, such as coal and wood chips, may be used at about onethird the cost of oil.

The project undertaken by the Tobacco Leaf Marketing Board of Victoria sets the pattern for encouraging a more effective and responsible use of existing resources by reducing dependence on expendable liquid fuels. The use of these alternative solid fuel techniques will be encouraged by the Board and it is expected that their use will result in a significant cost saving to tobacco growers. Potential savings in fuel costs for the industry at current prices are conservatively estimated at around $2m per annum. It is also anticipated that the techniques could be used in grain drying, dried fruit production, forestry and industrial uses where relatively small scale gas producers or boilers are required. The Bill shows a great deal of common sense. I congratulate the Government and the Minister for Business and Consumers Affairs (Mr Moore) for introducing it.

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

– in reply - I thank the honourable members who participated in the debate. It has been an enlightening exercise. I particularly want to commend the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), who has a very detailed knowledge of the area and the industry concerned. Likewise I commend the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating), who consistently demonstrates in this House a very thorough knowledge of the energy program in Australia. The honourable member for Indi (Mr Ewen Cameron) paid particular attention to one industry which is very dependent on a source of power to which this piece of legislation will bring great benefit. At this point I emphasise that the policy decisions in this area lie with Senator Carrick and that the administration of these policies lies within my portfolio.

I now draw attention to a couple of things in the administrative area. The honourable member for Murray indicated that he would like some definition of the likely timetable on the proclamation of the Bill. Clause 10 of the Bill is designed for the immediate operation of the plan and this will come into effect following royal assent. In terms of the administration, those who are currently registered as distributors are in a valid position for the exercise of the new subsidy. There seems no reason why, after receiving royal assent, the scheme should not work fairly automatically on the existing formula. I emphasise that the Government recognises the changes that are necessary to move away from an oil based power centre to one of some more economic value. In doing this there certainly will be cost to the industries concerned. This is offering a temporary solution. I emphasise the word ‘temporary’ because the Bill is for a three-year period only. At the end of that period those companies concerned will need to watch which way they go and they will need to implement their decisions not on a temporary policy but on a more lasting and long term policy.

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 Moore) read a third time.

page 411

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 4) 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 December, on motion by Mr Moore:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

– Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill, and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2), as they are associated measures? Of course, separate questions will be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– The fact that these two Bills, the Customs Amendment Bill (No. 4) and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2), are being debated today frankly is a further reflection - as indicated by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) in his position as Manager of Opposition Business- of the chaos being caused by the Government’s decision to call an early election. It is a matter for regret that despite the fact that the principal subject of these Bills - the South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Co-operation Agreement - was signed as long ago as 14 July 1980, and despite the fact that similar legislation to that which is now before us has already been passed in New Zealand, there was no attempt by the previous Minister or by the present Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Moore), to provide any advance indication to the Opposition on the subject of this legislation or of the Government’s intentions to rush it through the House on the last day of this session.

The fact that these measures were introduced to the House only yesterday afternoon and after party meetings had taken place, has already been raised in this chamber about an hour ago. I repeat that without any indication being given to us that there was any urgency about these Bills we are now obliged to debate them. I did not intervene at the time because I was speaking with the indulgence of the Chair, but the Leader of Government Business, the Minister for Communications (Mr

Sinclair) stated at the time that the Government had followed Standing Orders. There is more than just Standing Orders to be followed in the arrangement of the business of this chamber; there is also convention. I have served as Manager of Opposition Business and I know something about those conventions. One of them is that by special arrangement, if a measure is going to be debated before time is given, that measure passes through the party processes. The party processes are timed for the parliamentary party executive, the Shadow Cabinet, to consider the legislation and to make a recommendation to party meetings. Therefore there has to be time also for the party meeting to take place between the introduction of the Bill and the debate in this chamber. That process has not been followed in this case and I am now obliged to lead on behalf of the Opposition, without having had the benefit of the advice of my colleagues in the parliamentary Labor Party, some of whom, if not many, may have an attitude to express on this legislation.

Having registered my protest at the disregard of parliamentary traditions in this instance I must nonetheless indicate that the Opposition, in my view, need not oppose these Bills and, therefore, does not. Although we have not had time to study every detail of their provisions and their meaning, we can say that the objectives of the legislation have our unqualified support.

The purpose of the Bills is to amend their principal Acts in order to put into effect the provisions of the South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Co-operation Agreement. This Agreement was signed at the eleventh meeting of the South Pacific Forum held at Tarawa in July. I do not know whether I am pronouncing that name correctly. I have not had the opportunity to visit that place which sounds delightful, but perhaps I will now be stimulated to do so.

Mr Moore:

– The honourable member for Moore likes travelling.

Mr HURFORD:

– The honourable member for Moore likes travelling; so does the Minister called Moore. I would think that they would both be taking off for Tarawa if they get half a chance. The aims of the Agreement are to give greater access to the Australian and New Zealand markets for the products of the newly emerging Pacific nations which are our neighbours. These either include or will include the Cook Islands, Kiribati, Niue. the Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tavalu, Western Samoa, Fiji and Papua New Guinea. As I have not had the opportunity to travel in the Pacific region I am sure that I have mispronounced some, if not all, of those names.

The reason the Parliament is pushing this legislation through today, apart from the delays caused by the Government’s calling an early election, is that the Agreement is to take effect on 1 January next year.

I repeat that my abrasiveness about having to speak on these Bills in the circumstances is due to the fact that I know of no reason why this legislation, having been properly processed, should not have been introduced last week. Surely the Government department involved, the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs, had the whole period of the election to get the legislation together. If it had been introduced last week then there would have been no objection by the Opposition to debating the matter today. It would have been properly processed through my Party’s procedures and, I repeat, I could have had the advantage of advice from my colleagues on this matter. I must labour this point a little longer. This legislation was not even included in the draft business program. At the beginning of each week the Opposition is given the very slight advantage of being given a draft program. It was not on that draft program. This is another reason why it has come as a great surprise to us that we are obliged to debate it now. Some burbled message was given to the manager of Opposition business yesterday, but it was not passed on to me. I therefore make that further objection to the way that this matter has come before the House.

Having got that off my chest, I turn to consider the two Bills before the House. The Customs Amendment Bill (No. 4) specifies the goods to be included and provides a definition of the original requirements to protect the agreement from abuse. It is similar to those already applying to other trade concession agreements such as NAFTA, the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The other Bill, the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) deals with the declaration of countries as ‘Forum island countries’ for the purposes of the Agreement.

I have given an indication already that the Australian Labor Party welcomes this initiative to have closer trading relationships between Pacific nations and Australia. The importance of this approach cannot be overstated. It is in our country’s interests as well as in the interests of the Pacific nations that this trading relationship and this economic relationship should be developed further. Most of these small nations of the Pacific are already the recipients of substantial economic aid from Australia. The development of their industries must take a high priority. We want them to become self-sufficient. It is extremely unlikely in some cases that they will be viable in our lifetime, I suppose; anyway, the more we can do to bring about that day of viability the better.

Of course, most of our aid to Pacific nations hitherto has been given to Papua New Guinea on which our attention has been centred. It is in our interests and in the interest of Papua New Guineans, as their leaders realise, that the amount of aid should be phased out as that nation becomes more self-sufficient. We should be turning our interest to other countries of the Pacific region, and indeed to other neighbouring underdeveloped countries, which will receive the aid funds saved by the reduction in aid to Papua New Guinea in the forthcoming years. These very small nations in the Pacific which are the subject of this legislation have had the option of selfsufficiency denied to them, as I have indicated earlier, so that they must develop their capacity to earn export revenue. Of course, it is important that this trade should not cause any undue disruption to Australian industry. But this is unlikely given the small scale of the trade and given the safeguards which have properly been included in the Agreement.

There are mutual benefits from economic cooperation, notwithstanding the non-reciprocal nature of this agreement. Apart from the economic benefits there are important foreign policy concepts in an area which represents our closest neighbourhood. It is also an area of rapidly changing constitutional and political conditions. There are now 22 separate entities in the South Pacific with populations ranging from a mere 80 on Pitcairn Island to about 3 million in Papua New Guinea. It is essential that Australia remains committed to a close relationship with all of those separate small nations of the Pacific area. It has always been of enormous interest to the Australian Labor Party to stimulate the growth, development and independence of those small nations. Therefore it is not surprising that we support this legislation which we hope will help the economic development of those countries.

Mr HYDE:
Moore

– I have no hesitation in supporting these two Bills, the Customs Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1980 and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980. The passage of these Bills is clearly in the Australian national interest. The purpose of the measures is to enable goods to come from the island member nations of the South Pacific Forum, which is a group of very small nations in the Pacific, and to enter the Australian markets on a duty-free, unrestricted basis. It is in Australia’s interest that this should happen for two reasons. First of all, it should happen because the entry of goods into the Australian market from places where those goods can be produced more cheaply than they can in Australia will lift Australian living standards. Secondly, this will enable resources within Australia to be used in efficient export industries, increasing our exports, and using the resources that the Australian economy has available to it more efficiently and again increasing Australian living standards.

I suspect that the Government has adopted such a commonsense economic approach to these nations because they are small rather than that they are poor. The nations concerned, in fact, have a higher standard of living than “many nations to our near north. These nations are, as the previous speaker has said, of clear strategic significance to Australia. It is in Australia’s interest that they became as prosperous as possible, remain as prosperous as possible and also remain well disposed towards our nation and towards the Western world. It could be quite unfortunate for us if one of them were to come under the influence of a hostile power. This legislation is in our national strategic interest and in our national economic interest.

However, a point I must make is that those same arguments that apply to the island member countries of the South Pacific Forum apply, to an even greater extent, to the east Asian, nations to our north. Australia, whether we like to think so or not, is part of East Asia. Our destiny will be very largely determined by what happens in that part of the world. It is clearly in our interest that those nations to our north remain friendly and well disposed towards us. It is clearly in our interest that we have the benefit of trade with those nations. We should bear in mind that their rates of economic growth at this stage are about three times the rates of economic growth in Australia and that on the trends that Australia is experiencing and that those nations are experiencing, each one of them will, in due course, enjoy a higher standard of living than Australia is currently enjoying. If that happens, as it will happen if we do not change our attitude to that region of the world, we will not only lose the ability to enjoy a standard of living that we could otherwise enjoy, but also we will lose our ability to safeguard the way of life that we have come to regard as precious.

Nations in our part of the world are not as wealthy as Australia. They do not have our natural resources. It is not only that we will not be able to defend ourselves with arms if we do not guard our national wealth, but also that we will engender bad relations with countries that see us as a privileged part of their world. We will prevent them from achieving a standard of living that they might otherwise achieve and they will regard our behaviour as distinctly unneighbourly. They have high and expanding populations. They do not have the natural resources that are available to Australia. As these nations are not blessed with these natural resources they must sell the product of that labour. If we do not accept the goods that are produced by their expanding populations we will almost inevitably suffer the consequences of our own unneighbourly conduct.

These Asian nations, like the South Pacific nations, may become unfavourably disposed towards us and give assistance to those who would treat us harshly or they may treat us harshly themselves. We should bear in mind that their populations are far greater than ours. If their economies do not prosper there is the risk that we will experience refugee flows with which we cannot cope. Refugees have already reached our shores and when that happens there is nothing Australia can do about it, or would be prepared to do about it. If vast numbers of people turn up on our shores in boats we cannot destroy them and would not destroy them. Public opinion in our own country, thank the Lord, is such that we do not behave in that way. We would have no option but to share our wealth with those people in circumstances that were not of our own choosing.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the arguments that have been advanced in favour of these Bills are good arguments, but they are not confined to these small nations, they apply to bigger nations even more strategically placed to our near north. If we do not accept those arguments, I suspect that Australia will pay a very dear price and wake up to that price too late to do anything about it.

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 Moore) read a third time.

page 413

CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1980

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 3 December, on motion by Mr Moore:

Question resolved in the affirmative. .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 Moore) read a third time.

page 414

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE- REPORT ON ZIMBABWE: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Ministerial Statement

Mr STREET:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · Corangamite · LP

– by leave - Mr Deputy Speaker, the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on Zimbabwe was presented to the Parliament on 22 May 1980. The following terms of reference were given to the Sub-Committee on Southern Africa on 2 May 1978:

That the Sub-Committee consider, investigate and report to the full Committee on the significance of events in Southern Africa, with particular reference to the economic, political, social and strategic implications for Australia.

The Sub-Committee interpreted Southern Africa to include, for the purposes of its inquiry, Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe. At the time the Sub-Committee began its investigation, Zimbabwe was the focus of the struggle by Southern Africa’s blacks for an end to white domination of their lives and for an opportunity to achieve social and political equality with whites. The Sub-Committee decided therefore to concentrate its inquiry initially on Zimbabwe. This first report is a result of that inquiry. The Sub-Committee considered that a detailed examination of the situation in Zimbabwe was important not only in its own right but for its implications for the region. The Government has examined the Joint Committee’s report and considers it to be a valuable contribution to this Parliament’s and the Australian public’s knowledge of Zimbabwe, particularly with its detailed presentation of its history and of the unique processes by which majority rule was achieved. Australia was privileged to contribute to these processes and since independence was attained on 18 April 1980, has moved to consolidate its relationship with Zimbabwe to our mutual benefit.

The Government considers that the members of the Joint Committee, and in particular its SubCommittee on Southern Africa, chaired by the Honourable J. D. M. Dobie, M.P., are to be commended for the thoroughness and dedication with which they pursued their task. One of the Committee’s major problems was the difficulty of preparing its report and formulating conclusions in a situation where major developments were regularly changing the course of events. As is pointed out in the preface to its report, the SubCommittee began its inquiry some six months after the Internal Settlement Agreement of 3 March 1978. This was followed in April 1979 by the election of the Government of Bishop Abel Muzorewa, by the Lusaka Agreement of August 1979, the Lancaster House Conference of September-December 1979, the cease-fire and return to legality last December, new elections in February 1980 which brought Mr Robert Mugabe’s Government to power, and official independence on 18 April 1980. Each of these steps and its significance is clearly spelled out in the Committee’s report. The Committee’s report sets out 10 ‘conclusions and recommendations’, almost all of them consistent with the Government’s present policies and practice. In some cases the Committee recommends courses which the Government has already been following. In these instances the Committee’s endorsement of our position is most encouraging. In other cases the Committee’s conclusions are more in the form of observations, making no recommendations concerning government policy. The Government accepts all the Committee’s recommendations and endorses all its conclusions with one qualification and one exception to which I will refer later in this statement. I wish now to consider in turn the conclusions and recommendations.

Aid

Conclusions (1) and (2) deal with general aid; Conclusions (3) and (4) with rural aid. Under Conclusion (1) the Committee points out the urgent need in the early years of Zimbabwe’s independence for aid to enable reconstruction from the damage caused by years of war and to make a start on removing the legacy of inequality resulting from past racial policies. The Committee correctly identifies as priority areas for the new government the resettlement of displaced persons, land reform, improved medical care, improved conditions of employment for blacks, better nutrition and improved agricultural practices. The Committee also welcomes the announcement by Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) at the independence celebrations that Australia would give Zimbabwe development assistance worth $A5m over two years, $ A 1.5m of which was allocated for the immediate rehabilitation and expansion of facilities such as schools and hospitals, and for veterinary work and agricultural rehabilitation. The Government welcomes and endorses these comments. It is keeping Zimbabwe’s requirements and the means by which Australia can best help meet them under constant review. In July it doubled to $A10m the amount of aid Australia is to give over the next two years. The initial contribution of $A1.5m referred to earlier was handed over as an accountable cash grant when the Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar) and then Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, paid an official visit to Zimbabwe from 24 to 28 July this year. The funds are supporting the rehabilitation of medical, educational and agricultural services. Ways are being examined of disbursing the remainder. Priority will be given to areas identified by Zimbabwe to be of greatest need and in which Australia has a capacity to assist.

Under Conclusion (2), the Committee welcomes Australia’s decision to provide $A1m to assist the repatriation to Zimbabwe of refugees from neighbouring countries, and the decision to continue to sponsor Zimbabwean students in Australia. It also urges the Government to keep the needs of Zimbabwe under review and to consider sympathetically any requests from Zimbabwe for additional aid. The Government willingly accepts these recommendations. The $A1m referred to was a contribution to a United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees fund for repatriating Zimbabwean refugees. The UNHCR concentrated its early efforts on returning refugees of voting age before the February 1980 elections. Repatriation of refugees from Botswana was completed before the elections and from Mozambique by the end of August. All Zimbabweans in Zambia have now also returned home. The Government monitored closely the progress of the repatriation process and stood ready throughout to consider sympathetically any request for further assistance.

To help overcome the shortages arising from the need for relief supplies to feed displaced people, Australia is planning to include food aid in its 1980-81 aid program for Zimbabwe. As for continuing sponsorship of Zimbabwean students in Australia, training aid has now been reestablished on a normal bilateral basis. Two Zimbabwean student diplomats participated in this year’s foreign service training course and were later given practical experience in our missions in New Delhi and Stockholm. The training allocation for Zimbabwe in 1980-81 has been increased substantially and will allow for approximately 25 new awards. This too is an area in which Zimbabwe’s needs are being kept under continuing review.

Conclusion (3) urges the Government, and others around the world, to assist in alleviating the hardships of rural poverty in Zimbabwe. The

Committee notes that Australia has relevant agricultural expertise and could do much to assist by providing expertise on the spot, as is done in other African countries. The Government agrees with the Committee’s comments on the need to accord priority to alleviating rural poverty in Zimbabwe. The experience Australia has gained in projects to assist agricultural and livestock development in other African countries and elsewhere is being drawn upon in planning an aid program for Zimbabwe.

Under Conclusion (4), the Committee urges the Government, and I quote, ‘to contribute financially to any schemes established to finance land redistribution and agricultural development in an independent Zimbabwe, and to provide what other assistance it can’. I referred earlier to the Government’s readiness to assist with agricultural development in Zimbabwe. The Government agrees there may be a role for Australia to play in providing assistance with the reconstruction and expansion of agricultural and veterinary services and facilities. Australian aid officials are currently examining the feasibility of such assistance.

No schemes involving foreign participation presently exist to finance land redistribution in Zimbabwe. If such schemes were set up and if a contribution were sought from Australia, the Government would of course give the matter serious consideration. Our response would depend on the nature of the proposal put. It would, however, be inconsistent with past Australian development assistance policies and practice for our aid funds to be used for the purchase of land in redistribution programs.

Migration and Refugees

The report contains three items on ‘Immigrants’ and two on ‘Refugees’. Conclusion (1) notes that:

Should a deterioration of the internal situation lead to a mass emigration from Zimbabwe, Australia could be under pressure to relax its immigration criteria, and might conceivably have to cut back on immigrants from traditional sources. Charges of racism could arise if most of the immigrants from Zimbabwe continued to be whites and could result in divisions in Australian society.

The Government endorses these comments. Should developments in Zimbabwe be such as to precipitate mass emigration and if this led to pressure for Australia to accept some of those leaving, the Government would respond to the situation in a manner consistent with our global non-discriminatory policies in such matters. In these circumstances, even if the majority of those applying and being accepted were white, charges of racism would be demonstrably incorrect and refutable. The Government notes that while some whites remain apprehensive about their future under a black majority government, the speculated ‘mass exodus’ has not occurred. The government of Zimbabwe is clearly mindful of the importance of retaining the skills of its white residents, and both in its public statements and by the practical measures it has taken to date, has shown sensitivity to the need to allay white apprehensions about changes which may occur in Zimbabwe as a consequence of majority rule. As an example, the government’s first budget brought down in late July placed considerable emphasis on the need not only to promote recovery from the destruction of war but to provide incentives to local businessmen and foreign investors. Mr Mugabe has emphasised on a number of occasions - including his visit to North America in August and at an Economic Resources Conference held in Zimbabwe in September - the importance he attaches to an ongoing role for domestic and foreign private capital.

It is important to stress that apart from the absence of a general mass exodus there is also no evidence to suggest that a large flow of Zimbabwean immigrants to Australia is occurring or imminent. In fact settler arrivals from Zimbabwe fell from 595 in 1978-79 to 421 in 1979-80. Settler arrivals in the first quarter of 1980-81 totalled 124. However, enquiries about migration to Australia have risen in recent months, reaching 777 in October. Application rates also rose sharply from 246 persons in April to peak in July at 551 but have since fallen gradually. Approvals are running at about 50 per cent of applications.

Present indications are that, in the absence of major deterioration in the internal political situation, the white population should stabilise at around 1 50,000 and remain at this level for some time. The present white population is estimated to be around 220,000. Australia’s nondiscriminatory policy requires that all migration applications be assessed according to the same globally accepted criteria. This important principle continues to be applied in the case of Zimbabwe. Australia should not however appear to be contributing to any loss through emigration of Zimbabwe’s scarce skilled manpower. When the Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar) met Mr Mugabe in Salisbury in July he raised this matter at the Prime Minister’s request. The Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar) assured Mr Mugabe that Australia would not seek to attract migrants from Zimbabwe. Any applicant for emigration to Australia would be considered, but Australia would not attempt to recruit migrants from there.

Mr Mugabe expressed his appreciation for these remarks.

In Conclusion (2) the Committee states that it found that the majority of Zimbabwean immigrants tended to integrate into the community fairly quickly, particularly as most had skills which helped them obtain employment and particularly as there were no language or cultural barriers to cross. Zimbabwean settlers tended, on the whole, to be fairly self-reliant and the Subcommittee received no evidence of any being a burden on the community.

Conclusion (3) notes that a number of black people in Zimbabwe, particularly in rural areas, were married polygamously, and on this basis would be excluded from immigrating to Australia under principle (vi) of the immigration criteria. In circumstances where Australia may be faced with applications to immigrate from polygamously married persons, the Committee considers that this restriction should be re-examined.

Zimbabwe is of course not the only country practising polygamy. Present Government policy states that eligibility and suitability standards for migrants should reflect Australian social mores as well as Australian law. The exclusion of more than one spouse from classes of persons eligible to immigrate to Australia relates to the fact that under the Marriage Act 1961, only monogamous marriages can be solemnised in Australia. Polygamous marriages validly entered into under the laws of an overseas country will be recognised in Australia provided that the parties involved had the necessary capacity under their ante-nuptial domicile to enter into the marriage. Such recognition of polygamous marriages is for the purposes of the Family Law Act 1975 only and applies to all proceedings under the Act, including maintenance, custody and property rights.

It is open to the Government to alter Australia’s immigration criteria to allow migrants to enter Australia with more than one spouse. However, strong resistance to this course could be expected in a country to which the practice of polygamy is quite alien. This could have implications both for the acceptance of polygamously married migrants into the Australian community and for Australian attitudes to migration and migrants in general. There would also be legal complications. Notwithstanding the recognition accorded polygamous marriage under the Family Law Act, I foresee problems with recognition under both Federal and State law in such areas as taxation, inheritance and social security matters. In all the circumstances it would seem inadvisable at the present time to remove current restrictions on the entry to Australia of more than one spouse.

Concerning refugees, the report notes in Conclusion (4) that, in the course of its inquiry, the Sub-committee received considerable evidence on the refugee situation existing inside and outside of Zimbabwe prior to the settlement agreed at the Lancaster House conference. It also notes that much of this evidence was overtaken by events and lost its direct relevance as, with the ceasefire, refugees began to return to Zimbabwe and resettlement programs commenced. Nevertheless, the Committee canvassed some of the issues because of their possible relevance to other refugee situations which may occur in the Southern Africa region at some future time and its comments in chapter 9 of the report are a very useful record.

In my earlier comments on general aid, referred to in Conclusion (2), I mentioned the aid Australia has provided to Zimbabwean refugees, and pointed out that the Government was continuing to monitor Zimbabwe’s needs and would consider sympathetically any request for further aid. The report’s comments on this topic, despite their now historical character, are nonetheless valuable. Whilst it is not possible to judge in advance the best means of handling refugee problems, the Government watches developments in Southern Africa closely to obtain the earliest possible warning of possible refugee situations. The Committee goes on in Conclusion (5) to state its firm opinion that Australia should accept refugees or displaced persons from Southern Africa should the need arise. It also endorses the nondiscriminatory aspects of Australia’s refugee policy and re-emphasises that racial considerations must never enter into the selection of refugees. Should the situation arise, Australia would assess its response to the needs of refugees or displaced persons from Southern Africa in accordance with its present global non-discriminatory policy. It welcomes the Committee’s endorsement of this policy, an important part of which is the principal that racial considerations are not important to the selection of refugees.

Under a section entitled ‘White Zimbabwean immigrants and racism’ the Committee states that, on the evidence available, it rejects the contention that all whites from Zimbabwe are racists. It states:

The majority of white Zimbabweans who have immigrated to Australia to date have integrated into the Australian community without any major problems involving racism. Nor have any complaints of racial discrimination against white Zimbabweans featured in any of the reports of the Commissioner for Community Relations since his office was established under the Racial Discrimination Act 197S.

No person’s political or racial views can be safely inferred from his membership of a racial group or his country of birth or residence. A blanket exclusion of immigrants or refugees because they were white and came from Zimbabwe would show an intolerance no different from that of the racists being condemned. The Committee believes, however, that caution should be exercised so that people of overt extremist racist views are not admitted to Australia thereby damaging the racial harmony of this country.

The Government endorses these comments. There is general agreement that migrants from Zimbabwe have few settlement problems and that there is no evidence that their presence does or would provoke conflict with racial minorities in Australia. Present immigration policy makes provision for the thorough screening of intended migrants and persons of ‘overt extremist racist views’ would not meet selection requirements for migration to Australia. In summary, the Joint Committee’s report is a useful and thorough compendium of basic data and historical information which deserves to be widely read.

To conclude, I would like to say that Australia has been pleased to have been able to contribute to the unique processes which led to the attainment of majority rule in Zimbabwe and to the new nation’s development efforts since independence. We have been encouraged by the determination of the Mugabe Government to pursue policies designed to promote reconciliation and reconstruction. This is not, however, to underestimate the problems facing Zimbabwe and demonstrated by the clashes which have occurred during the campaign for municipal elections. It is to be hoped that Mr Mugabe, in consultation with the leaders of all involved factions, will succeed in defusing the current tensions and in preventing the spread of open conflict and the diversion of national energies from the important tasks of reconstruction and development on which an encouraging beginning has already been made. The Government will continue to follow the progress of the newest United Nations and Commonwealth member with sympathetic interest and continue to do what it can to be of practical assistance in helping Zimbabwe achieve its development goals and the establishment of an harmonious multi-racial society. I present the following paper:

Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and DefenceReport on Zimbabwe: Government response - Ministerial statement, 4 December 1980.

Motion (by Mr McVeigh) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The matter before the House is the Government’s response to the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on Zimbabwe, which was formerly known as Rhodesia. Like the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Street), I want to endorse the Committee’s recommendations and conclusions. However, the Opposition has some views which indicate that perhaps it does not have some of the qualifications of the Minister in regard to this matter. It is appropriate on the last day of the sitting that we should remind ourselves of what would be one of the most significant and important political developments of 1980, namely, the achievement of independence and the democratic election of a national government in Zimbabwe. It is something in which this Parliament ought to take great interest, particularly because of Australia’s special involvement. I acknowledge the role played by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), for which I give him full credit. I wish also to include the Australian force sent to Zimbabwe to observe and report on the ceasefire, and also the National Observer Group in which four of the members of this Parliament participated. All in their own way have played a very important part.

It is significant for me to be able to make these comments because in April 1975 I was at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference in Jamaica where it was made clear to the then British Prime Minister by President Kaunda of Zambia and President Nyerere of Tanzania that there would be escalated bloodshed in Zimbabwe within a matter of weeks unless something was done about holding elections on the free basis that they felt had been achieved already in Angola and Mozambique. It is tragic to think that it has taken some years to achieve that. I recognise the difficulties, but we must appreciate the distress caused to many people by the deaths during the events of that time.

I now wish to talk in the broader context of the political and economic situation in which Zimbabwe has found itself following independence. In political terms, the achievement of independence, the election of a democratic government and the maintenance of the structure since then have been nothing short of a miracle. Mugabe, styled as a Marxist, has shown himself, to be every bit as pragmatic as everyone had hoped. His task, a massive one, was made a little easier and stability was assured by his overwhelming electoral victory. Zimbabwe is a country rich in natural resources and it has a bright economic future. The Economist has recently stated:

Zimbabwe seems to have almost everything; a principal export, gold, whose value floats on rising oil prices; a range of minerals and farm exports which world markets want; manufacturers grown confident and resourceful in a protected domestic market; a high level of adult literacy and modern skills; modest inflation and low interest rates; small foreign debt and a good credit standing; and a government which professes a keen desire to apply the principles of ‘pragmatic and mild’ socialism to an ‘economic infrastructure’ that is basically capitalistic.

Despite those endowments Zimbabwe has considerable problems both of a political and economic nature. Unless they are handled well and in a capable fashion they could lead to serious consequences. To the extent that some of these problems and their resolutions lie mainly within the hands of Robert Mugabe, the outlook seems promising. The most difficult and pressing political problem is that of national conciliation and integration. Two events have symbolised the enormous difficulties that these tasks present. The first, I would say, was the removal of General Peter Walls who, for many whites, represented a symbol of hope and confidence. The second is the trial of the third ranking man in Mugabe’s Cabinet who is accused of murder. He is a former hero and guerrilla leader in the black cause. But so far Mugabe has exhibited undoubted skill in his handling of the problem and of the trial of his colleague. It is a most sensitive issue for both blacks and whites and it is to be hoped that the outcome will not jeopardise progress towards reconciliation.

Law and order is also a major problem as the political tribal riots in Bulawayo have demonstrated. Whilst it is up to Robert Mugabe and his colleagues to try to solve the political problems, the economic problems his country faces cannot be solved unless he obtains massive outside assistance. Again the Economist issue of 13 September 1980 indicated:

Is the West going to squander its most signal advance in modern southern Africa - an advance achieved in the first place only by luck . . . ? Yes, it will squander that achievement . . . even without a single western bullet being fired, if rich democratic countries go on acting as though they were poor.

Henry Kissinger in 1976 estimated that $ 1,000m would be needed for Zimbabwe after a settlement. Total aid donations to date have achieved only $365m. Robert Mugabe, at the end of August this year, following visits to the United Kingdom and the United States, said that no more aid was forthcoming. He pleaded at the United Nations for more aid. Unfortunately, the signs are that the aid needed will not be given. Nevertheless, it is to be hoped, for example, that the new Reagan Administration in the United States- despite suggestions that it will play down aid in general and Africa in particular- will take a more constructive attitude than present indications may suggest. As the Minister pointed out, Australia’s aid has not been insignificant.

But since we chose to play a special role in connection with Zimbabwe’s independence, we also have a special responsibility. Frankly, it is our responsibility to do more, and it is our responsibility to use Australia’s influence to encourage others to do more.

Unless sufficient aid is forthcoming, political tensions will be created and these could have disastrous consequences. The people of Zimbabwe have expectations of their government and of the effects of the end of the war. Countries like ourselves, which played a public role in Zimbabwe’s political birth, indirectly encouraged these people to believe that a democratically elected government would deliver the goods. If we fail, it will be a blow not only for Zimbabwe but also for the cause of democracy in Africa. It does not help in Australia’s own administration of an enlightened and generous aid policy when the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Finance refuse to countenance anything new. I refer to the Minister’s comment on pages 4 and 5 of the Committee’s recommendation that the Government should assist schemes to finance land redistribution. It is to be regretted that the Minister should follow what is clearly a line of Treasury and Finance when he says that he would give the matter serious consideraton but that such a proposal would be ‘inconsistent with past Australian development assistance policies’. In our view there is no reason to prejudge the issue. Everything should be judged on its merits. If it has to be done for the first time at some stage perhaps that would be a refreshing innovation. I hope the Minister will ensure that if such a proposal is put forward it will receive sympathetic consideration and that its consistency or otherwise with past policies will not be allowed to be a relevant factor in deciding our attitude.

The second major area the Minister covered concerned immigration. I would say for the record that the Opposition endorses the Committee’s conclusion on page 5 of its report concerning the prospect of mass emigration from Zimbabwe. I note also that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Macphee) assured Mr Mugabe is Salisbury in July that Australia would not seek to attract migrants from Zimbabwe.

One of the Committee’s recommendations concerning immigration was:

In circumstances where Australia may be faced with applications to immigrate from polygamously married persons, the Committee considers that this restriction should be re-examined.

The Minister has responded to this recommendation by saying it would be ‘inadvisable at the present time’ to allow immigration of polygamously married persons. I think we have to face up to this issue because it has virtually been faced up to in the family law area. I want to remind the House, as the Minister has done, that section 6 of the Family Law Act provides:

For the purpose of proceedings under this Act, a union in the nature of a marriage which is, or has at any lime been, polygamous, being a union entered into in a place outside Australia, shall be deemed to be a marriage.

So there is some recognition in law of circumstances that relate to polygamy in other countries. As a general observation the Minister’s remarks point to an urgent need for our Government to reassess and revise Australia’s policy with regard to the entry of migrants from what are called nontraditional sources. This need arises in the first place because of the large number of entries from Asia, principally refugees. But, as the Minister’s statement shows, this question is one which has increasing implications for Australia’s foreign relations and is not confined only to our relations with Asia. Mr Menadue, the new Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, has adverted to this matter and he appears conscious of the need to revise policy, or one might rather say, to formulate policy, in respect of these problem immigration questions. I hope he and his Minister are able to address themselves to the issues without too much delay.

In summary, I join with the Minister in his description of the Committee’s report as being useful and thorough. It bears all the marks of professionalism and concern with objectivity that we have come to expect of the Committee. The Opposition congratulates members of the Committee on a fine report.

Mr DOBIE:
Cook

– I would like to take just a few moments of the time of the House to say that, as the Chairman of the Sub-committee on Southern Africa of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, I am very pleased to see the reaction of both the Government and the Opposition to our report. There can be no doubting the need to bring publicity to the problems relating to the emergency in Zimbabwe. The inquiry has led to an awakening in the Australian conscience of the existence of a country called Rhodesia which is now known as Zimbabwe.

I do not want to repeat what I said when I introduced the report of the Sub-committee to the House. But it would be wrong if I did not say on behalf of members of that Sub-committee - I am pleased to see two of them in the House at the moment- that we are very happy as a group that the reaction to the report has been good. I accept the points made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) in regard to the problems of bringing to Australia polygamously married people. This already happens in the case of migrants from Turkey and the like. I would commend to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Street) that further thought be given to this problem not particularly as it relates to Zimbabwe but in the broader aspect of migration criteria regarding people, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, from non-traditional sources.

I conclude by saying that I think this report is a useful one. I am pleased to see that the Government has accepted eight of our 10 recommendations. I sincerely hope that the statements made by the new Minister for Foreign Affairs will be reflected in future policies and that Australia will continue to have an alert interest in matters relating to Zimbabwe. If Zimbabwe does not succeed in once again becoming the food basket for Southern Africa, the whole of that part of the world is in trouble. I do hope that the problems we have seen concerning the giving of money for land development, of putting money into land as such, do not obscure the need for Australia to take a very active part in promoting agricultural recovery, as well as a new policy of distributing the land within the country in an equitable manner.

I commend the new Minister upon the way in which he has accepted this report but, in fairness, must give him due warning that the Committee will be watching that we as a Parliament maintain an interest in this part of the world. I believe that we do have a responsibility beyond what our normal associations would suggest.

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

– I wish briefly to comment on the ministerial statement as a member of the Sub-committee and to second what the Chairman of the Committee, the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie), has just said, that is, that the critical transition period for Zimbabwe is the next two or three years. If the Western world can contribute the kind of support that is desperately needed now, in the future there will be little problem concerning aid for what is potentially one of the wealthiest countries of Southern Africa. One of the great tragedies at the moment is that, as a result of the guerilla war, a country which has been described as the bread basket of Southern Africa is one in which there is widespread malnutrition. That is partly a result of the war and partly a result of the severe drought problems of the past two years.

This leads me to express some concern about the attitude of the Government to rural aid. One appreciates the general aid that the Government is giving and particularly welcomes the increased amount of financial aid being given. But the response by the Government to conclusions 3 and 4 is disappointing. At the moment there seems to be no definition of the forms of rural aid that will be given. The response of the Government to conclusion 3 can only be described, at the moment, as somewhat vacuous. I would hope that fairly quickly the Government would be able to define the types of rural aid that it plans to give. At the moment all we are told is:

The experience Australia has gained in projects to assist agricultural and livestock development in other African countries and elsewhere is being drawn upon in planning an aid program for Zimbabwe.

I hope that the Minister, on behalf of the Department, will very soon be able to define the type of rural aid program that will be going into Zimbabwe.

In relation to conclusion 4, 1 agree that supporting the provision of finance for land redistribution has not been a policy of Australian governments in the past. What should be pointed out is that Zimbabwe has a unique land transition problem. It is a country in which SO per cent of the land is owned by the white population. Inevitably, there will be great pressure for land redistribution. Therefore, support for land redistribution in Zimbabwe requires in a sense a unique response from the Australian Government in relation to the giving of rural aid. Although I can see that this poses problems because Australia has no clear precedents to follow, I hope very much that in this situation, on what will probably be politically the most critical issue, we will adopt somewhat different policies, to meet an unusual situation, than we have pursued in the past.

I welcome the general response of the Government to the Sub-committee’s report and in conclusion emphasise what I have said on both aspects of rural aid - the need as soon as possible to see evidence of a clearly defined rural aid program for Zimbabwe, and the need for reconsideration of the important issue of financial support for land redistribution, because of the peculiar situation presented to us by the transition in Zimbabwe.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 420

DEFENCE

Ministerial Statement

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · Moreton · LP

– by leave- There are four separate defence matters to which I wish to refer in this statement. Firstly, I will speak about the new tactical fighter. I wish to advise the House that the government has decided that it is not yet in a position to select the aircraft to constitute the new 75-strong tactical fighter force of the Royal Australian Air Force. The Government has made this decision with reluctance, because it is conscious of the massive efforts made both in Australia and in the United States towards selection. I hasten to add, however, that this decision is based on the soundest professional and technical advice.

Just over a year ago I informed the House that future evaluation would be addressed to two contending aircraft, the General Dynamics F16 and the MacDonnell Douglas F-A18. The Government then hoped to make the final aircraft selection about this time. Only later in 1981 does it now appear practicable to make a considered, overall defence judgment on capability and cost grounds, unclouded by some major uncertainties that we now see. Earlier this year, in the United States, an Australian evaluation team subjected the two aircraft to what has since been described as the most meticulous and professional examination ever by a foreign buyer. Based on that examination, and on further inquiry and subsequent analysis of data that has become available more recently, the Government has decided that deferment of selection is the right and proper decision to be taken at this time if we are to meet our responsibilities to the Defence Force and to the nation as a whole.

I shall now outline the reasons for deferment. When the Government chose the F16 as one of the contenders late last year it was aware that the aircraft had shortcomings for our needs. It lacked a medium-range all-weather air-to-air missile. It needed modifications to its radar. It had other shortcomings for the delivery of air-to-surface weapons, particularly in adverse weather. The United States Air Force had plans to attend to all of these deficiencies and the Government hoped that they would progress in time to meet Australian deliveries. While the United States Air Force objectives remain clear, its plans have not yet crystallised to the extent that we can be assured that all the improvements we seek, if our requirements are to be met, will in fact be adopted. Nor can we be assured that they will be available in the time scale we need, and at an acceptable price. The position is expected to become clearer during the first half of next year when the United States Air Force is seeking funding for its developmental programs.

In the case of the F-A18, the reservations are of a more fundamental nature. The Government recognised last year that the F-A18 was still in early development and that, because of this, there were considerable uncertainties in assessment of the final cost, operational capabilities and other factors. However, the aircraft’s potential advantages were judged to be sufficiently attractive to make those risks acceptable for the purposes of further evaluation. During the evaluation, and subsequently, a number of substantial technical problems have been encountered in the development of the F-A18. These relate primarily to structural and aerodynamic problems. Under the direction of the United States Navy, the manufacturer has embarked on a program to overcome the difficulties. With time it is likely that they will be overcome. The best scientific and engineering advice is that sufficient testing on the F-Al 8 is not expected to be completed before mid- 1981, to establish reasonable confidence that the changes required in the development aircraft have been successful. This advice comes from the Chief Defence Scientist of the Australian Department of Defence, the Chief of Air Force Technical Services, and others. To reject such advice and to proceed to selection would, in the Government’s view, be quite imprudent.

I ask the House and the country to consider this question: Having regard to the professional opinions expressed concerning both the F16 and the F-A18, can we now commit the Australian taxpayers to what clearly will be a vastly expensive program? I am free of doubt. So is the Government. The Government therefore sees no alternative but to await evaluation of the further data around mid-1981. We can also expect to get more reliable estimates at that time of the production costs of the F-A18.

I turn now to the important role for Australian industry in the new tactical fighter program. The Government is acutely conscious of the fact that not only will the new aircraft serve the Royal Australian Air Force for at least 25 years but also that the technologies required in its support will provide a major challenge for Australian industry. Many Australian firms have been active with their United States counterparts in developing proposals for participation in the fighter program. Much has been learnt by both sides in the process. There are, however, still some deficiencies in these plans and there are many areas where the negotiations have not developed as thoroughly as would be desired. The nation’s interests can, in some respects, be better served by continuing the negotiations further.

Where long lead time facilities and equipments will be required in Australian industry for participation in production of either contender, procurement will proceed. I hope that Australian industry will take heed of that. Reluctantly, therefore, I repeat that the Government has come to the view that it should await the outcome of developments that it expects to be resolved by the middle of 1981, before returning to the matter of selection. It will be recalled that action was set in train over a year ago to refurbish the Mirage and re-equip it with modern weapons. Because of this, the deferment decision is free of the pressure of immediate operational needs. The Government’s actions should not be seen as indicating any preference for one or the other of the contending aircraft. Any speculation to that effect would be quite illfounded. The Government has adopted no view as to the relative merits of selection of either aircraft.

A year ago I said to the House that the new fighter must have operational capabilities matched to our own environment; be appropriate to the nation’s future needs and be at a cost that the nation can afford. That remains the Government’s objective. The Government has decided that it cannot properly weigh those factors and responsibly make a selection at this time.

I would make one further comment on the subject of aircraft acquisition; on 30 September I approved preliminary negotiations for the acquisition of four F-111 aircraft from the United States Air Force. I expect a firm proposal for this acquisition of attrition aircraft to be brought before government for consideration shortly.

The second matter to which I refer deals with significant developments in defence relations with regional countries. On 19 February this year, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) spoke to the House about the importance of co-operation with the independent nations in our neighbouring regions. My right honourable friend said on that occasion:

The Government wishes to discuss with our regional friends further development of our defence relations. This could include arrangements for more regular consultations between national defence authorities, combined exercising between armed forces, expanded programs for training and other assistance that we might be able to offer. I believe that the abiding security interests that we share with our regional neighbours call for continuing consultation and co-operation in the defence field.

Implementation of that policy has been pursued with vigour. At the end of October, in Australia over 500 service personnel from 14 nearby countries were attending formal service training courses, undergoing on-the-job training, or studying particular aspects of Australian Defence Force organisation and procedures. As well, about 260 Australian servicemen and civilians are presently providing advisory and other practical assistance in many of these countries, particularly Papua New Guinea. On 18 September, the Prime Minister informed the House of the agreement of the Prime Ministers of Malaysia and Singapore, subsequently endorsed by their British and New Zealand colleagues, to resumption of multinational exercises under the five-power defence arrangement. To implement this agreement a tentative program has been produced encompassing a new program of multinational ground force and maritime exercises as well as continuation of air defence exercises.

Military planners from the five powers - Britain, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and Australia- met in Canberra from 19 to 21 November to produce specific recommendations and to develop plans for 1981 exercises. Much remains to be done in the practical planning field, but I can inform the House of the broad lines on which it is intended to proceed. Air defence exercises will continue along similar lines to the present, and there will be some development of them. They will be conducted in the context of the existing integrated air defence system in Malaysia and Singapore. Past exercises have regularly involved aircraft and other air defence elements of Malaysia and Singapore, the Royal Australian Air Force fighters at Butterworth, and from time to time other Australian and New Zealand aircraft deployed to the area specifically for the purpose. The opportunity will be taken in 1981 during visits by Royal Australian Navy ships to South East Asian waters to carry out maritime exercises involving both ships and aircraft in the seas surrounding Malaysia and Singapore. As in the past, Royal Australian Navy ships and aircraft will also contribute to air defence exercises.

As a major extension of co-operation in this field we expect to conduct a ground force exercise, with Air Force involvement, during mid- 1981 in Australia. The exercise will take the form of a tactical training camp followed by a short combined exercise. This type of activity will provide a sound basis for larger scale tactical manoeuvres in future years. As now contemplated, the exercise will involve significant numbers of personnel. The multinational exercises I have described will supplement, but not supersede, bilateral exercise arrangements among the five power partners. They will add to the already extensive bilateral defence activities which Australia undertakes with others in South East Asia and the south west Pacific. Only last week, for example, the Royal Australian Navy conducted a maritime exercise with Indonesia in the waters off Surabaya.

In the south west Pacific, a joint team from Australia and New Zealand is in the final stages of a survey of the surveillance capabilities and requirements of the South Pacific Forum Island States. The purpose is to assess the various states to formulate their 200 nautical mile zone civil surveillance strategies. The findings of that survey will shortly be reported to Island governments.

On 26 August I referred in my speech in the Budget debate to the Government’s decision, taken in response to a request from the governments of Papua New Guinea and newly independent Vanuatu, to make our Australian loan servicemen in the Papua New Guinea Defence Force available to assist, in non-combat roles, the successful operations of the Papua New Guinea Defence Force in Vanuatu. We have since agreed to assist with the upgrading of Vanuatu security forces. In particular, Australia will provide a range of equipment to the Vanuatu police mobile force and provide transport to trainees from Vanuatu to Papua New Guinea. Our support for Vanuatu and for the Papua New Guinea Defence Force in its efforts there has been very warmly appreciated. That support will continue.

Consultations have been occurring throughout the year at the highest level with many of our regional neighbours. The new Papua New Guinea Defence Minister, Mr Gerega Pepena, was a guest of the Australian Government in July and useful discussions were held. The secretary of the Papua New Guinea Department of Defence and the Commander of the Papua New Guinea Defence Force met for talks with their Australian counterparts in Canberra in March. Defence officers have made several visits to regional capitals in South East Asia. These have included calls by the Secretary to my Department to all the capitals of the Association of South East Asian Nations earlier this year and again to Malaysia and Singapore in September, in company with the Chief of Defence Force Staff and the Secretary to the Department of Foreign Affairs. The Chief of the General Staff and Chief of the Air Staff have also visited the region in recent months. Senior Service and civilian officers from many of our neighbours have visited Canberra during the year.

Many of our neighbours recognise the need to improve their individual military capabilities - as we do in respect of ourselves. They, like us, want to be better able to defend themselves, or others, should the need arise. They co-operate in various practical ways with each other and with us to this end. We regard this practical co-operation not as a means of expanding our alliance relationships or of drawing others into our own alliance commitments but as a process of demonstrating the underlying solidarity of the region in support of strategic interests that are shared. It is a form of co-operation that supports the policies of allcompromising the policies of none. It adds to the independence of all by adding to their independent strength.

I am pleased to say that agreement has been reached with the Malaysian Government for the deployment of a small operating detachment of Royal Australian Air Force P3 long-range maritime patrol aircraft, together with aircrew and supporting personnel, to Butterworth. The detachment will be deployed under the terms and conditions of the exchange of notes in relation to Butterworth, effected under the five-power arrangement, between Malaysia and Australia on 1 December 1971. 1 would expect the detachment to consist of two aircraft. Areas to be surveyed will be selected after consultation with the Malaysian authorities.

It is our joint intention that these bilateral activities should provide benefit to the independent interests of both countries, and the stationing of long-range maritime patrol aircraft at Butterworth would assist the Malaysian Air Force in developing its own surveillance effort. Malaysian personnel will accompany the Australian crews for training and observation. Product of the surveillance will be passed to the Malaysian authorities.

During my visit to Singapore in March this year I had discussions with my counterpart in that country, Mr Howe Yoon Chong. Amongst other matters, he spoke about the continuing difficulties the Singapore defence forces were having because of restricted training space. I undertook to examine the possibility of elements of the Singapore armed forces using some Australian training facilities. The Prime Minister announced the outcome of the Government’s deliberations on 18 September, when he said that Australia would agree to controlled use of Australian training facilities by Singapore and other countries which are parties to the five-power defence arrangement. He also advised the House of Government agreement to a specific Singaporean request to deploy Skyhawk aircraft to Australia for an extended period. A Singapore armed forces training team, led by the Deputy Chief of the General Staff, was recently in Australia to develop the Skyhawk deployment and to examine Australian training areas. These deployments will be funded by Singapore.

Further steps have been taken to expand our defence relations with Thailand and the Philippines. The co-operation programs of the past - in the main restricted to training, advisory assistance, opportunity exercises and exchange visits - are being increased. We are assisting with development of a vehicle repair workshop and technical training school in Thailand. Proposals for a language training project and military research and development are also being developed. Scope for Australian industry involvement in Thai logistic-maintenance support is being investigated. In the Philippines, projects are being developed for maintenance support of Nomad aircraft bought commercially some years ago for the Philippines armed forces. Supply of portable small arms training ranges, developed by Australian industry, has been arranged.

I believe that the House will agree that the Government’s emphasis on increased defence cooperation with our neighbours is being pursued with vigour and considerable success. No more than any of the governments concerned are we bent on the pursuit of policies which reflect merely circumstances and relationships. Our aim is to build upon the past, not to rest upon it. We act in full consciousness of the changes that have occurred in the independence and vitality of the nations of our region. What we seek to maintain is their perception of Australia as a neighbour willing and able to co-operate in practical and useful ways. We have made significant innovations to accommodate the priority requirements identified in high level consultations with all concerned, particularly the South East Asian countries, as they continue to build up their defence capabilities. We are seeking ways of doing more.

I now turn to the third matter. I wish to inform the House that the Government has decided to reduce the age limit for soldiers serving in operational areas from 19 to 18 years of age, provided the soldiers have undergone the required recruit and corps training. No amending legislation is necessary. The Defence Act already provides- for operational service at the age of 18. The origin of this limitation goes back nearly 40 years to a situation where some young soldiers were sent into operational service without adequate training. Such circumstances are irrelevant today. The age limit then imposed is an anachronism. The age limit has imposed a restriction on the Army’s capability to respond to a contingency at short notice. It meant that approximately 10 per cent of the Army, a substantial group of fit, trained soldiers, could not be used for service in operational areas. It may happen in an emergency that a significant number of soldiers in operational units would have to be replaced at short notice. Such action would lead to inefficiency and potential loss of unit cohesion.

There have been marked changes in social attitudes towards the rights and responsibilities of 1 8- year-olds. There have been marked advances in the training methods and professionalism of the Defence Force. It needs to be emphasised that both the Navy and Air Force provide for operational service at 18 years of age. In short, the Government’s decision reflects contemporary circumstances, attitudes and advanced training methods. It now provides for consistency on the age limit for operational service throughout the Defence Force.

Finally, I wish to refer to the Naval Dockyard at Williamstown, Victoria. In doing so I refer the House to my statement on 9 September 1980: . . subject to arrangements to be concluded, particularly with the United States Government, and to the satisfactory resolution of a number of problems affecting productivity in Williamstown naval dockyard, the Government intends that two FFG-type vessels be built there and that options for long lead items be secured for possible construction of another four at a later time.

The House will be aware of the potential importance of such a destroyer building program to Australia’s defence capability. However, we must assure ourselves that the management, operating and industrial arrangements at the dockyard can cope effectively with such a program. Our recent experience with the dockyard has not been good. Over the last few years the productivity of the dockyard has been steadily declining.

I have therefore directed that a committee be established to advise on the changes which may be necessary to the managerial, operating and other arrangements to ensure that the destroyer program, once begun, will proceed efficiently. I have also directed that the committee be led by an impartial and experienced outside authority. I am glad to announce that the Broken Hill Proprietory Co. Ltd, has agreed to make available a senior administrator with considerable experience in the ship building industry, Mr Ross Hawke, to lead the committee. I take this opportunity to thank BHP for its public-spirited response in making available one of its key men to undertake this national task. Mr Hawke will be supported by Mr Alan Sharpe, the recently retired Deputy Chief Defence Scientist, and Commodore Nigel Berlyn a serving naval officer. The committee will take account of the concurrent activity of the internal review of management procedures at the dockyard which I mentioned to the House on 26 August 1980. It will also consult with a number of authorities, including trade union representatives and industry leaders. The committee will submit its report to me by the end of May next. I expect this enquiry to be far reaching and the committee’s advice to be of vital importance to the defence of this nation.

I present the following paper:

Defence - Ministerial statement, 4 December 1 980.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– by leave- The speech of the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) had an Alice in Wonderland quality which is almost disarming. We have heard of the deferment of the aircraft project. Two of the subjects in the speech have been before this House previously, and I refer to defence power co-operation and 18-year-olds serving in operational areas. It is nice to know that we will now have uniformity. I remind the House that the reason the uniformity came about was that the decision about the ready deployment unit to be placed at Townsville was made without proper consultation with the Defence Force, especially the Army. The result was that an announcement was made without taking into account the realities of establishing such a force in an area where Service housing was in extremely short supply and certainly not sufficient to provide married quarters for the people who would have to be available for immediate overseas service. The change in this rule means that a greater single personnel content can occur without any risk of depleting the force should it have to serve outside Australia.

The tactical fighter force program is not as simple. I think the Minister has over-simplified the problems which are currently confronting the Government. Certainly I would suggest that it is about time a complete examination and statement on the Government’s defence policies came before this Parliament. The Minister makes no mention at all of the present and future funding of defence projects, which is the real problem confronting the defence forces. He states that the F16 aircraft is not at this stage capable of selection because certain modifications which were required at the time it was included in the short list are not at this stage certain to be made. I remind the Minister that the reasons for dropping the Mirage 2000 aircraft were exactly the same shortcomings which he has now said make the Fl 6 aircraft unacceptable at present.

Mr Killen:

– You need two types of Mirage 2000 - air to air and air to surface.

Mr SCHOLES:

– The point made in the Minister’s speech–

Mr Killen:

– I do not know who advises you; I would sack him.

Mr SCHOLES:

– The Minister has made his speech. I suggest to him that if we have to go into any defence emergency with the current policies and program for the acquisition of defence equipment in Australia, it will be the Minister’s advisers who will be on the rack. We are now no better prepared administratively or technically in the defence area than we were when Menzies was sacked for incompetence in 1941 and Australia was in a defence situation.

Let us look at the realities of the Department of Defence and let us look at the realities of what this Government is doing to defence in Australia. The politics of the Department can be compared, in parlance that the Minister would understand, to the ancient bet by a man that he could place all the horses in a race and it was Eclipse first and the rest nowhere. Defence policy in Australia at the moment is: The Navy first, the Navy second, the Navy third and the Navy fourth; if there is anything left and the Navy cannot get it the others can have it. What has the Minister announced in the last two years that will be done to improve the status of the Australian Army? He has announced nothing. The Army is no longer part of the Defence Force according to Government planning.

The TFF program has been before this Parliament and before various governments since 1953. A little over a year ago five aircraft were in the final selection. Two were dropped. One would think that one of them will never proceed - the other variant of the F-A18 aircraft. The Tornado was dropped and, at the time, the Minister said it was a satisfactory aircraft but that it did not meet Australia’s needs. It was not American. It is now an aircraft which could be acquired at about the same price as the F-A18 aircraft is estimated to cost in the latest estimate. But we cannot go back; we have to go forward. We are now told that the F16 aircraft was not considered a satisfactory aircraft at the time of the final selection and that the Government was aware of risks in the final selection of the F-A18 aircraft. The Government now tells the Parliament that the two aircraft for final selection were not certain to be satisfactory in either case and that at least one of them has now proved to be unsatisfactory. I am certain that the technical advice which is being given to the Government by the Air Force is that the F-A18 aircraft at this stage constitutes too high a financial burden and too great a technical risk for it to be proceeded with without some considerable delays in the selection process. I suggest that even the Minister would admit that it would be irresponsible under the present circumstances to go ahead. The F16–

Mr Bradfield:

– What would you do?

Mr SCHOLES:

– The Government which the honourable member supports chose the aircraft and put them before the Parliament. Members of the Government are the people who made the final decisions and assured us that they were the aircraft which would meet our needs. They are no longer aircraft which are available and we are back five years in the process of selection. That is what is going on. I point out to honourable members opposite that the inflated costs of one of the aircraft make the whole program for defence announced by this Government irrelevant to the real availability of funds for defence in this country.

Let us look at what is involved. The politics of it - I am talking about the internal politics of defence - are that we cannot afford a carrier with its ancillary requirements plus a high budget aircraft. We cannot afford it. The Air Force obviously has as much political clout as the Army. Having been encouraged to go originally into an air superiority fighter with the support of the Navy, it now finds it has been plucked and is about to be put into the pan and fried.

Mr Killen:

– Oh, what nonsense!

Mr SCHOLES:

– The Air Force is being left for dead and I think the Minister knows it. The realities are that the Minister bowed to the requirement to make an announcement on a carrier, an announcement which in its initial stage suggests that we will have a carrier but that we will not have winged aircraft. The Government has deferred a decision about helicopters for the FFGs. We have just had an announcement that the Government is proposing a further six FFGs for the Australian Navy to be acquired over, I presume, the next 1 5 years, which will give us a total force of that type of vessel. Let us look at the ancillaries. The helicopter which the Navy is seeking for the FFGs and will be seeking for the aircraft carrier is the Lynx 3, which currently has a price tag of in excess of $25m. More realistically its delivery price is in excess of $32m - in excess of the TFF aircraft we are talking about. Also in the pipeline, although the Government has not yet agreed to it, are requests for short take-off and landing aircraft of the McDonnell-type, which are currently in the $25m to $32m bracket. The aircraft carrier hull with its ancillary equipment will cost nearer $ 1,000m than the price that has been announced.

That is why we have problems with our TFF program. Deferment and delay in the ordering of defence equipment has occurred ever since this Government came to office. This Government is a talk government. All it does is talk. Let us see what is has actually done. Before the election it was telling us about the big budget programs for defence. They are in exactly the same category as they were when the Government lost office in 1972. The Minister might protest but let me say that if I had been on his side of the counter today making this statement he would have been pontificating to the nation at large about the destruction of our Defence Force which was taking place under a new Labor government. The fact of the matter is that today the Minister has delivered a statement to this House which is a surrendering of responsibility by the Government to the internal politics of his Department on matters of defence. It is an incompetent statement which should not be put before any parliament without adequate explanation.

Mr Killen:

– That is the last briefing you will ever get from the Department if that is your assessment of it.

Mr SCHOLES:

– The last briefing I had from the Department was in 1977. The Minister is as aware as I am of the facts that I am putting before him. Let us look at another part of his statement - the refurbishing of the Mirage aircraft. There is only one reasonable alternative weapon to upgrade the Mirage aircraft - the Matra - but it can be bought by defence only if the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) agrees to the expenditure of money in the European common market. The question is not whether it is necessary for our defence but whether it is suitable to the National Country Party’s politics.

We start this Parliament with a real need for an examination of defence. The Minister and the Government have consistently refused to allow this Parliament to have an adequate committee to carry out those functions, and they have just reduced the staff available. In this statement the Minister has indicated that we no longer have under consideration an aircraft which is capable of being chosen. He has not at this stage indicated the financial problems which are confronting defence budgeting. He has not stated whether alternative aircraft are available in that program if the two choices do not measure up. At this stage that must be important. At least it is important to some aircraft manufacturers whose representatives are currently in Canberra trying to get their names added to the list.

There are a number of other aspects of this statement would like to mention. The Minister has said that Orion aircraft will be transferred to Butterworth. I only say this: On each occasion it has been suggested that Orion aircraft be deployed to places in Australia other than Edinburgh, it has always been indicated that the cost of the technical support services required would be prohibitive.

Mr Killen:

– That has never been said at all.

Mr SCHOLES:

– Well, I would suggest that the Minister read–

Mr Killen:

– There is a difference between stationing aircraft and deploying them.

Mr SCHOLES:

– It has already been stated in this House that considerable costs would be incurred in placing aircraft at Pearce or Townsville. Thus we operate our aircraft for economic and functional reasons from a single base. We are now going to station or deploy aircraft at Butterworth. The Minister has not indicated what time scales and what sorts of back up services have been granted. He has indicated quite clearly that the ground staff and other support facilities for those aircraft will be placed at Butterworth. I think the Minister ought to be upset.

Mr Killen:

– Yes. I have never heard a more imbecilic speech in this Parliament in 25 years.

Mr SCHOLES:

– Well, I do not know, I have listened to some of the Minister’s. I want to make one other statement which might make the Minister a little happier. The decision to have an inquiry and to examine the means, efficiencies and the capabilities of the Williamstown naval dockyard is something with which I think every member of this House will agree. I have already indicated I believe the present structure does not lead to harmonious industrial relations or to adequate productivity. This is a problem which has been known for a long time and it is not a problem that is only in the industrial area. Recent productivity drops, especially in relation to HMAS Cook, have had as much to do with changes of plans and design in running by the numerous clients who were involved, as they have with industrial problems. Certainly the vessel which ultimately was completed was not the vessel which was on the drawing boards when the management of the dockyard was given the task of providing a ship. It is extremely difficult for any sort of productivity or any competent management to take place under circumstances where one is not certain that one is planning the ultimate product when construction is commenced.

There is one other thing which one should say; that is, that one has to hope that this official from Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd comes up with a report which is more acceptable than that of a former BHP official in Victoria in relation to the Lone report on public transport. This is a fairy-tale statement. I look forward to the Minister’s making a comprehensive statement on defence to this Parliament as soon as possible, as well as a statement which includes the financial commitments, the financial availability and the priorities of the Government in the various equipment areas. We have had a lot of statements but no compilation of a realistic approach, nor a set of priorities from this Government in the last three years.

Motion (by Mr Street) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Debate (on motion by Mr Cadman) adjourned.

page 427

AUSTRALIAN DELEGATION TO THE COMMITTEE ON DISARMAMENT

Ministerial Statement

Mr STREET:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · Corangamite · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report on Australia’s participation in the 1 980 session of the Committee on Disarmament and seek leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

Mr STREET:

– The Committee on Disarmament in Geneva is the major international negotiating forum on disarmament. It held its inaugural session in January 1979. Last year the former Minister for Foreign Affairs initiated the practice of submitting to Parliament the annual report by the Australian delegation on the work of the Committee. I propose to continue this practice, and where possible to do so during Disarmament Week, the last week in October. This year of course the Parliament was not in session during Disarmament Week.

Since the tabling of the report on the 1979 session of the Committee, there has been a deterioration in the international political climate. This has inevitably limited progress in international arms control and disarmament negotiations which depend to a very great extent on mutual trust and confidence. There could hardly have been a less auspicious start to the second disarmament decade than the invasion of a nonaligned country by the armed forces of the Soviet Union. Disarmament negotiations have been an early political casualty of this action. As a result, there has been an intensification of divisions in international political debate to the detriment of practical progress in the arms control field generally. Controversy arose at the Biological Weapons Review Conference in March over reports that an anthrax epidemic in the Soviet Union in 1979 may have originated in a military research facility. At the second review conference of the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty in August, lack of progress by the nuclear weapon states to reduce their nuclear arsenals and the inability so far of the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United Kingdom to conclude negotiations on a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty were the major factors in preventing a consensus among delegations. A polarisation of views has also been evident in the discussion of disarmament issues at the present session of the United Nations General Assembly.

The Committee on Disarmament has faced the same problems. Due in part to the poor prospects for consensus on substantive issues, it is regrettable that much of the Committee’s time early in the session was spent on procedural debate. Eventually however, the Committee addressed its responsibility as a negotiating forum and some worthwhile results were achieved. In particular there was agreement to establish four working groups - on chemical weapons, radiological weapons, negative security assurances and a comprehensive program of disarmament. Multilateral negotiations have thus been permitted to commence in this working group framework without undue political overtones.

Of the issues tackled by the working groups Australia has had most interest in chemical weapons, the principal category of weapons of mass destruction still to be subject to a regime of international control. The undoubted military efficiency of such weapons, and reports of their use in recent conflicts in different parts of the world, add to the urgency of the task before the Committee. The chemical weapons working group has yet to tackle the technically complex question of defining toxic agents to be covered by a convention and the sensitive but all-important issue of verifying compliance. A start has however been made. The report shows that the Australian delegation has played a prominent role and has been active in ensuring that the momentum on this issue is maintained.

Australia has also sought to find ways of enabling the Committee to move forward on other issues and has made a number of formal proposals. The Australian delegation submitted an outline of technical aspects of an international seismic detection network which might be considered by the Committee in the context of work on a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. The delegation also circulated a working document on the question of a cessation of the production of fissionable materials for nuclear weapons purposes and supported the early conclusion of a radiological weapons convention.

The Government hopes that the Committee will continue to press ahead with the consideration of practical and verifiable measures of arms control. It is only in this way that the Committee can meet the expectations of the international community which led to its establishment at the first special session of the United Nations General

Assembly devoted to disarmament in 1978. The Government continues to see the conclusion of a comprehensive nuclear test ban agreement and the negotiation of a chemical weapons convention as the most substantial urgent tasks before the Committee in 1981. There will also be increasing attention during 1981 on the prospects for a second special session of the United Nations General Assembly on disarmament to be held in 1 982.

If the Committee is to be able to fulfill its negotiating mandate and to find practical ways of implementing arms control objectives, all nations will need to work consciously towards the restoration of mutual trust and confidence in international affairs. Australia and other middle sized powers in the Committee have a responsibility to play their part in this process. I assure the House that, notwithstanding the international political climate, the Government is determined to maintain its strong support for the goal of disarmament and the negotiation of balanced and verifiable measures on arms control. We will continue to give the highest priority to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons particularly through our continued support for the Treaty on the NonProliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the conclusion of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty which would ban the testing of nuclear weapons by all states in all environments and through the development of an international consensus on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

The Government’s stringent nuclear safeguards policy for the export of Australian uranium also contributes to international efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The policy is designed to further the goal of universal adherence to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It offers a tangible reward, namely, access to Australian uranium, for those countries prepared to renounce nuclear weapons by becoming parties to the Treaty. Equally, the policy offers a tangible incentive to adhere to the Treaty to countries not at present party to it. In the safeguards agreements Australia has entered into, we have built up a substantial body of law and practice upholding our stringent safeguards requirements and thus strengthening the international non-proliferation regime. I commend the report of Australia’s participation in the 1980 session of the Committee on Disarmament to honourable members.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmith

– by leave - The Opposition applauds the procedure by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Street) of presenting a report on Australia’s participation in the 1980 session of the Committee on Disarmament. It was done by his predecessor and we trust it will continue. This is a most important committee. It is of great significance when we talk about world security. Disarmament has a benefit for all of us.

But the surprising aspect of the statement is that the Minister, in the statement, made no reference at all to the strategic arms limitation talks. Never at any stage did he make reference to those talks. I think that is surprising, to say the very least. I will deal with that point at some little length. However, we would add that it was expected.

For some time, now it has been clear that the Government has changed its attitude to SALT whereas in June of last year the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) could say that he hoped that the United States of America would ratify the SALT II Treaty promptly, we now have a statement in which it does not even rate a mention. In fact, according to my records, the last statement that any Minister made concerning SALT was in April this year when the Minister replied to a question from the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon). Although he was more circumspect than the Prime Minister had been, the former Minister for Foreign Affairs said:

The Government has always considered that the SALT negotiations offered the best prospects of any international negotiations for the lessening of the risk of nuclear war and for avoiding an arms race.

Accordingly the question of SALT is a fundamental one. It is fundamental to what the Minister, in fact, referred to when he spoke of the failure of the Second Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in August last. Let us make it clear that the lack of progress at the Conference was caused largely by the failure of the super-powers to conclude negotiations on a comprehensive test ban treaty. But progress on a comprehensive test ban treaty is to a significant degree dependent on progress in SALT negotiations. In other words, the Minister has omitted to mention a key issue which is at the bottom of the failure of the non-proliferation review conference. Now that is not surprising because, in fairness to the Minister but as an indictment of the Government, I remind the House that the Prime Minister said that detente is dead. Presumably that means that there is no need for nuclear arms limitation. It is a basic fact that a stable arrangement for strategic arms limitation cannot exist in an atmosphere of heightened tension between the super-powers. If SALT is to be achieved it is necessary to have an atmosphere of detente for it to exist in. But this Government shows every sign of encouraging competition between the super-powers in the arms race. Indeed, the Government’s policy of support for strategic arms limitation and disarmament was totally compromised by the Prime Minister’s reaction in May this year to the Chinese ballistic missile test in the South Pacific. The Prime Minister was the only one within the region to welcome the Chinese action. Every other nation in the South Pacific deplored the Chinese missile test. But the Prime Minister said that he could understand it. He was quoted in the Age newspaper as saying:

Having in mind the capacities of other super powers, it is natural that China, as a large, great and proud nation would want similar capacities.

Well, if that is the argument of the large, proud and ambitious it is also natural for countries like India and proud nations like Pakistan to want similar capacities. Large, great and proud nations like Brazil and Argentina can also be expected to want similar capacities. On the same argument, the Prime Minister might well say that he can understand there being another French nuclear test in the Pacific.

We have the situation that on the one occasion when Australia had a chance to take a stand on an issue so crucial to disarmament this Government abrogated its responsibility. It made a joke of any concern that it had for disarmament generally. The Minister tried to argue once again that the export of Australian uranium helps to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. He makes .the interesting remark that it is a tangible reward for our buyers. It is a dangerous gift. If it is used in the process of power generation, we apparently say that is peaceful. But of course immediately that bring it into the plutonium cycle which is highly dangerous. Let us make it very clear that the delay capacity from non-nuclear to nuclear of uranium is about three months. The technology for this process is known. The Government, last Thursday, gave the imprimatur to the plutonium economy. International agencies of the world regard that perhaps as being necessary but also the most dangerous aspect for the future. There has to be international control of that plutonium. How that will be worked out has never been the subject of any statement here, if in fact it is able to be worked out. Plutonium must be held physically under international guard, since it is so dangerous. We cannot say that there is a tangible reward for people to have it on the basis that they have agreed to abide by the Treaty. Governments change. I predict that by the 1990s, in this region in which we have an interest, the present leaders of most of the countries will have been succeeded by others. We cannot predict the stability of regimes.

The Government now proposes to allow purchasers of uranium to reprocess it and to extract plutonium from the spent fuel rods. I repeat what I said last Thursday: In 1977, when the Prime Minister announced a safeguards policy, he in fact said that the decision to export uranium was partly taken in order to ‘slow the movement towards the use of plutonium as a nuclear fuel and lessen the attendant risks of nuclear weapons proliferation’. The Government has not given any explanation why it has changed its mind. If the plutonium economy in 1977 had risks of nuclear weapons proliferation, it has the same risks now. It is remarkable that a government which has taken the plunge on reprocessing should not give greater attention to the question of the cessation of fissionable materials for nuclear weapons purposes. This matter receives just a passing reference in the minister’s speech. We are told that the Australian delegation circulated a working document. I suppose that that is something. But it is clear that the Government has not given it a very high priority. In view of the Minister’s alleged concern about proliferation, it is surprising, to say the least, that such a matter of fact comment should be deemed sufficient concerning an issue which is at the very centre of proliferation, that is, the production of fissionable material for nuclear weapons purposes.

We cannot blame the Minister or his predecessors for the shortcomings. What has happened in disarmament policy is what has happened in many other areas of Australia’s foreign relations. It appears in many cases that the last person to have any influence is the Minister. In our view the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) and the Prime Minister have usurped many of the Minister’s areas of responsibility. The Middle East policy is in the hands of the Minister for Trade and Resources, as is our uranium and safeguards policy and, once again our relationship with the European Economic Community. The Prime Minister has taken charge of most of the other areas of any importance, including most recently the South Pacific. If we address our minds to the Governor-General’s Speech and if we look at the words in it, we will see that relations with the Third World will be taken over as a lead up to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. I make the final point that being a Foreign Minister in this Government appears to be a pretty thankless task.

page 430

CHRISTMAS ISLAND AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

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

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

– Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House has a general debate covering this Bill, the Migration Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980 and the Immigration (Unauthorized Arrivals) 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 Jarman:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

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

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

– The Opposition supports these three Bills. I will go through them briefly because I want to make comments on two of them. Firstly, we support the Christmas Island Amendment Bill. In our view it has taken a long time for this country to reach the stage of recognising the rights of people on Christmas Island. We have been advocating for some time that the status of Australian citizens should be granted to Christmas Islanders. Christmas Island was formerly part of the British colony of Singapore. In 1958, when Singapore became independent, Christmas Island was given to Australia with the provision that the phosphate mine was to be shared between Australia and New Zealand. By agreement, the phosphate continued to be mined by the British Phosphate Commission. That Commission continued its practice of bringing indentured labour from Asia. Wage rates and conditions continued to be based on Singapore standards, notwithstanding that Christmas Island was, to all effects, an Australian territory.

The Phosphate Commission carried on very much as a colonial overseer deporting recalcitrant workers and refusing to review the contracts of trouble makers. This was a very convenient arrangement. It guaranteed docile workers. If anyone dared to raise his voice he was sent back to where he came from. It was inevitable that this situation could not last and its demise began with the formation of the Union of Christmas Island Workers. Soon after the Union was formed it put an end to this practice of workers being sent back to their places of recruitment, which was used not only to get rid of troublesome people, but also to avoid those individuals establishing any claims to permanent residence by virtue of being resident on Australian territory for long enough.

Migration and citizenship matters were raised before the Sweetland inquiry established to report on phosphate production on the Island. After hearing the Union’s persuasive arguments, Mr Sweetland recommended that residents of Christmas Island should qualify for citizenship in the same way as foreign nationals taking up residence in Australia. The Government has accepted that recommendation and the present Bill brings it into force. We support the Government and commend it for taking that action which, in our view, is long overdue. It is appropriate to place on record the debt that we owe to the Union of Christmas Island Workers and its general secretary, Mr Gordon Bennett, for its efforts to bring about the reforms which are now embodied in this legislation.

The Opposition supports the Immigration (Unauthorized Arrivals) Amendment Bill. We supported the initial legislation in the last Parliament and this amendment simply extends that legislation covering Australia to cover Christmas Island. The purpose of this exercise is to try to prevent the traffic in bodies, the practice of offering passage to people seeking to flee from wherever it may be, and bringing them into Australian waters in the trust that once here these refugees would be given asylum. It is not that we are against accepting our fair share of refugees. Both sides of the Parliament are at one on this issue. We accept our responsibilities in this regard after negotiating the numbers with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. We are agreed that it should not be possible for unscrupulous ship owners or operators to obtain enormous sums of money from large numbers of people seeking to flee from wherever they may be, bringing them to Australia and, in essence, dumping them on Australia’s shores. We support this legislation.

Finally, the Migration Amendment Bill (No. 2) which is the more significant legislation of this trio seeks to overcome the problems that have been created by the presence of illegal immigrants in significant numbers in this country. We do not oppose this legislation. We agree that it is necessary to establish the fact that people coming here illegally should no longer believe that if they manage to remain hidden for long enough the Australian community and its Government of whatever political persuasion will be soft in the head, decide that it is a terribly embarrassing situation and offer still another amnesty. There have been two or three amnesties in the last few years - 1974, 1976 and again this year. In our view this is an unsatisfactory situation. If there is always the prospect that someone is able to hide from the law long enough, that person can then hope for an amnesty. We may as well not pretend that there are any immigration laws.

The Opposition supports the legislation. We believe that this legislation makes the conditions for acceptance as a migrant to this country more explicit. In our view that would help overcome the problem. We need to look at the reasons why there are so many people here as illegal immigrants. The estimate is that there are 70,000 illegal immigrants in Australia. Why should this be so? What sort of people are they? One cannot be sure because although the figure is given as 70,000, we have never had that many people come forward in any of the offers of amnesty and confess their illegal status and seek to gain permission to remain here. Given that there is some validity in that estimate, I come back to the question: What sort of people are they in the main? It strikes us that this is probably a sign of the too restrictive approach we have to our immigration program. I am not speaking in the sense that we have a limited number of people coming in, because there is no disagreement between the parties about the number of immigrants we can expect to absorb in the present economic circumstances. There are differences of emphasis. The emphasis of the Government is to bring in skilled workers. We think the emphasis should be on family reunion.

That brings me to an important point I want to raise. We suspect that the present conditions for immigration to this country are wrong because they are encouraging the migration of skilled workers when we have many people in this country with and without skills who deserve to be given some help either to fit them for the skilled jobs that do become available, or to help them move to parts of the country where the particular skilled jobs are available. We oppose that aspect of the Government’s policy. On the other hand, we believe that Australia has used immigration for the last 20 or 30 years as a means of helping the country to develop. In that time we expected immigrants to come here often to do the dirty jobs that no Australians want to do. That is manifest in the occupations of people of foreign birth. They comprise the bulk of the work force in the not so pleasant industries.

When we encouraged immigrants to come to this country we did not say to them: ‘If you come here and you like the place, you will not be able to bring your families to join you’. I suggest that any immigrant, any member of this Parliament, who seeks to migrate to another country does so because he hopes he will finish up in a country where conditions are better than in his country of birth and where he will be able to lead a more fruitful life. This being so, he would hope that he could bring his family to join him. That is a perfectly reasonable and proper expectation for any immigrant. I think that all immigrants we have enticed to this country, and they probably comprise one-fifth or more of the population, have come with the thought in mind that if they settled here and liked it, they would want to bring their families to join them. We did not warn them that that would not be possible, but the effect of the present family reunion classification is just that. It allows family reunion only for dependants in a very constricted range - the Anglo-Saxon concept of family rather than the more general European concept of family, which extends beyond single children below the age of 18, spouses, or dependent parents as long as they are retired. The policy of the Australian Labor Party is that the family reunion classification should be extended to allow brothers and sisters, and children over the age of 18, certainly those who are single, to come to this country.

One of the reasons why so many people come here and finish up as illegal immigrants is that they come as family members, although not dependent family members, seeking to visit their relations. They like it here. They had probably applied to come here and had their applications refused. However, once here they seek to stay and change their status. Many of them know that that is not possible, so they hide; they become illegal immigrants. It is for these reasons that we have such large numbers of illegal immigrants. They are not criminals in the ordinary sense of the word. In a way, we agree with moves to stop that situation happening. Whilst as individuals we do not object to them - our proposed solution is that they should be given more hope under a broadened family reunion category - nonetheless their coming here as visitors and then staying is cheating on other would-be immigrants, perhaps relatives of people already in this country, who abide by the rules, apply from overseas and fail to qualify, accept the ruling, and do not try to get here illegally. That is the incongruity in this situation. With our sympathy, we are allowing to stay some people who have stayed here illegally because we understand their compassionate arguments. On the other hand, that approach allows them to jump ahead of would-be immigrants who have relations in this country and who want to come here and live, in the same way as these illegal immigrants have done.

The Opposition approves of this measure. We think it is unwise in these cases for the Government to persist in leaving so much discretion in the hands of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. We all suffer from this problem. We have all had large numbers of immigrants come to see us, asking us to badger the Minister to allow them to stay. These people often go from member to member. We all suffer from that difficulty and we all make passionate pleas on behalf of these people. But we know also that if we were the Minister and if we were implementing the law as it is, we would have to refuse these applications. So we are all forced into a rather invidious, one could almost say dishonest, position. It will be as well to have these restricted conditions so that it is less possible for people to lean on us to badger the Minister. However, we are still allowing more discretion to the Minister than we think should be the case. We believe that in disputed cases there should be an avenue of appeal to an appeals tribunal so that the decision is not left to one person.

Having mentioned those cautions, the Opposition supports the amnesty proposal. However, we think it would be wise, if we want to ensure that as many of these illegal immigrants as possible come forward, to allocate more staff so that the applications can be more readily processed. We suspect that if the estimate is correct that some 70,000 illegal immigrants are in Australia but that at this stage fewer than 20,000 have come forward, may well be because people are frightened, because the whole process is so long and drawn out. If answers were given more quickly and people could see that a person making a reasonable application - most people feel that their applications are reasonable - gets approval to stay, then more people might apply before the deadline. If we do not do something like that and if most of the illegal immigrants are still illegal immigrants by the time this amnesty proposal finishes, we will still have problems on our hands. We will have to chase them and, when we find them, we may discover that they have children who were born and bred here; that they have fitted into jobs and have been here for umpteen years. The pressure will still be on the Minister. We think that it is necessary to hasten the process so that, when the amnesty offer finishes, most of the illegal immigrants in the country will have been adequately and sufficiently dealt with and the problem will have been solved for everybody. The Opposition supports the legislation.

Mr FALCONER:
Casey

– I also rise to support the legislation before the House. We are debating three Bills, the Christmas Island Amendment Bill, the Migration Amendment Bill (No. 2), and the Immigration (Unauthorized Arrivals) Amendment Bill. I noted with pleasure that the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass), who spoke on behalf of the Opposition, indicated that the Opposition would support all three Bills. That probably obviates the necessity for any protracted debate on the legislation. I want to make some remarks about the third of the Bills we are debating, that is, the Immigration (Unauthorized Arrivals) Amendment Bill.

The Bill seeks to restrict by law the categories of immigrants eligible to be granted permanent residence subsequent to their arrival in Australia. On 19 June the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Macphee) announced a number of measures which were designed to cut down on the incidence of illegal migration to Australia and to provide a mechanism whereby people here illegally, and other people who had been here for some time legally but who had indicated their wish to stay, could have their status in Australia regularised and be given approval to stay here as permanent residents.

As the honourable member for Maribyrnong has mentioned, the Migration Act at present provides for ministerial discretion to be exercised in all such cases. That means that we have many people coming to see us - illegal immigrants, people who are brought by welfare or church groups, often employers who come forward and say: ‘This person is the best employee I have ever had. What can we do to help him stay in the country?’ That puts us in the invidious position of seeking to make representations on behalf of people who have entered the country illegally, whereas all of us, as local members, have been in the position of passing back to constituents who have made inquiries in a perfectly legitimate and legal way on behalf of relatives the information that their applications have been rejected.

I think we all face the situation of resentments building up. On the one hand we have had to give negative replies to people who have done the right thing and applied according to the proper procedures, and on the other hand we have had to give special consideration to people who in the first instance, perhaps for very understandable reasons, have not done the right thing in terms of the migration laws of this country. That has led to an unenforceable policy whereby pressure has built up from time to time for the Government to declare an amnesty and to allow those who are in the country illegally to come forward and .have their position regularised. That leads to a number of difficult political pressures that we have to withstand. Pressures are brought on the government of the day to declare an amnesty to try to clean up the problem that exists; that is, the problem of tens of thousands of illegal immigrants in the country. It leads to pressures being brought on the opposition of the day to promise as a matter of election policy an amnesty if that party is elected, thereby seeking to curry favour with migrant groups in the country. That is also an understandable pressure.

It is obviously much more preferable if people understand that according to the law of the country it is not possible for such general amnesties to be granted. People would then have to give much more serious consideration to whether they seek to take the step of remaining in the country illegally and then to have pressures brought on members of parliament by their relatives, employers and so on for them to be allowed to stay. As the honourable member for Maribyrnong mentioned, we have all had the experience of people shopping around as it were - going from member of parliament to member of parliament - seeking a different answer from that which they received from the initial representation. I have had people come to me from electorates represented by Labor members who have processed their inquiries and when the people have received a negative reply from the Minister they have felt that perhaps it would be better if they approached a Government member and had him intercede with the Minister on their behalf. I am quite sure that honourable members opposite have had the reverse experience where people have been to a Government member, had a negative reply passed back to them from the Minister, and felt that if an Opposition member can get stuck into the Government they might be able to bring some pressure to bear to have the case approved.

I think we in this House feel that it is far better for the law to be precise on who can stay and who cannot stay and to eliminate the discretion available to the Minister, as much in fairness to the Minister of the day as anything else, so that the Minister knows quite clearly what the law is that he has to apply and is not placed in the invidious situation of having to examine every individual case that eventually lands on his desk and becomes the subject of a ministerial decision. I cannot think of any other portfolio where so many individual cases and grievances must land on a Minister’s desk for individual decision.

I want to comment on some of the remarks made by the honourable member for Maribyrnong about the Government’s immigration policy. In the course of his remarks he said that one reason for the number of illegal migrants in the country was, as I understood it, that we had a too restricted approach to immigration. He said that on the one hand we had something of a drive to recruit migrants for skilled labour positions in the economy but on the other hand there was not enough emphasis on family reunion. I understood his argument to be that because there are restrictions on family reunion, people who come to visit their relatives in Australia often want to stay with them; they want to remain in the country and therefore they are tempted to break the terms of their visitors visas. The honourable member for Maribyrnong and members of the Opposition really cannot have it both ways. On the one hand we have the honourable member for Maribyrnong, and in particular the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), saying from time to time that we ought not to be placing such an emphasis on recruiting skilled workers from overseas and, on the other, when they are in front of migrant or ethnic community groups they see fit to say that the Labor Party supports much easier family reunions.

In terms of its impact on the work, force, I would like honourable members to examine the conflicting logic of that. On the one hand members of the Opposition oppose bringing in skilled workers when in fact there are certain vacancies in the economy that cannot be filled immediately from our own work force and training programs and on the other they support broader family reunion criteria which would of necessity allow large numbers of unskilled and semi-skilled people into the country - the very categories of people that find it difficult to obtain jobs -in Australia today. Certainly it is the case that plain family reunion does place an emphasis on people with unskilled work experience because those who have the skills can qualify by fitting particular positions and vacancies in the economy. Those migrants who have come here and filled unskilled positions often have many relatives who would like to come to Australia, including brothers and sisters, and who are also unskilled because that is the nature of the economy and the education system from which they have come. They might have many brothers and sisters who would like to come into the country but, by their very nature, they would be seeking to fill unskilled and semi-skilled positions which are not available.

It is not true to say that this Government has a major drive to recruit skilled migrants. Certainly where there are identifiable vacancies the Government is giving favourable consideration to applications from people to fill those positions. But it is a balanced program. We are not putting too much emphasis on one or other aspect of the program. In fact, by enabling certain skilled positions to be filled by migrants when they cannot be filled by people on the local labour market we are enabling a number of other jobs to be created. It is undoubtedly the case that filling vacancies for skilled positions in the work force has a multiplier effect.

As many employers point out, when they fill skilled positions they are able to employ other people in the semi-skilled and unskilled categories as support staff. These positions would not normally be filled if the employers did not have the basic skilled worker to create the flow-on of work to keep those unskilled people occupied and to justify a place for them. This is particularly so in the resources projects that will be beginning in various parts of Australia in the near future. There is a direct relationship between filling skilled positions and being able to employ other people. It is a ratio of something like four unskilled or semi-skilled employees to one skilled worker. If we do not have that necessary skilled worker we cannot get the project under way, so the employment of the many semi-skilled and unskilled people bears a direct relationship to the positions that can be filled by skilled workers. What we need, and what the Government is implementing, is a program of selective recruiting of skilled people to fill vacancies that exist, accompanied by a gradual relaxation in the family reunion criteria which over the years have made it easier for people to have their relatives come and join them.

It must not be forgotten that it was the previous Labor Government that clamped down on and effectively closed off family reunions. This Government has progressively liberalised the situation. In fact, a liberalisation took place earlier this year, I think as from 1 July, when the then Minister announced procedures which enabled brothers, sisters and other relatives to gain further recognition under the Numerical Multifactor Assessment System, so some people who perhaps were borderline cases beforehand and who had just missed out on the family reunion criteria were able to qualify. I had approved in the second half of this year a few cases that previously had been knocked back. I commend the legislation to the House. I thank the Opposition for its support for the legislation, but I did want to take the opportunity to point out one or two inconsistencies in the remarks made by the honourable member for Maribyrnong.

Sitting suspended from 5.55 to 8 p.m.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Whilst generally in support of the provisions in the legislation introduced by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Macphee) I think some comment is needed on a number of deficiences particularly in the Migration Amendment Bill (No. 2) and in the Government’s immigration procedures overall. As has been said by a number of other speakers in this debate, permanent resident status in Australia is highly prized. My electorate has one of the highest ethnic contents of any electorate in Australia. I think 30 per cent of the people in my electorate were born outside this country. Because of this I am probably as much aware as the Minister of the problems faced by migrant communities in this country.

Whilst I generally support the provisions of the legislation, I think some things should be discussed. The processing time for applications for permanent residency of people affected by the amnesty is undoubtedly taking too long. People are finding that it is taking too long to receive adequate notice and to find out exactly where they stand. The Government should be providing the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs with more assistance so that this matter can be dealt with.

Some other more important areas need discussing. Proposed new section 6a (1) (e) of the Migration Amendment Bill (No. 2) relates to ministerial discretion. That clause provides that the Minister may grant permanent residence to a person who is the holder of a temporary entry permit which is in force where there are strong compassionate or humanitarian grounds for the granting of an entry permit to him. I put it to honourable members that all the people who apply for permanent residency when they are in this country on visitors visas feel that there are humanitarian and compassionate reasons for their wishing to change status. They all have very compelling reasons. Whilst the provisions of this Bill are designed to tighten up that area of the operation of the Migration Act, a wide ranging clause such as that does not give people any relief. If we are to say absolutely that less people who are not eligible should apply, then this clause leaves the gate wide open for people’s ordinary interpretation.

I think we should have a look at our definition of a family reunion as opposed to what people who are applying for permanent residence status in Australia consider to be meant by the term ‘family reunion’. All the Bills that are enacted by this Parliament seem to be based on the AngloSaxon interpretation of what a family is. The view of a family reunion by people from the Middle East- many families from the Middle East live in my electorate - is somewhat different from the more narrow view that Anglo-Saxon people might take. In their view a family is not just limited to the husband, wife and dependent children. Their idea of a family encompasses a whole range of people including uncles, aunts and married brothers and sisters. They have an extended family concept.

The Government says that it has widened the family reunion categories. Indeed, I think the Minister believes he has done that. But this gives people a false hope because some of these people who make an application have a very much wider concept of a family compared with ours. I think that some consultation should be undertaken with people who are more aware of those concepts before Press statements are issued on behalf of the Government or before legislation is designed for this purpose. Our immigration policies are very ethnocentric in that we look at them from our point of view rather than from the point of view of people who are making the applications.

The definitions of families, aged parents and so on that are set down in this Bill are provisions that really cause many problems, particularly to Lebanese and other people from the Middle East who migrate to this country. As I said before, many people from that region live in my electorate. For instance, under this legislation an aged parent is denned as a woman over 60 years of age and a man who is over 65 years of age. Generally this is the definition contained in the Australian Social Services Act. If we look at people who are applying for permanent residence in this country and who come from areas other than northern Europe and North America we find a wider disparity in the age between husband and wife than we find in our society. It is not uncommon for a man who is in his late twenties or even late thirties to be married to a woman who is in her teens. That is quite a common occurrence. There is a greater spread of years between the ages of husband and wife. Conceivably a husband of 65 years of age could be married to a wife of 45 or 55, 40 or 48 years of age. Therefore when the Government says that it will facilitate the entry of aged parents to this country it may be facilitating the entry of only one of the parents. I think the Government should give a lot of consideration to amending this proposal at a later date so as to allow both parents to come to Australia as long as one of the partners qualifies under the age criterion. Many people who have come to my electorate office have told me that the application of one of their parents has succeeded but the other has not. Far from being a family reunion proposal it is a family breakup proposal. I think we should have a good look at that situation.

The definition a child also causes problems. The Bill says that a child is a dependent child if he or she is under 18 years of age and in special circumstances under 21 years of age. Let us look at Moslem societies and societies in Asia at which the Minister and Mr Menadue. the Permanent Head of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has suggested that Australia will be looking to recruit migrants in the future. There it is not uncommon for a girl to be married at 14 or 1 5 years of age and to be divorced by the time she is 21. Where does she stand? She probably would not be accepted by her husband’s family. Her own family may wish her to come to Australia on the basis that she is part of their family. But what would happen if she had children? Under the provisions of this legislation she is not a dependent child of the family here in Australia. There are many other anomalies such as that which have to be taken into account in this legislation. Many anomalies arise because we have not had a look at the background of the societies from which we are bringing our migrants. I think much more attention should be given to that matter by both the Department and by the people who are framing this type of legislation.

Basically I agree that the amnesty was a good thing. The Minister tried to do his best to overcome the situation. However, it appears that the amnesty was a reward for those who broke the law rather than for those who complied with the law. Many people took advice from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, six months prior to the amnesty being announced, that their visitors visas had expired and they left Australia. Those who stayed evaded the Commonwealth Police and Immigration officers. They went underground and disappeared. They surfaced after the Minister had announced his proposal and they were able to get permanent residence. However, the people who complied with the law did not. I think it is rather unfortunate that we reward those who break the law. That is what happened. All the people who have been granted an amnesty were those who broke the law, not those who complied with the law. There is an undercurrent of concern among people in the ethnic community in Australia that assistance was not given to those people who may have applied for permanent residence in the six months prior to the amnesty and who went back to their country of origin on the recommendation of the Department.

Indeed I had brought to my notice the particularly sorry case or Mrs Maude Madden, a widow from Cape Town in South Africa. Her son and daughter-in-law have been in Australia for 2i years and have a one year old child. On 26 May 1979 Mrs Madden arrived, on a six months visitor’s visa, to visit them. While she was in Australia the young child, who was her granddaughter, was diagnosed as having a hole in the heart. The family wanted Mrs Madden to stay in Australia to assist to mind the child. Both of the parents worked, as is unfortunately now necessary for most people who wish to buy a home.

In October 1979, Mrs Madden came to me concerning the matter. Mr Austin, the regional director at the time, was kind enough to extend her visa for another six months. She was advised that she could remain until May of this year. Actually, the letter that she received from Mr Austin said that she should call with her passport at the temporary entry section to enable the passport to be suitably endorsed; that ‘when calling she may like to discuss further the question of her continued stay in Australia’. That gave Mrs Madden hope that she may have been able to stay for a longer period, even perhaps obtain permanent residence in this country. In the first week of May 1980, armed with that letter, she went to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and sought advice about extending her stay. Unfortunately she was given the bureaucratic shuffle and told that she had to leave on 26 May when her visa expired; that there was nothing she could do about it. It was at that point in time that Mrs Madden made her mistake, which was probably the worst she made in her life. She took the advice of the Immigration Department officer and left the country.

A few weeks later the Minister announced that there was to be an amnesty. Mrs Madden, because she was a law-abiding citizen, missed out on a chance to become a permanent resident of Australia and help her daughter and son-in-law. Had she been told to go back, even to her local member of parliament, instead of leaving the country, perhaps she would still have been here when the Regularisation of Status Program was announced. The Minister should have been a little fairer and said that those who had applied for permanent residence after 1 January 1980 and up to the time when the amnesty was announced would be given a chance to remain in this country. Those people complied with the law. I do not think that we should be making laws in this Parliament that reward those who break the law. In a fashion, a penalty is imposed on those who have obeyed the law. I hope that the Minister will take my remarks on board and reconsider the applications that have been made by such people.

Again, I believe it has been wrong to exclude absolutely from applying under the ROSP overseas students presently in Australia. I know people who have been in this country for many years. As students they came here to high school, went on to tertiary institutions and have been working here on temporary work permits. They have not been allowed to apply, as have the people who have broken the law. They have complied with the law but as a result have been prohibited from applying for permanent residence. I repeat that those who broke the law have been given permanent residence. Some of these provisions contain a great inequity. The general thrust of the Minister’s proposals is quite proper. I think that they represent a sincere attempt to overcome a great problem that we have had in this country concerning illegal immigrants, but I do not see why those illegal immigrants should have been accorded an advantage as against those who have complied with the law.

Therefore, I ask the Minister at the table, the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt), and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Macphee), to reconsider carefully at a later date the concept of family, bearing in mind what those who apply for immigration to this country believe it to constitute. Then we will not have the double, phoney standard under which people believe that expanded family reunion proposals may help them when, indeed, they really relate to the extended Anglo-Saxon family, which does not even come near what they consider to be a family. Also, I ask that consideration be given to providing accelerated assistance to persons who applied for permanent residence while in Australia and went back to their country of origin between 1 January 1980 and the date when the Minister announced the amnesty proposals. If those matters are reconsidered and the Minister acts accordingly, justice will have been done for all of those people, rather than just those who were smart enough to stay in Australia and break the law.

Mr BRADFIELD:
Barton

– Of the three Bills that are before the House, the Christmas Island Amendment Bill is a machinery measure which regularises certain things that have taken place in the last few weeks during which the people of that island have been accorded Australian citizenship status. The Immigration (Unauthorized Arrivals) Amendment Bill amends an Act which imposes penalties on, basically, masters of ships and aircraft who bring people here illegally, particularly from the South East Asian area, for the sole purpose of profitmaking and f “king advantage of them.

The Bill to which I wish to address myself in the main is the Migration Amendment Bill (No. 2) which deals with the Regularisation of Status

Program, known as ROSP which has been undertaken by the Government. In fact, it does not extend amnesty, as is claimed by Opposition speakers. There is a marginal difference. But before discussing that Bill I believe that it is necessary to recall briefly the history of Australian immigration and the reason why people from other countries have sought to come here. It is the build-up from that beginning which really necessitates the Bill that we have before us today, and certainly the Regularisation of Status Program.

Immigration is one of the things that have built Australia. Almost 30 per cent of our population were not born in this country. We all appreciate that these immigrants have contributed greatly to the economy of Australia, and to our traditions. In many ways they have made a better Australia, an Australia that is better balanced. In fact, since World War II immigration to Australia has certainly accelerated. Since 1945 more than 3,500,000 people have arrived. That represents a considerable degree of acceleration in immigration since it began back in the early 1900s, or just after World War 1. 1 propose to touch on the Australian Labor Party’s immigration policy, because it has been one of confusion. I repeat that on analysis it can be seen how our immigrants have contributed substantially to our economy. In the post-war years they performed many of the jobs necessary to permit rapid industrialisation and building, projects that otherwise the population of Australia would not have been sufficient to permit us to achieve. The first example that comes to mind is the achievement of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority. Without our immigrants such projects would never have been accomplished. They came here as tradesmen and labourers and performed great work. They came to Australia because of disorder in their countries of origin and because they considered Australia to be a great and stable nation, the only nation which could offer them security.

I guess this trend started at the end of World War II when Europe was devastated. The first wave of migrants to Australia were of European origin. It is rather interesting that since that great disaster of World War II other world conflicts have brought people to Australia. Immediately after the War, 63,000 people of Polish descent, 24,000 people of Yugoslav descent and 38,000 people from the Baltic States came to Australia. These people comprised the first wave of migrants to Australia. After the Hungarian situation in 1956, 14,000 Hungarians came to Australia. There was also the Czechoslovakian situation in 1968 and the Middle East war of 1976 in Lebanon when Australia opened its doors to people from both those countries. The Timorese situation was in roughly the same period.

Mr Uren:

– What about Chile?

Mr BRADFIELD:

– The honourable member for Reid says: ‘What about Chile?’ Of course, as a result of the civil war in Chile many people there chose Australia as the place to come to. More recently, 43,000 people have chosen to come to Australia from Indo-China. Those people will all contribute to our future. They have chosen Australia as the country to which they want to come.

That leads me to the current criteria of ROSP which takes into account family reunions and the skills of potential immigrants through the Numerical Multifactor Assessment System. ROSP ensures that people who come to Australia will be able to fit into our economy and will be rewarded with jobs when they get here. ROSP is not like the program set out in Labor Party policy which uses an expansion of the family reunion program purely for vote-catching purposes. Sure, it would bring people to Australia and reunite them with their families but many of them would be coming here without skills and would be rewarded with unemployment. That is Labor Party policy. The Liberal Party policy is one of soundness and sense. It is one that should be appreciated by all honourable members. There are many migrants in my electorate and I have a good relationship with them. I appreciate the things they want. I know that at times they want to bring family members out here; they are ruled by their hearts. I know full well that in many cases new families in Australia who have not yet established themselves are trying to bring other family members to Australia. Unfortunately, if we allowed those family members to come here they would be rewarded with unemployment, just as they would be under Labor Party policy.

Because of the popularity of Australia people have come here and some have chosen to stay illegally. I do not want that. The honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) pointed out that with the announcement of ROSP the Government had allowed illegal immigrants to stay but had stopped from coming here those people applying through legal channels. Let us have a new start. That is what this Bill does. I know that there are limitations on the employment situation in Australia today. I know that we have an imbalance of job opportunities but our program is selective. We are prepared to bring here people who will have the opportunity to find jobs, They are coming here to fill the jobs that we are unable to fill with our Australian people. That is a selective program and one which will help our future. I have discussed the Opposition’s policy which Opposition members seem intent on arguing about. For the benefit of the record I think we should look at the policy that the Opposition had before the last Federal election. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) said that Labor policy would:

Allow Australian residents to sponsor all their relativesincluding parents. They will no longer need any maintenance guarantees.

That policy might be popular amongst many of the new arrivals to Australia; it may have won the Opposition votes. But that policy is an absolute disaster. The Opposition knows it is a disaster. Opposition members have complained in this chamber about people coming from overseas and taking jobs from trade unionists. That is in direct contrast to what was said in their policy statement. On one hand the Opposition wants to protect, through the trade unions, the jobs of Australian people - I certainly agree with that - and on the other hand it has a policy, designed purely to buy votes, which is in direct contrast to the first policy. I know about the heartbreaks of Australian people. I know about the heartbreaks of the many new families in Australia who want to be reunited with their relatives. If the Labor Party is going to try to cash in on those heartbreaks it will be doing a disservice to the Australian people and to the new arrivals.

Let us look at what the Bill does. It takes away much of the discretion from the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Macphee). Previous speakers have mentioned that this discretion has caused people to go from member of parliament to member of parliament seeking assistance to bring their relatives to Australia. This has really overcrowded the system that exists for bringing people to Australia. I think it is right that we have this recommendation and that this discretion be taken away from the Minister. Clause 6 of the Bill sets out the conditions on which entry permits may be granted to immigrants after entry into Australia. In other words, people who come here on entry permits are now by law not able to apply for permanent residency, with certain exceptions. I think it is important that people realise that if they seek a visitor’s visa to enter Australia it is unlawful once they get here for them to make application for permanent residence. I was surprised by one of the statements by the honourable member for Grayndler because normally I agree with him. He said, I think through lack of understanding, that he was disappointed that people here on student visas were not able to make application for permanent residence. The Bill provides that people here on student visas, people in the diplomatic service and certain people on visitor’s visas who normally come within the family reunion guidelines are still able to make application. When the honourable member spoke about students, I do not think he realised that those people here on student visas are here as part of Australia’s overseas aid program. These people have come to Australia as part of the aid which Australia gives to overseas countries. Our system of student visas is intended to bring people here to study courses that are unavailable in their own countries. The program is a service to those countries to try to improve the talents of people of semi-developed and underdeveloped countries.

The policy put forward by the honourable member for Grayndler would take people away from under-developed countries, train them in our universities, and keep them here. It is right that, as part of our aid program, those people should have to go back to their own countries and assist them by putting their skills back into them. I was surprised that the honourable member for Grayndler feels that we should not also allow people here on student visas the exemption to apply lawfully for permanent residence.

I certainly support the Bill. It is one of those pieces of legislation that are necessary to complement ROSP. The program is working. Already many thousands of people have made application under it. I was surprised to hear that some members of the Opposition think that the delays in the program are excessive. They are not excessive. People who apply under ROSP must still be checked under the health regulations and, more importantly, they must be checked to see whether they have a criminal record in their countries of origin. Surely members of the Opposition do not want such procedures rushed. Surely they do not want people with criminal records in this country simply because they come within ROSP. Those checks must be made. Australia is happy to accept anyone under the program who does not have a criminal record. I am pleased to be associated with the Bill, and I support it. I look forward to the continued success of ROSP. The amnesty under the program expires at the end of this month. Bona fide people in the country will have no problems with the amnesty. They will have no problems with the Australian migration officials to whom they will have to make application under the program.

Mrs CHILD:
Henty

– The Opposition welcomes and supports the Christmas Island Amendment Bill and congratulates Gordon Bennett and the Union of Christmas Island Workers for the part they have played in ensuring that all people living on Christmas Island now have the status of Australian citizens. I remind the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Macphee) that Australia’s immigration policy should take into account not only our economic needs but also our humanitarian, social, moral and international obligations. Over the past five years we have fallen very short in most of those respects. The Minister has foreshadowed the Government’s intention to increase legal migration, and the Opposition welcomes that move. The move is welcomed especially by members who represent electorates such as mine which have a high proportion of migrants who are all anxious to be reunited with their families.

The Minister suggested that this amendment would curtail illegal migration. Whilst the Government is quite prepared to crack down on illegal migrants and overstayed visitors, it has done nothing towards regularising the free flow arrangement between Australia and New Zealand. The honourable member for Barton (Mr Bradfield) asked whether the Opposition wanted character checks or checks to ascertain whether people had criminal backgrounds. I point out that the free flow arrangement between New Zealand and Australia allows anyone to come across. Many criminals, including those involved in drug trafficking, have taken advantage of the arrangement. I advise the Government that it is useless to bolt and shutter one door when it leaves another invitingly open to all and sundry. The Minister should also take steps to regularise Rhodesian migrants, who travel to New Zealand on a British passport and then cross easily to Australia with no checks at all. Are we to accept that the Government believes the Rhodesians do not need checking?

The Minister mentioned people who have been unable to meet normal Australian immigration requirements, which are pretty stiff, but who have come to Australia on visitors’ visas and have subsequently sought resident status. Of course that happens’ and it will continue to happen, regardless of this legislation. The reason those people will continue to come to Australia in that way is that they recognise a different family from the one we recognise. They do not recognise that a family unit consists of a mother, father and unmarried children, and neither do I. If I migrated and took some of my family with me I would move heaven and earth to get the rest of them with me if they wanted to come. That is what the Greek families are doing. They do not recognise a narrow family. In some of the southern European countries the unmarried members of the family, and particularly the unmarried women, by tradition live with part of the family. Some members of a family may fulfil our requirements and migrate to Australia but the unmarried members of the family may not meet those requirements and may be left behind. The family members who do not meet the requirements come to Australia on visitors’ visas, and that will continue to happen. Can we blame the family for wanting to be together?

When the Minister says that the ethnic Press has been delighted with ROSP. I suggest that he has been reading quite a different Press from the one I have been reading. The program has been given quite a roasting in regard to the demand for an application fee, with no guarantee of success, and the three months delay the processing of applications. Even more importantly, the ethnic newspapers were promised a strong advertising program which never eventuated.

I would like to say a few words about the Numerical Multifactor Assessment System, which is probably the main cause in stopping the reunification of families. It has been criticised repeatedly because it appears to be designed to attract white, English-speaking, wealthy, educated, wellpresented conservative migrants. The figures of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs bear that out. It is self-evident, therefore, that the earlier criticisms of the Labor Party were well founded. NUMAS is being used to favour a certain category of immigrant. Whilst the Minister says that is is only a guideline, to all our overseas posts it is almost God. Under NUMAS family reunion has decreased by 3.6 per cent. Immigration from the United Kingdom has increased by 101 per cent, but there has been only a 27 per cent increase from the southern European countries. That is an overall increase of 96.1 per cent from English-speaking and northern European countries, and I am citing the 1980 figures from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.

I have nothing against migrants coming here from the northern European countries or from England, but I resent the fact that under NUMAS the southern Europeans, the South Americans and the Asians are discriminated against. NUMAS is supposed to seek out skilled workers. Perhaps to illustrate the ineffectiveness of this aspect, it is sufficient to say that lately the employer organisations have been sending their own representatives overseas to bring back skilled workers who in fact are taking the jobs that skilled workers in Australia should have. They are making sure that young Australians who leave school cannot get the apprenticeships they need. I was surprised to hear the new Minister kicking the old can and saying that everything hangs around

Labor’s neck, that it is Labor’s fault that we have so many illegal migrants. We have become used to that attitude from the other side of the House, but I had a regard for this Minister and I thought he might have resisted the impulse. I ask him to make a sincere and concerted effort to reunite the members of families, many of whom have contributed to the social, economic and cultural advancement of Australia. We owe it to them to do that. The whole philosophy of the Government in regard to immigration needs rethinking. I urge the Minister to reconsider NUMAS and to get rid of it. It is discriminatory. It is un-Australian.

Mr HOWE:
Batman

– I will be very brief, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that honourable members want to speak on other matters tonight. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill. To do so would be unjust to those who follow the guidelines and apply for an entry permit from their home country either before or after visiting Australia. There appears to be enough flexibility to ensure that exceptional cases are given a fair hearing, and I trust that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Macphee) will use this power compassionately. There are, however, a number of points which need to be made about the reason behind people overstaying and about the Regularisation of Status Program.

The Minister, in his second reading speech, outlined the progress of this program. It has been estimated that there are approximately 70,000 illegal immigrants in this country. The Minister informs us that 10,000 applications have been lodged but that only 1,000 have been approved. A number of points arise from this poor approval rate. If, for example, staff shortages are the prime cause of delay, the Government should act to remedy the situation. In a situation such as this such a small approval rate, with 9,000 applicants still waiting, will not engender in illegal immigrants who have not applied and applicants who are awaiting approval any feeling of confidence. There are people who have lived under threat and in fear for long periods and who already feel apprehension which will not be alleviated by such delays.

I wish to refer now to the restriction on immigrants granted residence subsequent to arrival. The Opposition, as it has previously stated, is not opposing this section of the Bill. Be that as it may, it needs to be said that the present system of granting entrance in some ways leads to confusion and discontent and does not always produce a just result. This Government and sections of the business community have constantly talked about the need to increase our immigration intake, specifically of skilled migrants. This argument is based mainly on the argument that skilled labour shortages exist in key areas of our economy. One ought to say to the honourable member for Barton (Mr Bradfield) that the reason why we have the kind of immigrants we have had in this country in the post-war period is related not to the quality of those people but to the need of the capitalist system to exploit certain unskilled and semi-skilled labour.

At the very point in our history when we have built a program on the basis of bringing to Australia people who have been pushed out of other countries or forced to leave or who have chosen this country - but rarely that - we turn around our immigration program and, because we have reached a different stage in the development of capitalism within this country, place emphasis on skilled migrants. In response to this perceived need, pressed by the business community, the points system under which people apply is heavily weighted towards occupational and economic criteria over personal and settlement factors, particularly family reunion, which the Opposition has constantly emphasised. When we examine the points awarded under the present system it is obvious that no category is as significant as occupation. In fact, the first three categories in the economic factor section represent half the necessary total.

I will give just one or two facts about this situation. The proposition that skilled migrants will break bottlenecks is only a theoretical link. There are no checks to support this. In fact, migrant unemployment has remained significantly higher than the average for a long period. There is also the situation which has seen even skilled migrants forced into unskilled and unpleasant jobs. The stress on skills, combined with the stress on traditional countries, can lead only to an anomalous situation where, for example, traditional countries of recruitment are not providing the skills we require. All the indications are that we are still recruiting clerical, semi-skilled and unskilled people, despite the emphasis on the Numerical Multifactor Assessment System. New areas of recruitment are not often areas with skills that we recognise.

Immigration is not and should not, as other speakers have suggested, be seen as a substitute for retraining programs. We as a country have always spent too little in terms of retraining and apprenticeship programs so that we have not provided the opportunities that we ought to have provided. For example, we have not provided the opportunity for the children of migrants to establish themselves in terms of higher educational qualifications or in terms of skills that will enable them to have rather better lives than perhaps their parents have had. Turning to the matter of family reunion, the Australian Labor Party supports and believes that the Government should support an immigration policy which gives the highest priority to family reunion. We do that because we believe that the basis of our immigration policy ought to be a commitment to building a society on the basis of social, humanitarian and cultural values and not on the basis of economic exploitation.

Since World War II, Australia has supported the view that we ought to establish a massive immigration program in order to supplement our population and promote economic development and the independence of Australia. It is true to say that we have used migrants for our own purposes while they in turn have contributed a great deal to this country. One of the reasons why migrants have come to Australia has been the hope that if they found this country to be to their liking they would be able to bring their families to join them. We have in fact, by implication in terms of the type of program that we have developed, an obligation to these people. It is not a matter of charity. It is a matter of right which can be derived from the way that we have encouraged this diverse immigration program. It is also a fact that the family element has been one of the key factors in ensuring successful settlement. When one emphasises family reunion one recognises that the extended family represents a strong basis on which to build our social institution.

Of course, as other speakers have suggested, the definition of ‘family’ in Australia has been far too narrow. We take a view that the type of family which has been typical in this country somehow represents a definition of ‘family’ which makes sense in other countries and to other cultures. This is absolute rubbish. If we wish to have a family reunion program there must be, of course, a realistic approach to the concept but an approach which accommodates different cultural perceptions. Many constituents who attend my electorate office appear to be quite puzzled by this situation. Often in desperation, sometimes in ignorance, relations have come to Australia in the hope of improving their chances of permanent residence. There is little doubt that the narrow definition prompts many people to take matters into their own hands as they feel unjustly treated. I conclude by simply suggesting that if we could reorientate our immigration program towards family reunion I believe that that in turn would help to make a significant contribution to reducing the problem of illegal immigration.

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

– I will not detain the House for very long. 1 would like to thank honourable members for their constructive contributions to the debate. A few comments were made which I think represent misapprehensions. Nevertheless, because I have indicated that the Government is looking widely at the entire immigration policy, the comments which honourable members have made will be taken into account. I have indicated also to the Opposition as well as to–

Mr Uren:

– Is it right that there is a division in your Government’s ranks, that you have one policy and Viner has another?

Mr MACPHEE:

– There is absolutely no division in the Government’s ranks. That is wishful thinking. I will not detain the House by reconciling what the honourable member thinks the divisions are. This Bill deals with a very limited aspect of immigration policy. However, the debate has ranged rather more widely than that. I particularly thank the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) for what I thought were very constructive and reasonable remarks which illustrated many of the difficulties associated with the legislation and the policy behind it. I wish to make a couple of remarks about his contribution.

Firstly, taking his remarks seriatim, he asserted that all changes of status appear to the person seeking them to be compassionate and compelling. Of course, they do but they are not necessarily compassionate and compelling when compared with other cases. The fact is that for a variety of reasons a succession of governments in this country of both political parties have had restrictions on policy which were not always reflected in the law. Because they were not always reflected in the law they were breached and people thought that every case was worthy of a change of status.

One of the inconsistencies in the debate has been the fact that some people thought that the cases concerning people who migrated through the back door- in this case it has been suggested via the amnesty - were unfair to those who had accepted the umpire’s verdict and stayed out. I suggest that it is equally unfair that we allow people to go on assuming that their case is worthy of a change of status when they came here as a visitor knowing that they had signed a form undertaking to leave Australia at the expiration of the visitor’s visa. It is also unfair to let them assume that, knowing also that they did not satisfy the immigration policy because in so many of those cases they had already failed to be accepted as permanent residents before they entered the country as a visitor.

Much discussion ensued about the so-called definition of family reunion. I have said that that issue, amongst others, will be looked at within the total examination of the immigration policy. The only observation I would like to make is in reply to the honourable member for Grayndler who said that I might have created expectations by saying that we would widen the definition of family reunion. I used the term ‘widen’ because the definition is certainly wider than it was before. Nonetheless, he is right in saying that it has not widened in the sense of being the extended family observed by many cultures. It is certainly true to argue that many of those who come to Australia with a belief in an extended family, at least within one generation adopt the norm, which is of course a much more restricted nuclear family. Economics come into it. It is not a matter of our making cultural judgments which the honourable member for Grayndler I think said were AngloSaxon. I think they are rather more Australian than Anglo-Saxon. They are not cultural judgments about what we find as an acceptable family size but some economic judgment - it might be a contestable assumption - about what we can sustain by way of a total intake and for whom we can find employment. Several members, including the honourable member for Casey (Mr Falconer) before dinner, and the honourable member for Barton (Mr Badfield) afterwards, made that observation.

So the assumption underlying the policy with which some members of the Opposition have found fault has been that if we allow total family reunion, our experience of the people seeking to come is with those at the unskilled end of the job market, and at best the semi-skilled. They are then competing with the very people who the Opposition rightly says are unemployed and who deserve the first opportunities offered by the training programs which my colleague, the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) is constantly articulating. This is the dilemma in the Opposition’s policy. I do not wish to amplify that particularly but just to point out the fact that that is the assumption underlying the Numerical Multi-factor Assessment System which several members of the Opposition have derided. We have said, and we have economic evidence to support it, that when independent migrants are brought in, whether they are highly skilled people working for somebody or whether they are entrepreneurial and employing other people, there is a greater capacity to expand the intake of family reunion migration, that is the semi to unskilled people, because there is then a greater chance to employ them.

The first obligation remains, to the disappointment of my friend the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), to train our own people and once that is done and employment is created for them, either in the trained or semiskilled jobs flowing from that, then extended family reunion cases could be brought in. So there is no division in the Government ranks. We would be delighted if we could widen family reunion so totally that the course of each generation the extended family could be brought in and then they could follow the Australian norm of narrowing down the family size, and so on. I believe that would be employment generating, it would be stimulating to the economy, and all would be happy. But the fact is that there are several members in our society, including some identified with the Opposition, who say that migration destroys jobs. So the Government has taken a cautious approach in the interests of people. The examination of our policy, encouraged as it is by the Opposition, might well lead us to remove that assumption. But I explain it because, as the honourable member for Barton said, there is an incongruous approach to this debate by the Opposition.

The honourable member for Grayndler spoke about aged parents and dependent children. My approach has been on a case by case basis and it has been an extremely sympathetic one. Many people who remain single and who might not strictly be regarded as being dependent on their parents but who chose, when they were dependent, to remain in the country of origin have, when I have looked at those cases, been allowed to enter. If they had married and had families of their own they became independent migrant applicants, but otherwise I have taken a very liberal view of that situation. Likewise, in the case of dependent parents, I have very often relaxed the restrictions. But one has to have some regard as to whether there might be a charge upon the Australian taxpayer. We are always told that taxes are too high. One of the Opposition contributions was to ignore the fact that people in Australia have some rights - whether they were migrants or descendents of migrants - and they need to consider what costs are involved to them in what is otherwise an unlimited family reunion migration program. So whether the Government is bringing people here to perhaps pay them not to work, whether it is bringing them here to dislocate the employment market or whether it is bringing them here to be recipients of social service benefits, are relevant considerations for the Government.

If we could have a total and unlimited family reunion intake then of course it would obviously politically be advantageous to the Government, but because we do not believe it is quite as simple as that, we have had to couch our policy with some qualifications. For example, I have said that in the case of aged parents who have families in other parts of the world and who want to visit their family here they can have multiple re-entry visas and we are allowing that. So the Government is doing all it can to facilitate the psychological aspects of the settlement process for those who are here. I do not think there is any need to amplify that.

In respect of the Regularisation of Status Program the honourable member for Grayndler also said that there was a reward for those who had broken the law. Now I do not really think that he believes that because he, with a lot of other members, has come to me and said: ‘Please allow these people to stay here’. Let us look at the options facing the Government. A lot of people have been here for many years. Honourable members probably saw the report of the dear old gentleman aged 95 who was granted citizenship here on Tuesday. He jumped ship in 1908. Very few people now living in Australia were alive in 1908. He was here illegally. Are we to deport him or let him stay? If we let him stay, on what basis do we let him stay? Obviously we have to have some process, and this was the one by which he could stay. At the same time there were many other people who had come in recent years from all over the world under the easy visa system of the previous Government and subsequently, and many of them had come as visitors knowing full well that they intended to overstay. Some had come intending to go home but liked the place and wanted to stay, and they did. They are the ones who are being unfair to the people who apply to migrate, accept our decision that they cannot, and then decide to stay overseas. But thank goodness we have not got a police state in this country. We are not going to employ hordes of people to root other people out and then say to them: ‘Off you go. You have been here for years. You have acquired Australian connections and we do not want you so off you go’. At the same time it is no policy at all to say that every five years or so we will have an amnesty.

The whole point of this Bill is to say that there will be one more amnesty but so amend the discretion of the Minister that it will be exceedingly difficult to have another amnesty; that is to narrow down what, as the honourable member for

Casey said before dinner, is an extraordinarily broad discretion, almost an absolute discretion on the Minister to allow anyone to change his status regardless of how he got here and how he stayed. We have tried to overcome the inequity to which the honourable member for Grayndler referred and to match our change of status approach with our immigration policy. We believe that what we have done by giving an amnesty to those who are here and can truly be said to be integrated in our society, is to give them a chance to stay, to regularise their status and become citizens. Those who have come this calendar year and who have stayed over illegally or have sought to stay, we have told that they have to go because they are not in any sense integrated in the society.

There is only one exception to that last statement and that is where the honourable member for Grayndler has, with respect, misunderstood the policy. He said that people who were legally in Australia on visitors visas or temporary entry permits at the time when ROSP was announced, which was on 19 June, and who had applied for a change of status were not covered by the Program. In fact they were. He cited one case. I gather that, in that case, the person concerned left the country before the announcement of the Program. But as with prominent figures like Sir Garfield Sobers and various others, including four people in the Australian Capital Territory to whom I gave qualifications yesterday, many people were here legally either on visitors visas or on temporary working permits who did apply to the Department. Might I say that the merest notation of a request has been accepted as being an application to change status. But people who did apply did make an inquiry and ask: ‘Can I change my status to that of a permanent resident?’ Such people benefited by the program. So the statement made by the honourable member is wrong. The fact is that the person concerned left the country.

The honourable member for Grayndler also asked whether people could apply again when they go overseas. I said that they could apply again especially through the nomination procedures which I introduced on 1 October. They are designed, procedurally, to ease some of the difficulties to which honourable members have pointed. There are some accusations made about an overbureaucratic approach under NUMAS. I have sought by those procedures to make them more humane and expeditious and less bureaucratic.

I also said that those people who had been deported or who had voluntarily left the country but who otherwise could have benefited by ROSP were entitled to reapply. I said in the case of those who had been deported that I would not apply the traditional principle that they had to be out of the country five years before they could be readmitted. I assure the House that 1 have really looked at every contingency and every type of case and tried to provide the most equitable solution. I do believe that this Bill does do as well as any Bill could to meet the cases in question.

The only matter that remains to be mentioned is that concerning students. My colleague, the honourable member for Barton, has answered that point. This is not an immigration policy, but a foreign aid policy. In a secondary sense it is an education policy. The only way in which it impinges upon immigration policy is that some people ask to extend their visas and the Department has to issue visas in the first place. It is true that many students have stayed on. But that was not as a result of any objectives from an immigration point of view, although those who have stayed have been of great benefit to the country. But I think other areas of education policy and foreign aid policy will govern future student policy. The point is that we have to balance the brain-drain considerations of countries which we say we help with the benefits those students bring to us.

None of the areas covered by this Bill is easy. But I do think that most of the contributions have been constructive. There were some that were, frankly, loose and less informed than others. The only one to which I think I should refer was the contribution made by the honourable member for Henty (Mrs Child) who spoke of the transTasman free flow being some dangerous and deleterious thing for Australia. I can only say that the evidence is not supportive of this proposition. Australia gained 20,000 people net from New Zealand last year. They were the cream, as far as we can see, of people with great skills and contributions to make to Australia. That has been very much the process for the last few years. I do not think Australia should be concerned about the quality of people whom we are getting from New Zealand. There is not the evidence that people assume of drug couriers and drug runners, although, no doubt, there is room for that type of activity across the Tasman. Let us not kid ourselves. People who are capable of being drug couriers in a manner of devious ways are capable of getting access to the most skilful forgeries of documents. So the mere imposition of passport or documentation is not necessarily the answer to that problem.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– It is not unknown for Australians to do it.

Mr MACPHEE:

– No, it is not unknown for Australians to do it, as the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) has said. Possibly if New Zealand was more attractive for Australian criminals and ne’er-do-wells, the New Zealanders would be complaining at the moment.

Other assumptions were made by the honourable member for Henty about Rhodesians - presumably she means white Rhodesians - crossing the Tasman posing as New Zealanders. I can only say that we have no evidence of that. The small trickle of migrants from what is now called Zimbabwe indicates that most of the people who were disgruntled - they were mostly latter-day arrivals - went back to Britain. Those who were born there, be they white and black, seemed to be trying to do their best to make a go of it. The first family admitted to Australia from Zimbabwe, as a matter of interest, was black. So we are not holding out any racial policies there, nor do we imagine people are coming across from New Zealand who are white and posing as New Zealanders. Many of the people who come across from New Zealand posing as New Zealanders happen to be Pacific Islanders. Many of those have made excellent citizens in Australia. Many of those are benefiting under ROSP. This is a humane, practical and genuinely non-discriminatory policy. I believe that it holds the basis for a sensible immigration policy which is capable of being bipartisan. I strongly commend it to the House.

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 Macphee) read a third time.

page 445

MIGRATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1980

Second Reading

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

Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.

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 Macphee) read a third time.

page 445

IMMIGRATION (UNAUTHORIZED ARRIVALS) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

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

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 Macphee) read a third time.

page 445

MEMBERSHIP OF COMMITTEES

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-(Hon. Ian Robinson) - I wish to inform the House of the nominations of senators and members to be members of the following joint committees:

Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence

Senators Kilgarifff, Martin, Sim and Young have been nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and Senators Elstob, Mcintosh and Sibraa have been nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in that House.

Mr Carlton, Mr Dobie, Mr Falconer, Mr Jull, Mr Katter, Mr Lusher, Mr McLean and Mr Shipton have been nominated by the Government Whip and Mr Beazley, Mr Fry, Mr Holding, Mr Jacobi, Dr Klugman and Mr Morrison have been nominated by the Opposition Whip.

Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory

Senators Knight and Neal have been nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and Senator Georges has been nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in that House.

Mr Bradfield, Mr Dean, Mr Dobie and Mr Hicks have been nominated by the Government Whip and Mr Fry and Mrs Kelly have been nominated by the Opposition Whip.

Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House

Senators Maunsell, Missen and Young have been nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and Senators Evans, Melzer and O’Byrne have been nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in that House.

Mr Chapman, Mr Giles and Mr Lloyd have been nominated by the Government Whip and Mr Keating, Mrs Kelly and Mr Scholes have been nominated by the Opposition Whip.

page 445

DRIVER LICENSING AND DRIVER IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

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

– For the information of honourable members, I present guidelines for driver licensing and driver improvement programs in Australia prepared by the Advisory Committee on Road User Performance and Traffic Codes.

page 446

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT ASPECTS OF MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

Ministerial Satement

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

– by leave - The development of Australia’s mineral and energy resources provides an opportunity to increase economic growth and to reduce unemployment. The Government places a high priority on grasping this opportunity. Policies will be implemented to provide the basic framework for growth, and to ensure that all Australians share in the benefits ahead. The Government reaffirms its commitment to maximise the local employment and training impact of development, especially for young Australians. Major resource development projects will generate substantial additional employment opportunities over the next 10 years. Overall, direct employment in the construction, operation and supply of inputs to major projects, will lead to over 60,000 new jobs up to 1985. Many more jobs will be created as the income generated by the projects in the form of wages, taxes and profits, works its way through the economy. In addition, there is also substantial growth in other sectors of the construction industry in prospect, in areas such as construction of major new hotels and tourist facilities.

As the recent study prepared for Commonwealth and State Labour Ministers, titled ‘Prospective Demand for and Supply of Skilled Labour 1980-83, with Particular Reference to Major Development Projects’ indicated, an above average proportion of the jobs created will be in skilled occupations. The study estimated that, for each of the next three years, approximately 7,000 additional metal, electrical and building tradesmen would be required for resource development. For the information of honourable members I present the report. Copies of the report are available from the Parliamentary Library and the Table Office. Because of the high level of earnings prevailing at project sites, most of which are based in the less populous areas of Australia, major project developers and their construction contractors are likely to be able to draw much of their skilled labour from elsewhere in the economy. Other large projects in more populated areas will place additional pressure upon skilled labour availability. As a consequence, non-resource sectors of the economy such as the metals manufacturing industry and the remainder of the building and construction sector, will face labour and wage pressures.

The Government has already established an interdepartmental committee under the chairmanship of my Department on the employment impact of major development projects. With other relevant departments it will co-ordinate policy advice to the Government and act as a focus for consideration of the demand and supply of labour for major development projects and associated construction activities. Economic policies, including a close watch on pressures on the physical capacity of the economy and continuing advocacy of wage restraint, will be the major means of controlling the challenges which resource development places on the economy. Within the overall framework of these policies, the range of manpower programs and services will be used to increase the supply of skilled labour in critical areas. Through these programs we can achieve the objective of providing training assistance to enable Australians to take full advantage of new employment generated.

Purpose

With these challenges and opportunities in mind, the Government has decided to put forward in clear terms its policy towards employment and training needs resulting from major projects in the 1980s. The Government accepts that its first obligation is to do everything it can to train more Australians, so as to increase the supply of skilled labour for major projects and consequent general increase in economic activity. It is also an obligation because we need to ensure that Australians benefit from the projects through employment opportunities. It would be irresponsible for large numbers of Australians to be by-passed - especially school leavers and young unemployed Australians- for lack of a responsible training effort by industry and governments.

Because of their size and location, major development projects pose particular concerns in this broader context of a stepped-up national training effort. The Government will therefore enlist the specific co-operation of major project developers, State governments and both sides of industry in meeting project needs. In particular, the Commonwealth will seek the co-operation of major project developers in making a significant contribution to the training of skilled labour and thereby assisting in the avoidance of skilled labour shortages and in ensuring that Australians have the maximum opportunity to participate in the employment opportunities created. We will work closely with all parties to ensure that a package of manpower measures is implemented to suit the labour requirements of large projects. Packages would be tailored to meet particular circumstances and would involve Commonwealth assistance to complement the contribution of the developers, their contractors and State governments. To this end, the Government will consult with all parties concerned to determine the best means of achieving these objectives. As a basis for the consultations, this statement outlines proposals in relation to employment assessments and training principles. I believe these principles have a wide acceptance in the community, including both sides of industry.

Last week the National Training Council, an advisory body to me which comprises senior representatives from employers, unions and State governments, passed a resolution which was entirely consistent with these principles. It urged employers and resource developers to provide more employment and training opportunities for Australians in the 1 980s so that the benefits of the projects could flow to Australians in the form of jobs. In addition, the Council urged the Commonwealth, State governments and major developers to work together to overcome any labour market bottlenecks through training programs. The Council also supports implementation of the recommendations coming out from the Ministers of Labour meeting of 19 September. In addition I and my Department have had many discussions with developers and others over the last few months and I am convinced, as is the Government, that these measures will be supported by developers and by the vast majority of Australians.

Manpower and Training Assessments

The Government encourages and expects major project developers to make the earliest possible assessment of their labour demands, to consider how these demands might be met and any plans that should be made for the provision of training facilities. The very undertaking of such assessment will, in itself, increase awareness of the need for training. The assessments should become available to governments through normal processes at Commonwealth and State level. The present guidelines for submissions to the Foreign Investment Review Board already contain a request for employment and training assessments. In addition, I will be approaching State governments to encourage the inclusion of the principles in negotiations between them and project developers. It will enable governments at both levels to work with the developers on the appropriate employment and training response. All information will be treated as commercial-in-con confidence

The Commonwealth Government also will encourage and expect its own construction authorities to undertake such assessments when planning major construction projects. These assessments will, of course, be of greatest value when undertaken by the project developer, as the central project co-ordinator, rather than individual construction contractors or sub-contractors. While the ability of developers to put together a comprehensive picture of their labour and training requirements would vary according to the stage of planning reached and according to individual circumstances, the Government believes that developers and governments alike will be better placed to play their part in meeting future skilled labour demands if the earliest possible assessment is made of the following matters: The labour demand generated by the project in its construction and operational stages, including skills composition; the expected sources of labour supply and any recruitment difficulties foreseen; the training plans of the developer, including the developer’s contribution and the usage of government training programs; and the expected composition of the workforce and any proposals to employ and train members of disadvantaged groups, for instance, Aboriginal people. The information requested is consistent with present Commonwealth practice. It is no more than good corporate practice as most of the major private developers would accept. In discussions with developers I find many examples of forward thinking employers who have already put into place training facilities and programs in advance of their own demands to ensure that, when their development reaches a critical stage, there is skilled Australian labour available to meet their needs.

Employment and Training Principles

Again, as a basis for consultation, the Government proposes the adoption of employment and training principles by those sponsoring major projects. The principles would embody the existing practices of many developers and would provide the basis for a joint approach to meeting labour requirements. The basis of the Government’s approach will be that major project developers, together, where relevant, with their associated contractors, undertake a training program which makes a substantial contribution to skilled labour supply; and where major project developers make a contribution to skill training, the Government will make available a substantial package of manpower support services.

Government Employment and Training Assistance

The Commonwealth Government’s existing manpower training programs have already lifted training in the skilled trades to record levels. The repeat of the $1000 rebate for the metal, electrical and building trades from 1 December 1980 to 30 June 1981, and increased Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training rebates from 1 January 1981, will further strengthen incentives to employers. The skills in demand program is the major vehicle through which the Commonwealth can assist developers train for skills in short supply. This program is specifically directed at industry-wide shortages in key occupations. The skills in demand program is a flexible measure which brings together the range of manpower services and programs. It has, since its introduction in August this year, proved effective in developing training packages to meet training for skills in short supply. This program, together with the generous assistance available for training apprentices, represents a considerable Commonwealth contribution to complement the private sector training effort.

A recent example is in West Australia where we have, in co-operation with the State Government and both sides of industry, implemented a special trade training program to assist in meeting the increase in skilled labour requirements resulting from resource development projects in that State, and indicated our willingness to work with other States in a similar fashion. The successful implementation of training under the skills in demand program, and through special trade training measures, particularly involving accelerated training, is dependent upon early consultation between both sides of industry and the Government on manpower needs.

Gifts to technical and further education - TAFE institutions - and to other tertiary education institutions declared under the Tertiary Education Commission Act 1977 are tax deductible where the gifts are applied to technical and further education or other tertiary education. This is an incentive to employers to assist in the provision of off-site training facilities. Within the Government’s overall immigration policy, the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs will continue to provide advice and aid to employers to recruit skilled workers overseas, under normal eligibility conditions. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) stated last week in the House:

The Government accepts that its first obligation is to do everything it can to train more Australians . . .

It will advance the economy more and help more Australians, both skilled and unskilled, if projects are enabled to go ahead because skilled labour can be found, whether it be in the first instance, I hope, from within Australia or. if not. from other countries.

Shortages in skilled labour which cannot be overcome in the short term, despite Commonwealth encouragement through training initiatives in Australia, will continue to be met by the recruitment of skilled labour overseas. In agreeing this year’s immigration program, the Government included the qualifications that, firstly, the intake of skilled workers should not lead to dimunition of local training efforts; and secondly, that preference will be given to private sector organisations with a good local recruiting and training record.

Reform of trade training

I will be approaching State Ministers of Labour to ensure the quickest possible agreement to implementation of the recommendations endorsed at the meeting of Commonwealth and State Ministers of Labour on 19 September. The overall purpose of these recommendations is directed at increasing the flexibility of the trade training system, and particularly to promote faster training. The more significant recommendations include the following: Development of programs for upgrading suitable semi-skilled workers in shorter periods than the normal apprenticeship indentures; expansion and introduction of preapprenticeship courses leading to trade occupations; encouragement of shorter indentures for people with appropriate educational qualifications and experience. Discussions are taking place with unions, employers and State apprenticeship authorities. It will be of the greatest importance to sustain the momentum of this exercise in order that the Australian training system continues to adapt to meet the challenges of the eighties. A report of the progress with implementation will be made to the next Premiers’ Conference.

Conclusion

I have outlined, as a basis for consultation, a policy which has three major components. The first is encouragement of project developers to give the earliest possible consideration to their employment and training requirement and to make those assessments available to governments. The second is the principles regarding the contribution the Government would like to see developers make to employment and training. The third involves the incentives the Commonwealth is prepared to make available to assist developers who apply these principles in meeting their manpower needs. This is a broad framework. It needs to be tested and refined through consultations with project developers, the construction industry, State governments, employers, and unions.

As I have indicated, I will pursue every avenue with States on follow-up to the agreement of 19 September on trade training. In addition, I shall be discussing how we might best achieve our common objectives in negotiating with developers. I will stress that this will enable both the developers, State governments and the Commonwealth to work together and to use the training programs and initiatives I have announced to meet the employment demands of the development projects. I will also ask the National Training Council to put the Government’s policy to both sides of industry and will discuss the guidelines with the National Labour Consultative Council and other industry consultative bodies. These consultations are a recognition of the co-operation necessary between all interested parties if the training system is to continue evolving in a way which meets national and individual needs in the 1980s.

Finally, I stress that I see the further development of this policy as a logical extension of the Commonwealth’s approach to manpower policy. It complements the improvements which have been made in our training programs to make them more relevant to the needs of industry and, through meeting those needs, helping individuals by enabling them to make decisions about their own futures.

Mr HAWKE:

– by leave- This House and the people of Australia have just been treated with contempt and derision by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) and the Government in regard to issues of fundamental economic and social importance for the future of this country. Let us get the parameters of these issues squarely in focus. In doing that, I will state clearly and unequivocally the position of the Labor movement on these issues as distinct from the misrepresentations and the innuendoes that have come from the other side of the House. What has been dealt with in the Minister’s statement is the question of the development in this decade of Australia’s mineral and energy resources, how to ensure that ‘all Australians share in the benefits ahead’, and particularly how Australians may ‘take full advantage of new employment generated’. In this respect the Minister made one of his few statements which are not totally misleading or vacuous when he stated at page 3:

The Government accepts that its first obligation is to do everything it can to train more Australians, so as to increase the supply of skilled labour for major projects and consequent general increase in economic activity.

He continued:

It would be irresponsible for large numbers of Australians to be by-passed - especially school leavers and young unemployed Australians- for lack of a responsible training effort by industry and governments.

Indeed it would. I make two points at the outset. Firstly, the Opposition in this House and the industrial Labor movement believe in the development of our resources as an important part of the economic growth of this country. Secondly,, as I will demonstrate, the Government has in the past five years failed abysmally in its professed obligation and has been totally irresponsible to large numbers of Australians, especially school leavers and the young unemployed, through lack of a responsible training effort. Let us look quite astringently at the facts as distinct from the hypocritical charade which the Government- this Minister in particular - is attempting now to play out before us and the Australian people. Firstly, the Minister has attempted to delude us into thinking that this confection he has presented to us tonight deserves to be considered as part of a Government manpower policy. At the end of his statement he said:

Finally, I stress that I see the further development of this policy as a logical extension of the Commonwealth’s approach to manpower policy.

The crying tragedy which characterises this Government’s approach is that it has no such j thing which, according to any normal use of the language, can be described as a manpower policy. A few years ago this Government appointed a study group of four Australians whom it considered to be competent and men of integrity to form the Crawford study group on structural adjustment. Those men were Sir John Crawford; Sir Brian Inglis of the Ford Motor Company; Mr Neil Currie, the Secretary of the Department of Industry and Commerce; and the then President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. It is interesting to see what the group appointed by this Government had to say as to whether there was such a thing as a manpower policy under this Government. On page 12.28 of the report of the study group it is stated:

It observes that in Australia at present there is no identifiable manpower policy framework within which problems and the measures and services directed to their resolution can be properly evaluated.

That was the judgment of the study group appointed by this Government. I will give the House the most staggering illustration of this hypocrisy, of this gross inadequacy of approach to manpower planning and policy on the part of this Government. The Minister, in his statement, referred to an integral part of the approach he put tonight as the need for project developers to outline their skilled manpower requirements so that those requirements can be related to what is currently available and what can be made available. Quite clearly, an absolutely indispensable tool of manpower policy in these terms is to know in fact what is the existing situation. Again, the Crawford report had something to say in regard to the inadequacy of statistics. On page 15.15 of its report, under the heading, ‘Recommendations’, its first recommendation reads:

Provision of adequate information to support industry and employment policies be given greater priority. In particular, the ABS be given sufficient resources to fill its vital role adequately.

It is interesting to see what has happened with the Department of Labour Advisory Council - DOLAC - to which the Minister has made reference. Tragic facts have emerged from the considerations of the State and Commonwealth Ministers for labour. In their considerations and discussions the State Ministers pressed upon the Commonwealth - upon this Minister - the need to undertake the work necessary to have for inclusion in the 1981 census an occupational code which, by inclusion in that census, would allow to emerge from it an adequate manpower inventory for this country; that is, a statement for consideration by the people of Australia of what is the existing position. The State Ministers of DOLAC were so concerned about the inadequacy of the work being done to enable this to occur that one of the governments offered to make available to the Minister qualified people to help to do the work so the information could be collected from the 1981 census and we would know as a first and indispensable step what is the manpower situation according to an up-to-date manpower occupational code. What has happened? The Government rejected the offer of assistance and the work has not been done. As a result the 1981 census will not contain the occupational code necessary to enable any basic and elementary manpower planning policy to be undertaken. The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs talked about the position to 1985. That is what he talked about in his statement. Yet the Government, by its incompetence and its dilatoriness in this matter, has denied to itself and to all interested parties a very essential part of the raw material necessary for any intelligent manpower policy.

The second point I wish to make follows logically from the first. The Minister, while talking about economic growth and the relevance of these developments to all of the Australian population, confined his suggestions in this statement in regard to manpower planning to the actual project developments. In his statement he alluded to the generative effects of these developments in the economy as a whole, and undoubtedly this will happen. Undoubtedly, he is correct in that. In his ministerial statement of 29 April of this year he waxed even more lyrical on this generative effect of the project developments. At page 23 of the statement he made on that occasion he stated:

Let the economists argue and the commentators cavil at whether the multiplier effect on jobs is two, four, six, eight or ten times the number directly created.

There is no doubt from from his statement tonight and from his statement in April of this year that he is saying that the major development impact–

Mr Viner:

– Go on and quote the whole of the passage.

Mr HAWKE:

– I listened to the Minister without interruption; why does he not play it fair? It is because he is not capable. You can see the way he plays, Mr Deputy Speaker - quietness for himself but not for us. He is bringing his people in to help him because he does not like the facts. The fact is that the impact upon the manpower problems of this country will not be confined, as the Minister rightly acknowledges, to the area of the projects themselves but there will be much more of an effect upon the economy generally. However, the Minister’s statement tonight is absolutely silent about any semblance of manpower policy or planning in regard to the whole of the non-project development area. It follows that it is silent in terms of any discussion upon the whole macroeconomic implications of the development of these mineral and energy projects, the impact upon the manufacturing industry, and what will or may be involved consequently in the whole area of industry and employment adjustment and readjustment. In those terms, how can we have that deafening silence in regard to the whole macroeconomic area and call this ministerial statement ‘Employment Aspects of Major Development Projects’? It is an absurdity. Worse than that, it is an insult to the intelligence of the Australian community and a total abrogation of the responsibilities of this Government.

Thirdly, the Minister’s propensity to confect and mislead is apparent at the critical point of what in fact is the current position in regard to new apprentices entering training. Indeed, the very DOLAC document to which he has referred tonight immediately brings him undone in this regard. At page 8 of the statement the Minister said:

The Commonwealth Government’s existing manpower training programs have already lifted training in the skilled trades to record levels.

He went even further overboard on this issue in his statement on Monday of this week. His Press release states:

The Minister said in 1980-81 the Government hoped to see the intake of apprentices surpass the record levels achieved in 1979-80. ‘In the year to June 30 this year the number of new apprentices indentured reached a record of 46,1 52’.

He has advanced in his statement tonight, and in his statement earlier this week, these figures about the record of this past year as though that is a basis upon which one can make some sensible projection into the future. What do we find on the subject of whether the figures for the last year are a reliable basis on which to project? What does the DOLAC document say about that point? In paragraph 3.43 at page 30 of the document, it points out in regard to the metal trades that it is quite unreliable to depend upon the figures for what has happened in the last year as a basis for future projection. In paragraph 3.44 the Council is quite devastating as to whether these figures for the last year can be used as a basis for projection into the future. What does this document - the one upon which he relies - say? It states:

The position in the key electrical trades is similar to that applying in the metal trades. The substantial increase recorded in first year apprentice intakes in 1979-80 is not an accurate indication of trend. Information available to the Working Party indicates that the apparent increase should be reduced by between one-third and one-half if an accurate trend figure is to be obtained.

The document goes on to state: . . . recognises the difficulties in taking any policy decisions on the basis of the 1 979-80 intake figures.

So his own document specifically and unequivocally points out in regard to these figures for the last year, which the Minister seeks to use as some reliable basis for talking to the Australian people about what the current and projectible situation is, that we can take no notice of them, that they do not give us a basis for any reliable projection into the future. So in respect of this matter we have to draw the conclusion that whilst the Minister as a labour lawyer is deviously inadequate, as a labour economist he is a devious non-event.

Fourthly, perhaps the Minister best encompasses the destruction of his own credibility in his statement by advancing, as honourable members will recall, the recent Western Australian experience as an example of how the proposals he now puts forward tonight can work into the future. Mr Deputy Speaker, I invite you and honourable members to look at the facts of what has happened in Western Australia and why the very example that the Minister advances has been such a conspicuous failure. This is what has happened. Under the proposal worked out by the Commonwealth in conjunction with the State and talks with trade unions and employers this was the situation: In the first 36 weeks in college the Commonwealth would pay eight-tenths of the trainee’s income, and that would be non-taxable. The first and second years on the job would be paid for under the National Employment and Training System or the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training, whichever was the more appropriate, and in the third year there would be no subsidy and the trainees would be paid by the employer at full tradesmen’s rates. What has happened in regard to this scheme in Western Australia which the Minister of his own volition advanced as an example of how his proposals are going to work?

Let us look at the facts of what has happened in regard to this example. The target that was set in Western Australia under these proposals which the Minister advanced as an example of what can be done was that they would take in 1,100 under this scheme in four intakes from June and September this year and then January and April next year. What did they do? They advertised in March of this year and they got 4,000 applicants. It is not surprising that they got 4,000 applicants. The number of kids in Western Australia who had their apprenticeships cancelled because business had broken down, collapsed and gone into bankruptcy as a result of this Government’s policy was so large that there were 4,000 applicants. In fact, the number of applicants was screened down to a point after further testing where 1,000 were left. What happened? There was a target in the June intake of 240 trainees. But how many could they get? They got 1 10. Only 1 10 trainees against a target of 240. What was the target for the September quarter? Again it was 240. How many could they get? They could get only 140. In other words, in the first two intakes for which there was a target of 480 they were able to get only 250. Why did this happen? It happened because, as has been said by employers in Western Australia, the level of economic activity is so low as a result of this Government’s policies that employers simply cannot take these trainees on under the Government’s proposals. So this is what the Minister does. He advances the example of Western Australia. But when we look at the facts of what has happened we see that this scheme has broken down because the proposals are inadequate and because the Government’s economic policies have been such a failure.

Fifthly, I want to look precisely at what the Government will do according to the Minister. The Minister says that he will ask major project developers to make a significant contribution to training. There will be no conditionality in terms of what will happen before the Foreign Investment Review Board. The Minister and the Government will say to the major project developers: ‘Please, major project developers, tell us you will train some young people to be skilled’. That is what they will ask them to do. Look at the facts set out in the timetable. It is now virtually 1981. The Minister is talking about the position by 1985 when there will be 60,000 new jobs. In other words, the Government will have four years. Whom does the Minister think he is kidding? Under these proposals he is going to ask the project developers to do something about training people to fill, in four years, 60,000 new jobs which are to be created. The facts are that this Minister and the Government have known for years about these development projects. They have been engaged in very definite and precise discussions about the investment proposals but they have done nothing to this stage at all about training.

Sixthly, the facts are that the actual allocation of funds for training and retraining made by the Government in the last Budget represent a cut of 38 per cent over two years in real terms. That is the fact. This is at a time when over 100,000 young people are unemployed. We finally get the position in which the Government is saying: ‘If we cannot do it, if we cannot look after our young people, if we cannot provide the training, we will bring them in from overseas’. This is, in fact, the final condemnation of the inadequacies of this Government’s policies. It has had five years to take up the task. Rather than grabbing at the glitter of the spectacular investment it should have been undertaking the hard but achievable task of training our young people. It has failed to do that and therefore it is deserving of the contempt of the people of Australia.

page 452

PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - On 25 March 1980 the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works tabled its forty-third general report which, in accordance with the Public Works Committee Act 1969, covered its activities for the 12-month period ending December 1979. Whilst it has not been the practice for governments to respond formally to the general reports of the Committee the Government has noted and is appreciative of a number of suggestions made by the Committee in this report.

Before proceeding to indicate the Government’s attitude towards the particular matters raised by the Committee I would like to commend the Committee for the way it goes about its operations. The Public Works Committee fulfills a key role in the overall process of scrutiny of public works proposals. There are government and departmental procedures associated with the development of public works proposals but the PWC provides that important step where a proposal is publicly examined and justified. Such scrutiny is a healthy discipline in the development of works proposals.

The Committee reported on 10 major proposals in 1979 and it is already apparent that this work load is increasing in 1980. It has built up considerable expertise in examining public works proposals and I am aware of the many actions taken by the Committee to ensure that proposals are dealt with expeditiously to avoid unnecessary delays. It is, of course, the Government’s responsibility to take the final decision in respect of a particular proposal and justify its decision in the Parliament. The Committee’s investigations are an important element in our system of Government and I would wish to record the Government’s appreciation of this role.

The Committee’s report raised four main issues that I would wish to respond to. These are: The use of cost benefit analysis for major public works; the role of Parliamentary committees in relation to action on the Australian Defence Force Academy; the introduction of two separate hearings for some proposals; and amendments to the Public Works Committee Act.

In paragraph 8 of the report, the Committee suggests that if full cost benefit economic analyses are to be prepared for all projects, as was done in the case of the Brisbane Airport redevelopment project, such studies should be made available to the Committee. While the Government considers it desirable for major projects to be subjected to economic analysis, there are some cases where formal economic cost benefit analysis is either not the appropriate evaluation technique or too expensive to provide a cost-effective input into the decision to be made. Nonetheless, the Government agrees that, wherever practicable, information on costs and benefits should be made available to the Committee.

The Committee referred to the Australian Defence Force Academy, and to a statement to the House by my colleague the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) in December 1979. Following the presentation of the Committee’s report in the House, the Government went to considerable effort in analysing the comments of the Committee. My colleague, the Minister for Defence, made a detailed statement in the House giving the

Government’s view on this particular proposal. I believe members will agree with me that the actions in the House subsequent to the preparation of the Committee’s report have reaffirmed the Government’s support for the Parliamentary Committee system. The Committee’s report on the Australian Defence Force Academy was thoroughly examined by the Government and subsequent statements clearly outlined the reason for the Government accepting only one of the Committee’s recommendations.

The Committee, in paragraph 13 of the report, has proposed that major projects such as the Brisbane Airport redevelopment and the Australian Defence Force Academy might be subject to a system of two separate hearings. The first of such hearings would examine the need for a project and the second would examine the technical solution. The Committee’s objective is to minimise the costs incurred by the Department of Housing and Construction on detailed studies of proposed works before the need for such works had been considered by Parliament.

Development work undertaken by the Department of Housing and Construction is part of the normal design processes and is required to establish reliable estimates of cost as a basis for assessing the relative merits of projects. The Department of Housing and Construction undertakes the minimum of development consistent with the need to provide the Committee with an accurate picture of the design solution. Accordingly, the Government has decided, for cost and efficiency reasons, that single hearings should continue as the normal method of reference of public works to the Committee. Nonetheless, the suggestion by the Committee has been noted and, should there be special circumstances in relation to a particular project that would warrant two separate hearings, consideration will be given to the Committee’s suggestion. The final matter I wish to respond to is the Committee’s reference to amending legislation to the Public Works Committee Act to broaden the scope of the Committee’s charter to examine the works of selected statutory authorities. I am able to advise the House that, after a good deal of consideration, amending legislation has now been prepared and will be introduced as soon as the Government’s legislation program permits. I present the following paper.

Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works - Ministerial statement, 4 December 1980.

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr Uren:

– May I say, with the indulgence of the Chair, that I would normally have replied to the Minister but the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) wishes to make his maiden speech tonight. Therefore, I will forgo my comments until the Parliament resumes in February of next year.

Debate (on motion by Mr Uren) adjourned.

page 453

FEDERAL PROCEEDINGS (COSTS) BILL 1980

Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.

page 453

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 6) 1980

Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.

In Committee

Consideration of Senate’s amendments. Senate’s amendments -

No. 1 - Page 6, clause 8, sub-clause (1), paragraph (c), lines 11 to IS, leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ‘(c) by omitting paragraph (g) of sub-section ( 1 ) and substituting the following paragraph: “(g) preventing or combating flooding on the land otherwise than by way of an operation of the kind referred to in paragraph (f) or (g) of subsection ( 1 ) of section 75d.”.’.

No. 2 - Page 6, clause 9, proposed paragraph 75d (1) (c), lines 33 to 35, leave out the proposed paragraph.

No. 3 - Page 7, clause 9, proposed paragraph 75D (1) (g), line 3, after ‘operation’, insert ‘(not being an operation consisting of the draining of swamp or low-lying land)’.

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

– I move:

The amendments were put to the Senate by the Government following consideration by it of representations that acceleration of tax deductions for expenditure on the drainage of swamp or lowlying lands may have the undesirable consequence of jeopardising the conservation of important natural habitat.

Amendment No. 1 is consequential on amendment No. 2 and will have the effect of continuing the present 10 year write-off for expenditure incurred by a primary producer in the draining of swamp or low-lying lands where that operation improves the agricultural or grazing value of the land.

Amendment No. 2 will delete paragraph (c) of proposed section 75D (1) so that an immediate taxation deduction will not be available for capital expenditure incurred in the draining of swamp or low-lying land by a taxpayer carrying on a business of primary production on that land.

Amendment No. 3 is associated with amendment No. 2 and is designed to ensure tht immediate deductibility for capital expenditure incurred in the draining of swamp or low-lying land is not available under the paragraph of proposed section 75D that allows an immediate deduction for surface or sub-surface drainage works that are for the purpose of controlling salinity or assisting in drainage control. I commend the amendments, to the Committee.

Mr UREN:
Reid

– The Opposition wishes to express its protest. Its spokesman was not informed that the proposed amendments would be brought on today, and he should have been. The ordinary courtesies were not extended to him. He is now seeking information and, unfortunately, has not been able to return to the chamber.

Mr Howard:

– I wish to express regret if any courtesies that should have been extended were not in fact extended, but simply make the point that since the Bill was amended in another place honourable gentlemen opposite can hardly plead total ignorance of it.

Mr UREN:

– As the Treasurer well knows, the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), is very conscientious and thorough–

Mr Howard:

– I do. I respect him greatly.

Mr UREN:

– But, in fact, he was not notified that these amendments were coming before us on such short notice and was not prepared.

Amendments agreed to.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 454

QUESTION

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH

Address-in-Reply

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

That the following Address-in-Reply to the Speech of His Excellency the Governor-General be agreed to:

May it please Your Excellency:

We, the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to Our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Before I call the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent), I remind honourable members that he will be delivering his maiden speech. The House will, I am sure, extend him the usual courtesies.

Mr KENT:
Hotham

– Firstly, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I congratulate you on your appointment. I hope you will convey my congratulations to Mr Speaker on his re-election. May I also thank the people of Hotham who elected me to represent them. It is a great honour for me, and I feel humble in the face of the responsibilities placed on me. I will certainly do my utmost to justify the trust placed in me. This trust is even more significant when honourable members consider that I am one of the first European migrant members of the House of Representatives with a non-English speaking background. The first European migrant who came to this country and who became a member of the House of Representatives was Mr George Dankel, born in 1864. In 1879, at the age of 1 5, he came here from Germany to escape military service. He became the member for Boothby in 19 1 3.

As I was born in Yugoslavia and came here as an adult migrant, I hope that with my background I will add some colour to this place. Since I have been through the trauma of migration and as I have lived here a long time - longer than I care to remember - my ability to understand the problems of both the ethnic and the Anglo-Australian population will enable me to make a useful contribution to this House. The fact that I was elected to Parliament does not extol my virtues but shows the maturity of the Australian people and their great tolerance. To those who helped me I express my gratitude. Those who did not see their way to vote for my party on this occasion, I wish well. I respect their opinion but I respect even more their right to express it. I will represent all the people of Hotham with equal diligence.

Our electorate was named after a gentleman who lived in the last century. May I add that there are many gentlemen opposite who still do likewise. By the way, Mr Deputy Speaker, where are they now? Sir Charles Hotham, after whom the electorate is named, was appointed LieutenantGovernor of Victoria in December 1853, in succession to C. J. Latrobe. He was received with great enthusiasm when he landed in Melbourne on 22 June 1854 as there appeared every prospect of his being a popular governor. It did not work out that way. On undertaking office Hotham found himself confronted with a prospective deficit of more than one million pounds. His obsession to balance his budget and his opposition to deficit financing - so much needed in a young developing colony such as Victoria then was and to some extent, under Liberal rule, still is - soon disillusioned many people, including those in the colonial office.

Sir Charles Hotham had another trait that reminds me so much of an honourable gentleman opposite - a contemporary of ours. Until the formation of the first Cabinet in Victoria in November 1855 Hotham was in fact as in name the actual ruler of the colony. In that capacity, unlike Latrobe, he directed rather than consulted the members of his Executive Council. Now that reminds me of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), without anyone in another place pointing the bone at him. As a naval officer Hotham was trained to command, something that he later confused with the idea of being born to rule. His misjudgment of the situation at the gold fields led to measures which provoked incidents that wiser counsels, to say the least, might have avoided. I would advise honourable gentlemen opposite if they were here - there is one present - that it is about time they learnt something from our history so that they may abandon their tactics of confrontation and use conciliation instead in industrial relations.

The electoral division that I represent was created in 1948 under the name of Higinbotham and was renamed Hotham in 1969. It is Don Chipp’s old seat and includes the Melbourne suburbs of Bentleigh, East Bentleigh, Cheltenham, Springvale, Clayton South, Moorabbin, Noble Park and Dingley. The population is a typical cross-section of an urban Australian community consisting of over 90 per cent Australian men and women - wage and salary earners, who are trying their best to bring up their families in a hard economic climate created by this Government. I have lived in the electorate for over 20 years and I am one of its people who have experienced the problems facing the ordinary family man. I bring no academic or other distinctions to this House. But I do bring the common sense of the ordinary people with whom I strongly identify. My primary concern is the living standard of the Australian family which has been eroded as a result of the inhuman, harsh and unnecessary policies of this Government. For five years - far too long - we have had a government obsessed with balancing the Budget, imposing iniquitous petrol taxes and reducing the actual value of salaries and wages while handing out subsidies and concessions to enormously rich and powerful foreign companies.

In the last election the people served notice on the Prime Minister that they would no longer tolerate his policies based on the Liberal philosophy of the survival of the fittest. The people will no longer tolerate the burden being placed on the poorer sections of the community, on the low income earners, widows, pensioners and the less privileged in society. If there is a burden to be carried it has to be shared by all. The load will be so much easier then. As far as the living standards of the Australian people are concerned, the Fraser Government’s performance has been dismal. After its five years in office we have reached the highest level of unemployment in the land since the Great Depression. Inflation is on the increase, interest rates are exorbitant, our health care is in a shambles and our industry is declining. Yet, the Prime Minister, in his arrogance, forgot the warning given by the people on 18 October. The Governor-General’s Speech outlining the Government’s program shows only more of the same inept policies that the Prime Minister has pursued for the last five years. Except for some window dressing and the promise of better public relations there was no indication in the GovernorGeneral’s address that his Government understands the problems and the challenges that will face this nation in the 1980s, let alone an outline of how those problems and challenges would be tackled. Therefore I move:

I represent an electorate in which small manufacturing industry is heavily concentrated. There are approximately 2,000 of these small industries, and most are Australian owned. They are vital to us as they are less oriented to automation and are therefore more labour intensive, employing more people. In addition to that small business is a major source of inventiveness and entrepreneurship in our economy. Honourable members opposite - there are more here now - like to present themselves as friends of small business and industry and the supporters of free market forces and competition. In fact, the Government supports only big business with its restrictive practices that strangle small business. There were nearly twice as many bankruptcies in business and industry under three years of Fraser Government as there were under three years of Labor Government. There were 6,952 bankruptcies between 1972 and 1975 as opposed to 1 1,970 bankruptcies in the last three years of the Fraser

Government. One does not have to be an economist to realise that our living standard depends on our manufacturing capacity. Countries that do not have a manufacturing base cannot provide a high living standard to their people, no matter how rich they might be in mineral resources.

This Government is culpable for allowing the unbridled exploitation of our resources by foreign interests and for neglecting to protect our manufacturing industry. Our money, our taxes, and our savings are used for subsidising mining exploration which, even when successful, will not create jobs but will ensure super profits for foreign mining giants. The Government has bowed to transnational companies whose plan is to turn this continent into their quarry and to supply raw material and energy resources for their investments in cheap-labour Asian countries. There is no room in their master plan for Australia’s manufacturing industry. This plan was not drawn up by Australians nor were these decisions made in Australia. They were made by controllers of highly mobile transnational capital in New York, Singapore and Japan. Such decisions are opposed to our national interests. Yet our Government, instead of defending our manufacturing sector, has caved in to the pressures of powerful and sinister foreign financial giants. Of course, as usual, the coalition does not have the courage to admit its weakness but is engaged in a dishonest cover-up process.

The Government is not coming out into the open and admitting that it is not opposed to shifting sectors of our industrial production into offshore cheap-labour countries but is using a series of euphemisms to hoodwink the people. It talks about ‘restructuring’ or ‘rationalisation’ of inefficient industries. We have seen in the last few years how the public relations experts of the Government can invent a series of words to enable the Government not to call a spade a spade. For instance, when people get the sack they are not dismissed but are retrenched, according to honourable members opposite. They hope to imply that things are not so bad if they call the economic crisis we are undergoing not a depression but a recession. Likewise, accidents in nuclear power stations are no longer accidents but are called incidents, as though the word used would diminish the deadly radiation and the danger to human life on this planet.

The Australian people are fed up with dishonest rhetoric. They expect the Government to come clean and to tell them its plans for our future. Unfortunately, the Governor-General’s Speech tells us little. It does not reveal what is in store for our car industry, the textile and clothing industries, and other manufacturing sectors. The decisions taken in board rooms in New York, Singapore and Tokyo, though known to our Government, are not revealed to our people. The major task of this side of the House in the 1980s will be to defend our manufacturing base and, through that, to defend the living standards and the jobs of our people. Our task will not be easy, considering that we are faced with insatiable greed for profits by transnational companies which are supported by our Government, a government that abandoned its responsibilities to the people and submitted to foreign pressures. In those circumstances, our task will be formidable.

The results of the October election puzzled the political pundits. The outcome, especially in Victoria - needless to say, I was elated- surprised many observers. To lose seven seats in his home State must be a bitter pill for the Prime Minister, especially if one takes into account that he campaigned heavily in Victoria. I had the honour and distinction of having the Prime Minister choose my electorate of Hotham in which to open his campaign.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– You ought to thank him.

Mr KENT:

– I will. I strongly suspect that his unpopularity was one of the factors responsible for my presence here, and I want to put on record that I thank him. The Prime Minister has lost the confidence of the people of Victoria. The Victorian people perceive that if this Government remains much longer in office our manufacturing base will be in jeopardy, together with our living standards. I am dedicated to the task of restoring and maintaining the standard of living of the Australian wage and salary earners. Without defending our manufacturing base, that goal cannot be achieved.

Allied with the problem of maintaining and developing our industries is the problem of energy. It is obvious that if we wish to pursue further growth we have to develop alternative energy sources. Of course, we should not agree to just any alternative but should opt for a safe and renewable resource. As far as I and my party are concerned, nuclear power is out of the question. The only reactor that I would support is one up above, at a safe distance of 100,000 miles. Anything closer creates a risk of wiping out life from the face of our planet. Nuclear power is supported only by those people who are motivated by greed for fast profits, people devoid of morality and concern for the future of mankind. The so-called peaceful nuclear development cannot be divorced from its military use. In the case of a nuclear holocaust, not only will the future of life on this planet be in question but all past human endeavour and excellence, through our existence, will be wiped out. After a nuclear war no one will be left to enjoy the music of Vivaldi or Beethoven or to view the frescoes of Michelangelo or the paintings of Matisse, and there will be no one left to read the words of Shakespeare. I cannot accept the proposal that all that mankind has created so far should be sacrificed on the altar of greed for profit. Allow me to finish with a quote. Sir Mark Oliphant said recently:

It is becoming clear that unless human values replace those of the market place, civilisation, as we know it, could collapse under the weight of of the very knowledge which created it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

– Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Beazley:

– Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Before calling the honourable member for Swan, I remind the House that this will be the honourable gentleman’s maiden speech. I am sure that the usual courtesies will be extended to him.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Swan

– I thank Government members for their indulgence. Mr Deputy Speaker, I join with the many honourable members who have congratulated you on your appointment to high office. I ask you to pass on my congratulations to Mr Speaker. I thank the electors of Swan most sincerely for doing me the honour of electing me to this House. I am uncomfortably aware that quite a number of previous members of this House have had occasion to extend their gratitude to the people of the same electorate. The people of the electorate of Swan are discerning and demand a high level of personal service from their member. They have had it in the past from both sides of the House - in that I include my opponent in the last election, the former member for Swan, Mr Martyr - and they will continue to have that service while I am their member.

Swan is a diverse electorate, but it contains a substantial number of people who have felt the chill blast of Government economic strategy. For that reason in particular I am pleased to second this amendment. If the Governor-General’s Speech is anything to go by, they can expect more of the same. If anything, that Speech amounted to an apology by the Government for being so generous. In economic terms, the Swan electorate is made up largely of persons in receipt of age, invalid and supporting mothers’ pensions and unemployment benefits, with others on award wages in the low to middle income brackets. It has been the Government’s strategy in the past and I suspect it will be in the future to turn people in these categories against each other. Pensioners are told that reductions in the comparative real value of their pensions, stringent and absurd enforcement of provisions such as the 85 per cent disability test for invalid pensions, and the fact that marginal increases in earnings can remove their fringe benefits are a product of the Government’s unwillingness to impose heavy tax burdens. On the other hand, the solid tax paying citizen who is to be found in the low to middle income bracket in Swan is informed by this Government that his or her tax burden is a product of the Government’s welfare obligations.

On this occasion, electors in Swan recognised the real source of their difficulties and voted against a government which has presided over massive increases in tax evasion in high income brackets and a niggardly and ungenerous attitude to citizens in real need. They also voted against a government which still has no strategy for the economic resurgence of Australia but which follows a drab, half-baked form of monetarism - it is not really prepared to pursue a full monetarist policy but is incapable of making use of the many alternatives. The only changed direction evident in the Governor-General’s Speech is that instead of belt-tightening homilies the Australian electorate is now to be the object of pseudo-erudite expositions of Liberal philosophy. I expect underneath the steady drum roll of Government hyperbole we shall hear a subterranean scratching as the nineteenth century liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill spins in his grave as he hears the views he popularised bowdlerised by his contemporary Australian disciples. That humane thinker - as do all rational men - became a democratic socialist late in life and recognised that political freedom, vital as that is, means nothing if the daily experience of the citizen is tyranny in the work place, exclusion from real knowledge of how he or she is governed, and inequity in terms of economic power.

In fact, to describe the philosophy of this Government as ‘liberal’ is to deprive the word of meaning. Were it genuinely liberal there would be a preoccupation on the other side of the chamber with tough freedom of information legislation and human rights Bills. There would be concern over malapportioned electoral districts benefiting the State branches of the Liberal Party. The philosophy of this Government is a kind of bush constitutionalism - constitutionalism in the sense that it is preoccupied with elevating administrative arrangements and the distribution of powers between the Commonwealth and the States to the level of high principles. Whenever a matter of individual liberty clashes with these arrangements it is the arrangements which triumph.

I think no better illustration of that can be found than in the answer of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to a question asked by the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) during last week, in which he said that we must be chary about looking at the human rights commentaries on Queensland of the United States Department of State because were we to intervene it would involve using the external affairs power illegitimately. It is bush constitutionalism in the sense that even constitutional principles are jettisoned when party interest determines. This was the case in 1 975. However, perhaps I ought not to be too pernickety because, after all, the Governor-General’s Speech did say the Government would not be dogmatic.

Pop philosophy will not conceal the real inadequacies in the Government’s economic strategy reflected most notably in its non-planning for the 1980s resources boom. Electors of Swan, like most Western Australians, are developing, along with their healthy optimistic outlook, an equally healthy cynicism about the capacity of conservative governments to direct resources booms in ways that benefit ordinary citizens. The immediate and long term economic benefits go elsewhere while we, the ordinary citizens, carry the economic costs of the infrastructure and accompanying government restrictions on domestic sources of money supply.

I will take some simple indices to illustrate both points. According to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, under the Whitlam-Tonkin governments, Western Australia in 1973-74 enjoyed about 100 per cent of the Australian average per capita income. Under the Court-Fraser governments this had fallen last year to about 93 per cent. We were beaten for the wooden spoon, however, by Queensland at about 86 per cent. This, of course, says nothing about a relative decline in the real value of Australia’s average income. It points, however, to Western Australians moving quite rapidly to a position of considerable disadvantage. If money is being made from the minerals boom it is not being made by the citizens of Swan. If money is not being made directly by the people it is certainly not being made indirectly through the Government. Because we in Western Australia are not informed we do not know the full extent, but we do know that through our taxes, rates, and government service charges we are carrying a considerable portion of the burden of the infrastructure development necessary for resources projects. We will shortly know, as the Government soaks up the supply of domestic money, the cost of last month’s $1 billion capital inflow on our housing mortgage interest rates. Later, as local manufacturing industry finds economic survival difficult, we will find the cost of unplanned resources development being reflected in the loss of jobs.

Were the Government to take the mineral boom in hand to ensure that real benefits flowed directly and indirectly to Australian citizens, through such proposals as a resources rental tax, there would be the funds to consider effective and innovative schemes for people in real need in our community. For example, we could consider proposals to make the pension wholly or partially non-taxable, to permit people the fruits of their own superannuation schemes, life savings and small additional earnings. We could once again review the continuing areas of need, particularly on the capital works side of our education system, where there have been over the last few years quite dramatic Government cuts. In a planned exploitation of resources we would have the satisfaction of knowing that our national sovereignty was secure and the interests of future generations adequately served.

I would like now to pass to the final portion of the Governor-General’s Speech where Government views on national security issues were placed before us. The time has come for a serious Western Australian interest in the direction of Government defence planning. The Australian Constitution, in section 1 19, states: the Commonwealth shall protect every Suite against invasion.

For most of Australia’s history this commitment has largely been without meaning in terms of Australia’s defence doctrine, force structure and deployment. Our defence effort has been focused on the south-east, north-east and in forward activities with our allies. In keeping with national Labor’s long tradition, stretching through two world wars, of sound and innovative defence planning, the last Labor Government firmly based Australia’s defence doctrine on the concept of defence self-reliance. Initially, and still formally, this Government committed itself to that doctrine as its 1976 White Paper indicated, and the Labor Party strongly supported it when it did so. It can do nothing else for, as Dr Ross Babbage, in a recent thoughtful work on Australian defence, pointed out: . . . because the forward defence concept is no longer viable, Australia’s defence policy in the future is likely to be primarily concerned with the development of an independent capacity to secure the nation’s immediate environment- the continent itself and its offshore islands and resources.

Western Australians have a right to believe that as the Government recast its defence doctrine priority would be assigned to the defence of the resources rich north-west in particular. It is the Pilbara which is likely to be the object of the attention of any enemy in our region that wishes to harass us short of outright invasion. It is also the Pilbara iron ore trade, conducted through the narrow waterways of the eastern Indian Ocean, which is likely to be the object of any harassment of our shipping, at least at the level we can deal with from within our own resources.

So to us in Western Australia, promises of improved staging facilities on the west coast, of patrol boat bases in the north-west to cover the Cockburn Sound-Darwin gap, improvement of facilities at Learmonth and a joint training area at Yampi, a project announced incidently by the previous Labor Government - all of which were contained in the 1976 White Paper - were very important. So too were the takings to improve the capacities of Australian forces to move rapidly across the continent.

I would also advocate that real defence selfreliance requires the permanent basing of some aircraft with a strike capability in Western Australia and of a significant portion of Australia’s submarine force. Yet we must also be aware that not much of this is off the drawing board. A lot of it can be readily shuffled to the bottom of the pile of priorities. As long as the Government’s commitment to the defence selfreliance concept endures, there remains a reasonable expectation that the strategic needs of Western Australia will be met, even if, as happened with much of what was announced in the White Paper, the schedule is dropped back three to five years. However, recent Government pronoucements, including the one made today, raise questions about the whole-heartedness of the Government’s commitments to self-reliance. The background of the relevant members of this Government locates their initial parliamentary and ministerial experience in the heyday of misconceived forward defence strategies. Some of our service and civilian defence advisers hanker after the days when it was easier and more interesting to co-operate with their equivalent allied services rather than with each other.

Debate interrupted.

page 459

ADJOURNMENT

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! It being 10.30 p.m., in accordance with the order of the House I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Howard:

– I require that the question be put forthwith without debate.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 459

QUESTION

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH

Address-in-Reply

Debate resumed.

Mr BEAZLEY:

– The changes in command structure which would end these tendencies have not occurred even though the Department of Defence was appropriately restructured under the Labor Government. What we risk in Western Australia is that as the Government reappraises relations with regional allies and the United States, costs involved will preclude necessary attention to Western Australia’s needs. On 18 September last the Prime Minister announced that large multinational exercises involving Australian forces were to be revived under the fivepower defence arrangement. In early October there was a further announcement of increased defence co-operation with Thailand. A cooperative venture with the United States took place in the Indian Ocean during the election campaign. I do think that the announcement of the decision by the Government to place Orion aircraft at Butterworth is an example of the problems that we face. Honourable members would be aware that the Orion aircraft are capable of carrying weapons with a strike capability and it is precisely that sort of aircraft which I feel needs a permanent station in Western Australia. They are to be deployed at Butterworth which is given priority over Western Australian needs. This is the problem that we will confront in Western Australia as the Government in fact, if not in principle, tampers with the notion of defence self-reliances.

We not only risk in Western Australia the denial of essential defence resources but also we risk the cost of misconceived cover operations. The offers for the permanent basing of allied warships in Cockburn Sound is one such case. It can cover, politically, and I believe it does, a government unwillingness to fully utilise the facility with Australian resources. However in an unstable international environment, where both super-powers but particularly the United States, have strategic doctrines which encompass limited nuclear war it makes a major Australian metropolitan area for the first time a near certain nuclear target, if a nuclear attack occurs. In both its political and strategic aspects the Government’s offer contributes to the ‘de-defence’ of Western Australia. The Government’s conception of the Western alliance, on which a lot of its tampering with the notion of defence self-reliance is based, is outdated. Disunity within the Western alliance is not simply a product of a lack of American will. It represents unalterable changes from the 1950s in the strategic balance and in the Western economy. The allies of the United States economically, at least, are now often its competitors. That fact in the relationship of the allies with the United States can on a day-to-day basis often outweigh their common commitment on strategic issues. They are particularly competitors for access to key resources such as oil.

The implications of these changes cannot be avoided by Australians. One small aspect of this, I believe, confronted us recently in Australian politics in a way that made obvious the fact that we cannot continue the sort of automatic knee-jerk commitment to alliance friendships as we have in the past. Evidently our forces exercising with Americans in the northern Indian Ocean a couple of months ago did not proceed beyond Sri Lanka to join their allies in key areas of the Arabian Sea. Behind that amendment to the Government’s new forward policy, I believe we can detect the hand of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) and the former Foreign Minister (Mr Peacock); in particular the Deputy Prime Minister because he has stressed Australia’s economic relations with the Gulf. He knows the possible economic consequences in that area to Australia - a most important future trading area - if we are not perceived as a nation which takes its national sovereignty seriously.

In the same way I believe we have misconstrued the Western alliance and have not fully appreciated its proper historical perspective. I also feel that we have too readily buried the question of detente and the advantage that detente has been to the West in permitting the alliance to make essential re-adjustments to its own internal power balance in the 1960s. Also we have failed to appreciate the extent to which detente has permitted the West unconsciously - not necessarily consciously - to subvert Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe. Nowhere is this more evident than has been the case with those most encouraging, if tenuous gains made by the Polish workers. Trade with the West and associated Polish indebtedness, which now stands at $18 billion to the West - more than any other European State - has helped produce economic conditions which have given the democratic movement in Poland a mass base. The experience of co-operation with the West and the Polish Government’s need for Western credit is a factor in that country’s willingness to negotiate with the Polish workers’ movement. That fact has been a product of detente, which unfortunately I believe to a degree has been prematurely buried. A residual and diminishing concern for the Soviet Union in preventing its intervention is the hostility of the West with the possible loss to the Soviet Union of economic benefits gained during detente. Whatever happens in Poland, and we must not permit any outside intervention to reverse those developments without the most vigorous and practical protests, the international origins of these changes ought not to be forgotten.

I have a family background which encourages me to see this Parliament as a great Australian institution. I was taught by my father, who was a member of this Parliament for 32 years, to love its forms and possibilities. I feel it a great privilege to be a member of what ought to be the focal point of Australian democracy. I am aware that the power and functions of this Parliament over the years have gradually and not always consciously been whittled away by the exercise of executive power. I believe that we are starting slowly to whittle back - we have done it much more rapidly in the Senate - that encroachment on the authority of Parliament via the committee system. It is a system worth protecting and taking very seriously. I am very grateful to my colleagues for having appointed me to two parliamentary committees. I understand that there are many honourable members on both sides of this House who are determined to reverse the process of executive whittling away of parliamentary authority. I hope that in the coming years they will treat me as a friend.

Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned.

page 460

JOINT COMMITTEES

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

- Mr

Speaker has received messages from the Senate concurring in the resolutions of the House relating to the appointment of joint committees on Foreign Affairs and Defence, the Australian Capital Territory and the New Parliament House, and agreeing that the resolutions have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.

page 460

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur · LP

– I present the first report of the Publications Committee.

Report - by leave - adopted.

page 460

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Valedictory

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 24 February 1981, at 2. IS p.m., unless Mr Speaker shall fix an alternative day or hour of meeting or, in the incapacity or absence from Australia of Mr Speaker, the Chairman of Committees may fix an alternative day or hour, such alternative day or hour of meeting to be notified by telegram or letter addressed to each member of the House.

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

– I take this opportunity to extend seasonal best wishes to members of the Parliament. It is traditional at the end of the parliamentary session to express a few words of appreciation to the many people who make this Parliament operate. I wish honourable members a very happy Christmas and New Year. The year 1980 has not been easy for any of us. We have all gone through the trials and tribulations of an election year. For some people, it was a great occasion for celebration and jubilation but there are some who have not been so fortunate. Some honourable members have been here for a very short period only. To all honourable members I extend best wishes. May we see carried into 1981 the good spirit and conviviality that has prevailed in the last two weeks. May there be plenty of intense political debate, but let us hope that we can keep personalities to a minimum.

Opposition members interjecting -

Mr ANTHONY:

– I did qualify my statement; I used the word ‘hope’. I was not being too extravagant. Honourable members can rest assured that my party, the Government and I will be doing our utmost to uphold those wishes.

I turn to the international scene. Many people around the world will not have a very happy or joyous Christmas. To those people I express understanding of and sympathy in regard to their problems. We look at the tensions and the conflict in the Middle East and at the problems in Kampuchea, the problems in Poland and the tensions that exist between the unions there and the Soviet Union. People in those areas will go through the Christmas and New Year period facing extreme tensions and filled with great concern. I hope that, in 1981, their problems will be a little less than they were during 1980. There will be Australians who will not enjoy Christmas as much as others. To those I express my hope that they can make the most of their circumstances and that their friends recognise the needs in the community of those less fortunate.

I also express my sympathy to the victims of the Italian earthquake. This has been one of the major disasters of the last decade. Countless thousands of people have been injured and are homeless. Hundreds of thousands of people are mourning the loss of their relatives and friends. To the people of the Italian community in Australia and in Italy I express my sympathy. For many of them, Christmas indeed, will be a sad occasion.

I take a few moments to recognise the people who make this Parliament work. They are countless and for that reason I know that I will fail to mention many of them. Firstly, I express appreciation to you, Mr Speaker, for the exemplary way in which you manage this House. I repeat congratulations to you on your re-election to your office and for maintaining the very high standards that you have always aimed at and which you have been able to achieve. I hope that what has been accomplished in the last two weeks will continue into 1981.

I thank the Clerks and the attendants for their devotion and for the very impartial way in which they attend to the duties and functions of this Parliament. I thank the Parliament’s ‘silent service’ - the officers of Hansard - for doing an immaculate job in making our speeches read so much better than they were delivered. Their work must be recognised. That great force of people works to produce the speeches most promptly so that we have a chance to make necessary corrections or to amend them within legitimate means, if possible.

Mr Hayden:

– If it is not possible to do so by legitimate means, you will still do it.

Mr ANTHONY:

– You try, Bill, but you do not get away with it. I do not run into that problem. I also thank the officers of the Australian Broadcasting Commission who sit in their little fish bowl overlooking the chamber. We see them from time to time. They enable other Australians to hear how good or how bad we are; I think that the rest of Australia does not think that we are too good but at any rate we do our duty as parliamentarians. We have only ourselves to blame for what is recorded for the rest of Australia.

There are countless numbers of people around the House who should all be thanked. These include the officers of the Parliamentary Library, the officers of the Parliamentary refreshment rooms, the attendants and people like Gordon Pike. He is renowned in Parliament House. He has been here as long as I have been here and has been able to maintain a good relationship and dignity which is unequalled by anyone whom I know in Parliament. He is a very dedicated person. I thank the gardeners and the attendants at the front door. All are courteous people who do their jobs well. The Commonwealth car drivers are a wonderful group of people who have great pride in the job they do and who try to attend to all of us. I wish all of those people and their families - and indeed, on this occasion I include even my colleagues opposite with whom, at times, I have conflict - the very best for Christmas and for a happy and healthy 1981. If there is to be conflict in 1981, let us have it out in the open and make it fair dinkum.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– I join with the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) in exchanging seasonal greetings with members of this House and in extending those thoughts to the people who are in the employ of this House, who serve us and who serve us well, and who make us much better than we would otherwise be, and also to the community generally. The Deputy Prime Minister has excelled himself tonight in that, for a change, he has outlined a set of points of view with which I can pretty much agree. In the circumstances, I think that that is cause for considerable comment. But for all that, the Opposition exchanges seasonal greetings with members of the Government. We would have preferred to have exchanged sides of the House with them. That not having occurred, we will settle, at this stage, for the exchange of seasonal felicitations.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– We made the National Country Party change sides.

Mr HAYDEN:

– We are never quite sure where members of the National Country Party are but, if they have the backing of Mr Bjelke-Petersen, they seem to be rather successful in coming out on top even with a minority of support.

Mr Anthony:

– He succeeded in being re-elected.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I know; it is called rigging in Queensland. But we are getting away from seasonal felicitations, Doug. The Deputy Prime Minister is verging on the edge of pugnacity now.

Mr Baume:

– That is something for which you have not the capacity.

Mr HAYDEN:

– This is a time for us to be warm, cordial and friendly. The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume) is trying to interject. I have made a New Year’s resolution that I will be nice to him in the New Year. I have a horrible feeling that that resolution will break and fall apart as soon as Parliament resumes. For all of that, those other matters which were raised by the Deputy Prime Minister, on a much more serious note, are ones about which we are concerned. We, too, share a concern for the degree of unhappiness which exists in the world. There is always a degree of unhappiness in the world. There is no sense of reassurance or satisfaction in that fact. We, as democrats, have to work to the extent that we can be influential in trying to rectify that suffering. In our community–

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Let Don Chipp speak for himself.

Mr HAYDEN:

– We worked hard to try to rectify the suffering in Fadden and we nearly did it this time. Next time we will do it! The Deputy Prime Minister pointed out that, within our community, there are Australians who will not enjoy this Christmas as much as many of their fellow Australians. There are 2 million people who are living in poverty. That number of Australians has doubled in aggregate in the five years of the Fraser Government. We should also remember the black Australians of this community who are having much less money spent on them in real terms than at any stage in the last five years in spite of serious health problems, of grim housing inadequacies, of grave unemployment problems and, generally, of accumulating neglect. The problems of our education system and the problems of communication and neglect of the urban environment in which people live are ones which should be of concern to us. I am glad that tonight the Deputy Prime Minister raised these areas of neglect and need in our community. These are the things 1 hope the Government will attend to with much greater determination in the course of the three years of this Parliament.

There are great challenges ahead of us. We should bear those in mind as we go into the festive season to relax and to restore our energies and vitality for the parliamentary session ahead in the new year. Not the least of those challenges will be the challenge of the grave distortions which are already arising in the Australian economy with profound social effects as a result of the pressures on the money market especially those coming from the huge in-flow of foreign investment which has been quite evident in recent times. The impact of that very simply will be that Australians - as a result of a decision announced this week and as a result of more decisions of that nature unless that inflow is regulated - will have imposed upon them a geater degree of deprivation within our social and economic system so that foreign investors can find room to invest, expand and prosper. That enormously significant trend is occurring now. It means dearer housing, dearer finance for small business and more cost for credit for farmers. Traditional farm industry, as much as any other sector of the Australian community, will be disadvantaged as a result of that trend. The movement of people off the land to the cities will be aggravated in its acceleration because of that trend. There is no evidence that that has been looked at by the Government.

I say those very sober things at this stage because I am encouraged to do so by the comment of the Deputy Prime Minister that there will be many Australians who will not enjoy Christmas as much as the rest of us this year. That is true. There is no cause for comfort or smugness on the part of anyone in this Parliament, least of all the members of the Government, that Australia, per capita one of the richest countries in the world, should have one of the worst incidence of relative poverty of any industrialised country of the world, an incidence that has doubled in the last five years.

I accord with the views of the Deputy Prime Minister in terms of exchanging seasonal felicitations. I convey seasonal greetings to you, Mr Speaker, and I look foward, as we all do, to coming back to the Parliament refreshed, reinvigorated and making worthwhile contributions to the affairs of the country.

Mr SPEAKER; I propose to speak to the motion very briefly. I express my appreciation of the work of all the officers who serve members and senators in the Parliament. Their efforts are great, their quality is great, and I think all members of the House and the Senate can be grateful to them for their efforts. Those who serve us outside the House - the drivers, the people in our electorates and the people in the State offices - should not be forgotten when we speak of our grateful thanks to those in Canberra because their work outside Canberra is just as important.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 463

LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO ALL MEMBERS

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) agreed to:

That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.

page 463

ADJOURNMENT

Mr SINCLAIR:
Leader of the House · New England · NCP/NP

– In a motion that might bring even more joy to the hearts of members, I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.55 p.m. until Tuesday, 24 February 1981, at 2.15 p.m. unless Mr Speaker shall fix an alternative day or hour of meeting or in the incapacity or absence from Australia of Mr Speaker, the Chairman of Committees may fix an alternative day or hour, such alternative day or hour of meeting to be notified by telegram or letter addressed to each member of the House.

page 463

NOTICE

The following notice was given: Mr Hurford to move -

That this House condemns the Government’s economic management, particularly its monetary management, and the resulting hardships suffered by home owners, small business persons and others as a consequence of the enormous increase in interest rates announced on the 3rd anniversary of the Prime Minister’s promise to reduce such rates by 2 per cent.

page 463

QUESTION

REPLY TO A REQUEST FOR DETAILED INFORMATION

Has a level 2 Second Division position been created in the Department of the Parliamentary Library as from 10 November 1980.

If so, what are the functions of this position.

Did the Presiding Officers seek advice from the Public Service Board on this position; if so, what advice was provided; if not, why not.

Was W. D. Scott & Co. Pty Ltd, a management consulting firm, retained by the Parliamentary Librarian in connection with this position.

If so, did (a) the Presiding Officers and (b) the Public Service Board approve the appointment of W. D. Scott & Co. Pty Ltd.

What services will W. D. Scott & Co. Pty Ltd provide in connection with this position.

What fee is to be paid to W. D. Scott & Co. Pty Ltd for these services.

Why was it considered necessary (a) to abolish the positions of Deputy Parliamentary Librarian and Assistant Parliamentary Librarian (b) to create a position senior in status to that of the former Deputy Parliamentary Librarian, now Head Librarian.

Are all or any of these changes recommendations of the Urwick International Pty Ltd Report.

Will he explain the functions of the Systems and Coordination Unit beyond the information contained in the Parliamentary Librarian’s Staff Notice on that Unit, dated 13 November 1980.

Was the Library Committee in the last Parliament consulted at any time on the proposed changes; if not, why not.

1 2) Is it proposed to discuss any of these changes with the Library Committee in this Parliament.

1 ) A Level 2, Second Division position was created in the Department of the Parliamentary Library on 21 October 1980.

As Head of the Legislative Research Services, the officer would be responsible to the Permanent Head of the Department for the efficient running of those services.

Yes. To create and recruit for a Level 2, Second Division position to head the Legislative Research Service.

Yes.

Yes.

Arrangements for advertising, initial interview of selected applicants, appraisal tests, recommendations and report, check references, consultations about appointment decisions and advice to unsuccessful applicants.

1 5 per cent of the first year’s salary.

(a) To achieve better management efficiency,

To advance the status of the Legislative Research Service and its staff. A similar advance was also achieved for the Library by the transfer of a Second Division officer to head it.

Yes, all of them.

Because of increased workloads through systems and technical developments, networks co-ordination, long-range planning for the New Parliament House and similar projects, it has become desirable to relieve officers responsible for ongoing client services from the extra demands being placed on them.

The New Systems and Co-ordination Unit has taken over those and other functions such as request co-ordination, general publications and special projects, for example, the Parliamentary Handbook and Bi-centennial Publications program.

Some officers with duties related to overall departmental matters, who were previously grouped in the Office of the Parliamentary Librarian, have been transferred to the Systems and Co-ordination Unit.

No. Staff arrangements and departmental administration are the responsibility of the Parliamentary Librarian as Permanent Head, who is answerable for them to the Presiding Officers of the Parliament.

Members will be provided with information on staff changes.

page 465

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated

Nuclear-Free Pacific Conference (Question No. 11)

Mr Holding:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

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

  1. Can he state (a) whether any governments were officially represented at the Nuclear-Free Pacific Conference held in Hawaii in May 1 980 and (b) which non-government organisations from which countries were represented at the conference.
  2. Has he received any representations from any organisations or individuals following the conference; if so, (a) what was the substance of those representations and (b) when were they received.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. (a) No governments were represented at the NuclearFree Pacific Conference held in Hawaii in May 1 980.

    1. The report of the Conference lists the following nongovernment organisations as having been represented at the Conference:

Hawaii Sponsors’ List:

American Friends Service Committee Catholic Action

Church of the Crossroads Social Action Committee Ethnic Studies Program/University of Hawaii Manoa Friends of the Filipino People Greenpeace Hawaii Hale Mohalu Ohana Hawaii Alliance

Hawaii Association of Asian and Pacific People Hawaii Buddhist Peace Fellowship Hawaii Council of Churches Outreach Committee Hawaii District of the United Methodist Church Hawaii Union of Socialists Honolulu Friends Meeting Life of the Land Micronesia Support Committee Operation Manong Opihi Alliance The People’s Fund Protect Kaho’ Olawe ‘Ohana United Nations Association USS/Hawaii Division Union of Democratic Filipinos Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom/ Honolulu Branch Women’s Support Groups of the Waianae Coast

International Sponsors:

Alliance for Survival/Catalina Island Chapter (USA)

Association for International Co-operation and Disarmament (Sydney, Australia)

Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (New Zealand)

Canadian Association of International Mechanical and Allied Workers

Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility

Canberra Peacemakers (Australia)

Congress for International Co-operation and Disarmament (Melbourne, Australia)

Friends of the Earth (Canberra, Australia)

Friends of the Earth (New Zealand) Ltd

Friends of the Earth (USA)

Friends of the Earth (Victoria, Australia)

Greenpeace New Zealand

Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action (USA) la Ora Te Natura (Tahiti)

Interseminary Project for Field Education (Philippines) Japan Congress Against A- and H- Bombs Japan Council Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs Live without Trident (USA) Mobilization for Survival (USA) Movement Against Uranium Mining/Hobart (Tasmania, Australia)

Movement Against Uranium Mining/Victoria (Australia) National Peace Council (England) National Youth Council of New Zealand Nautilus International Inc. (USA) New Zealand National Council of Churches/Church and Society Commission New Zealand Catholic Overseas Aid Nuclear Information and Resource Service (USA) Pacific Life Community/San Francisco Bay Area (USA) Pacific People’s Action Front/Papua New Guinea-Fiji Peace Action Committee Tauranga (PACT) Peace Squadron (New Zealand) Philippines Movement for Environmental Protection Polynesian People’s Liberation Front (FLP) Religious Society of Friends/N.Z. Yearly Meeting Peace Conference Semahang Ekolohiya (Philippines) South Pacific Action Network (New Zealand) Te Matakite O Aotearoa (New Zealand) Tia Beluad Movement (Palau, Micronesia) Truk Antinuclear Association (Truk, Micronesia) Union Pacifiste De France

United Corporations and Mercantile Union (Sri Lanka) United Inter-Seminary Student Association (Philippines)

United Micronesian Association of California (USA) United Nations Association of New Zealand University of South Pacific Students’ Association (Fiji) Uranium Moratorium/Devonport (Tasmania,

Australia) Voice of Women (Canada) Women for World Disarmament (England) Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (Australian Section) Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (US Section)

  1. I have not seen nor have I been advised of any representations to date.

Male Pensionable Age (Question No. 69)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 26 November 1 980:

In view of the level of unemployment and in the light of the many other moves within our society to eliminate discrimination between the sexes, will the Minister investigate the possibility of lowering the retiring age for men to 60 years, thus putting men and women on an equal footing in this regard.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

An age pension is available to residentially qualified men from age 65 and women from age 60. There is no ‘retiring age’ as such in the social security system.

Less than 2 per cent of unemployment beneficiaries are aged 60 years or over and the number of men who would directly benefit from a reduction in the pensionable age by transferring from unemployment benefit to pension would therefore be comparatively small.

In addition, it is difficult to estimate how many of the males aged 60 to 64 years who are presently in employment would leave the labour force, if the pensionable age were lowered.

It is unlikely that all or even the majority of any vacancies thereby created would be filled by the unemployed.

Given the probable marginal effect on unemployment levels, it is unlikely that the cost of lowering the pensionable age would be offset to any great extent by the savings arising from unemployment beneficiaries filling vacancies created by retiring workers. ‘Commonwealth Government Directory’: Parliamentary Library (Question No, 154)

Mrs Darling:

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

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the lack of reference in the 1980 Commonwealth Government Directory to the current information service contained within the Parliamentary Library.
  2. Will he take steps to have this omission corrected in the 1981 Directory with the inclusion of the names, positions and phone numbers of senior personnel in this section of the Library.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. The 1980 edition of the Directory lists on page 24 the name and telephone number of the Chief Librarian, Current Information. Having in mind the purpose and use of the Directory it is not intended to expand this reference in future editions. Members of the Parliament are provided with additional contact information concerning the Current Information Service and other Sections of the Library in the Parliament House internal telephone directory.

Commonwealth Regional Development Program (Question No. 177) Mr Uren asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 27 November 1980:

  1. Will the Minister provide a regional breakup of expenditure under the Commonwealth Regional Development Program in 1979-80.
  2. What proportion of the total expenditure went to (a) State departments and authorities, (b) local government authorities, (c) the private sector, (d) private sector capital projects, (e) the provision of physical infrastructure and other facilities in support of private projects and (f) community facilities.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. and (2) The requested information is contained in the Annual Report for 1979-80 of the Decentralisation Advisory Board tabled in Parliament on 26 November 1980.

Department of Trade and Resources: Economic and Policy Division (Question No. 183)

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 27 November 1980:

  1. What is the function of the Economic and Policy Division of his Department.
  2. When was it established.
  3. What economic models does it maintain.
  4. What economic policy advice does it provide which would not otherwise be available to the Government through the Treasurer.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The functions of Divisions of my Department are set out at page 42 et seq of its Annual Report which was tabled in the House on 9 September 1 980.
  2. Along with other Divisions of my Department, on 1 1 April 1978.
  3. In the sense of econometric models, none.
  4. As indicated in the Department’s Annual Report, the Economic and Policy Division, inter alia, provides economic advice on matters relevant to Australia’s overseas trade and the commercial development of the minerals industry.

Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation (Question No. 186)

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 27 November 1980:

  1. What are the functions of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation.
  2. Does it compete with private enterprise consulting engineers; if so, to what extent.
Mr McVeigh:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The functions of the Corporation as specified under the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Act 1970 are:

    1. the carrying out of investigations, and the furnishing of advice, in relation to water resources in Australia or elsewhere;
    2. the carrying out of investigations, and the furnishing of advice, in relation to:
    3. soils or rocks; or

    1. materials used in the construction of engineering works, in Australia or elsewhere;

    2. the carrying out of investigations, and the furnishing of advice, in relation to the sites, designs or construction of engineering works in Australia or elsewhere;
    3. the designing of engineering works in Australia or elsewhere;
    4. the supervision of contracts for the construction of engineering works in Australia or elsewhere, that is to say the furnishing of advice, and the doing of other things, necessary for ensuring the proper performance by the contractors of their obligations under those contracts; and (0 the construction of, or the performance of any work in relation to the construction of engineering works in Australia or elsewhere, either alone or in association with other persons.

  2. Yes. The Corporation is in free and open competition with private enterprise consulting engineers to the extent that a project falls within the kind of work the Corporation is empowered to carry out.

Chemical and Biological Warfare (Question No. 13)

Mr Holding:

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

Further to his predecessor’s answer to part (13) of Question No. 5359 (Hansard, 22 May 1980, page 3198):

what action has Australia taken since that date in the Committee on Disarmament to negotiate a complete prohibition on chemical weapons.

what recommendations were made, and to whom from the Geneva Conference, 3 to 21 March 1980, to review the 1 972 Biological Weapons Convention.

what action has Australia taken as a result of those recommendations.

what were the terms of the proposal for a chemical weapons workshop, circulated by the Australian delegation to the Committee on Disarmament and

was any or all of that proposal accepted by that committee; if so, what action has been taken by that committee.

Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. , (d) and (e) I shall be presenting to the current session of Parliament a full report on the 1980 session of the Committee on Disarmament. This report makes clear the action taken by the Australian delegation in the Committee towards negotiation of a complete prohibition on chemical weapons. The Report outlines the terms of Australia’s proposal for a chemical weapons workshop or Informal Meetings with Experts and of the positive response by the Committee to that proposal.
  2. The Review Conference of the. Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction, held in Geneva from 3 to 21 March 1980, made no specific recommendations. The Final Document (BWC/CONF.1/10) contained a Final Declaration which reaffirmed the strong determination of states parties to exclude the possibility of biological agents being used as weapons and reaffirmed their strong support for the Convention, their continued dedication to its principles and objectives and their commitment to implement effectively its provisions.

The Final Document of the Conference reviewed the fifteen articles of the Convention one by one and noted their provisions or reaffirmed their importance. The Declaration recorded a decision to convene a second review conference between 1985 and 1990, and called for action in four articles as follows:

Article IV: ‘. . . The Conference invites States Parties which have found it necessary to enact specific legislation or take other regulatory measures relevant to this Article to make available the appropriate texts to the United Nations Centre for Disarmament, for the purposes of consultation.’

Article VIII: ‘. . . The Conference calls on those States Parties to the Convention which are Parties to the Protocol to comply strictly with its provisions and those States not yet Parties to the said Protocol to ratify or accede to it at the earliest possible date.’

Article IX: ‘. . . The Conference urges the Committee on Disarmament to undertake negotiations on an agreement on the complete and effective prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of all chemical weapons and on their destruction, as a matter of high priority, taking into account all existing proposals and future initiatives. To this end, the Conference welcomes the establishment, by the Committee on Disarmament, of an ad hoc working group on chemical weapons and urges all the members of the Committee to contribute towards the fulfilment of its mandate.’

Article X: ‘The Conference notes that since the entry into force of the Convention, increasing importance has been attached by the International community to the principle that the disarmament process should help promote economic and social development, particularly in the developing countries. Accordingly, the Conference calls upon States Parties, especially developed countries, to increase, individually, or together with other States or international organisations, their scientific and technological cooperation, particularly with developing countries, in the peaceful uses of bacteriological (biological) agents and toxins. Such co-operation should include, inter alia, the transfer and exchange of information, training of personnel and transfer of materials and equipment on a more systematic and long-term basis . . .’

  1. The references in the four articles in (b) relate to Australia as follows:

Article IV- The Crimes (Biological Weapons) Act 1976 was assented to on 28 February 1977; the Regulations under that act were gazetted on 1 March 1980. The texts of this legislation are being made available to the United Nations Centre for Disarmament.

Article VIII - Australia is a party to the 1925 Protocol and complies with its provisions.

Article IX - See (a) above.

Article X- The Report of the Committee of the Whole, contained in the Final Document, notes that there were differing views on this article. Many participants urged an increased exchange of information amongst States, and technical assistance to the developing countries, for the use of toxins and microbial agents for peaceful purposes, and the promotion of the fullest possible international cooperation in this field. One suggestion was for the organisation of seminars and another was for the channelling of information to states parties to the Convention through the United Nations Centre for Disarmament. Other participants, of which Australia was one, felt that specific modalities involved in channelling such information should not be determined at the present stage.

Aboriginal Health (Question No. 34)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 26 November 1980:

When will the Government provide the Parliament with a response to the report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs presented in the 81st Parliament, entitled ‘Aboriginal Health’.

Mr Viner:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

The Government will be considering the report along with two other recent reports concerning Aboriginal health: the report of the National Trachoma and Eye Health Program and the report of the Program Effectiveness Review Task Force. The Parliament will be informed of the outcome of the Government’s consideration of the three reports when this process is complete.

Committee of Inquiry into Technological Change (Question No. 35)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 26 November 1980:

  1. What was the total cost of the Committee of Inquiry into Technological Change in Australia (CITCA)
  2. How many days did the three-man Committee (a) meet and (b) take evidence.
  3. How many persons (a) comprised the support staff for CITCA and (b) were drawn from the former Department of Productivity.
  4. Was consideration given to including in the (a) membership of the committee and/or (b) support staff, a (i) woman, (ii) sociologist, (iii) historian, (iv) philosopher, (v) non-Friedmanite economist or (vi) any other person with a possibly different point of view from CITCA or its support staff as to (A) the types of technology to be adopted, (B) the methods by which technology is introduced and (C) the question of ownership and/or control; if not, why not.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Expenditure against the appropriation for CITCA was:

The total cost to the Commonwealth, which would include other costs more or less directly associated with the Committee and indirect costs such as the preparation by other Commonwealth agencies of material for the Committee, and the costs to State Governments, organisations and individuals, who spent time and money assisting the work of the Inquiry are unknown.

  1. (a) The Committee met formally on 16 occasions, (b) The Committee took formal evidence on 14 sitting days.

The Committee also met and worked informally, in whole or in part, for short and long periods, on many occasions, which were not recorded as formal meeting or sitting days.

  1. This information is in Appendix A to Volume I of the Committee’s report.
  2. (a) The selection of the Committee was advised in the announcement of 20 December 1978 by the then Minister for Productivity the Honourable Ian Macphee. (b) This is properly a matter for the now-disbanded Committee. I understand, however, that considerable efforts were made to obtain persons with a wide variety of backgrounds to work on the Secretariat to the Committee. Those who did so are listed in

Appendix A to Volume I of the Committee’s report. Whether they include all of the categories listed in the question is not known.

Education: School Enrolments (Question No. 42)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the report of the 1980 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Economic Survey on Australia which indicates that in the table of full time school enrolments of children aged from 15 to 19 years as of 1977, Australia ranked 14th of 23 nations listed.
  2. Has Australia’s ranking fallen between 1973 and 1977; if so, by how much.
  3. Has Australia’s position (a) improved or (b) deteriorated since 1977.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. Yes. I am aware of the table which appeared in the OECD Survey.

In interpretation of the data, it should however be noted that the information available for many countries does not relate to 1977 and any implications drawn may need to be qualified accordingly.

  1. The proportion of 15 to 19 year olds in full-time school enrolment reported in the 1 980 OECD Economic Survey has not been included in earlier editions of the publication; nor has information relating to 1973 been published in the comparable format elsewhere. It is not possible to determine therefore whether Australia’s ranking in the context of the 1980 OECD Survey would have fallen between 1973 and 1977.
  2. Similarly, comparable OECD data is not available to determine whether Australia’s position, in the same context, has improved or deteriorated since 1 977.

Secondary and Tertiary Education (Question No. 43)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Is he able to say whether, in Australian secondary education, there is (a) a high drop-out rate of 45 per cent between Years 10 and 12, (b) differing retention rates between Government, Roman Catholic and independent schools, (c) a variation in retention rates at year 1 2 between State systems, e.g. 32.4 per cent in NSW and 24.3 per cent in Victoria, (d) a declining proportion of students proceeding from Year 12 to higher education of 54.6 per cent in 1974 and 48.7 per cent in 1977, and (e) a variation in urban educational participation compared to rural participation; if so, what estimates have been made of the percentage of young people aged between 1 7 and 24 years who would have the intellectual capacity to benefit from tertiary education in Australia.
  2. Is he also able to say what proportion of Australians in the 17 to 24 years age group are actually undergoing tertiary education compared to those in (a) the United States of America, (b) Canada, (c) Japan, (d) Switzerland, (e) Norway, (0 Denmark, (g) Sweden, (h) France and (j) the USSR.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. l ) (a) Enrolments in Australian schools in Year 1 2 in 1 979 were 39.6 per cent of those in Year 10 in 1977. This implies an apparent drop-out rate of 60.4 per cent between Years 1 0 and 12. It is an apparent, rather than true rate, because the method of calculation does not explicitly take account of net changes to the school population due to migration, nor of those students who spend more than one year in the same grade,
  2. the apparent retention rates from the first secondary year (Year 7 or Year 8) to Year 12 vary between the types of schools specified. In 1979 the respective apparent retention rates to Year 1 2 were:

Government schools - 28.9 per cent

Catholic schools - 44. 1 per cent

Other Non-Government schools 87. 1 per cent

Note that the. above apparent retention rates are affected by transfers between types of schools, as well as by those factors mentioned in (a) above,

  1. there is variation in apparent retention rates between State systems. In 1979 the respective apparent State system retention rates to Year 1 2 were:
  1. of those students enrolled in Year 1 2 in 1 973, 54.5 per cent proceeded to universities and colleges of advanced education in 1974. The corresponding proportion in relation to 1976-1977 was 48.7 per cent. It should be noted however that over this period enrolments in Technical and Further Education institutions were rising rapidly. Statistics on the proportion of Year 1 2 students proceeding directly on to Technical and Further Education are not available,
  2. there does appear to be a variation in urban educational participation compared to rural participation. Research studies indicate a greater retention rate to Year 12 exists in metropolitan and other urban areas than in rural areas. Once matriculation level is reached, however, the proportion which make the transition to higher education is about as high for country as for metropolitan students.

No estimates have been made of the percentage of young people aged between 1 7 and 24 years who would have the intellectual capacity to benefit from tertiary education in Australia.

  1. The proportion of 17 to 24 year old Australians undergoing tertiary education compared to other countries is shown in the table below. The proportions are estimates based on the latest available Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) data. Comparable data for the USSR are not available. Care should be exercised when interpreting this data. In particular the OECD statistics for Australia and the other countries listed refer only to full time students in higher education (i.e. excluding TAFE). Other factors to be considered are differences in education systems, the emphasis placed on part time education in some of the countries listed (for example, A. Australia), and deficiencies in the scope and coverage of the statistics. A description of how the education systems in each country are classified is contained in ‘Classification of Education Systems - Summary Volume’ OECD Paris 1975.

Education Funding (Question No. 134)

Mrs Darling:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 26 November 1980:

  1. 1 ) Did he recently tell the National Convention of Young Liberals that educationalists were responsible for the difficulty encountered by young people in finding employment.
  2. Has there been a fall, in real terms, of spending (a) in the area of education generally and (b) in relation to government schools specifically; if so, is the conviction he outlined to the Young Liberal National Convention the reason for the fall.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. ) In the Prime Minister’s speech to the National Convention of Young Liberals on 1 4 January 1 980, he said: ‘. . . complaints say more about the systems through which young people pass than they do about young people themselves . . . education’s critics are arguing that the flaws of the system are such that education is raising barriers against young people’s progress rather than eliminating them . . .’. ‘. . . Governments have provided resources; proper returns have not occurred . . . competence of the education system has been most severely question . . .’. ‘. . . People are rightly concerned that too much education is for the academically-minded, those with special talents. But those without academic ability are entitled to at least as much attention . . . They are not getting it . . . The system is failing those to whom it owes the most help . . . But for those not so academically inclined, curricula and course structures are deficient . . . our primary concern is for the thousands of young people who are leaving school each year with poor employment prospects. We want to provide appropriate education and training courses for them. . .’.
  2. No. As indicated in the Minister for Education’s statement on ‘Guidelines for Education Commission - 1981’ (Hansard 22 May 1980, page 3061) the total Commonwealth funding through the Tertiary Education Commission and Schools Commission in 1981 was to be in real terms, slightly above the 1980 level. Since then the funds for 1981 have been further enhanced by the new initiatives announced in the election context. The same real levels of recurrent and capital grants for government schools will be provided in 1981 as in 1980, as well as a $2.3m increase in the migrant education program.

Invalid and Aged Pensioners: Rent Assistance (Question No. 142)

Mrs Darling:

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 26 November 1980’.

  1. What rate of supplementary assistance is payable to invalid and aged pensioners, who receive no extra income other than their pension, and who pay rent.
  2. When was the last increase to this rate of supplementary assistance or rent allowance.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. $5 a week for a single pensioner and $2.50 a week for each partner of a married pensioner couple.
  2. 14 November 1974.

Road Safety (Question No. 162)

Mr Morris:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

What are the individual items that comprise the sum of $16,348,1 19 expended on road safety in general by the Commonwealth during 1979-80 as advised in his answer to Question No. 6312 (Hansard, 10 September 1980, page 1 146).

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

Registered Motorcycles (Question No. 163)

Mr Morris:

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

What was the total number of motorcycles registered as at 30 June in each year from 1 965.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

Data on motorcycles on register extracted from Australian Bureau of Statistics publication ‘Motor Vehicle Registrations, Australia’, quarterly, catalogue number 9303.0.

Road Safety (Question No. 164)

Mr Morris:

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

What was the specific nature of the resource limitations and commissioning restraints referred to in his answer to question No. 6312 (Hansard, 10 September 1980, page 1146) that resulted in the 16 per cent underspending of the Office of Road Safety budget allocation of 1979-80.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

The resource limitations referred to in the answer to Question No. 63 1 2 reflect difficulties during the period of obtaining an adequate number of suitably qualified staff to launch and monitor research and promotion projects whilst the commissioning restraints referred to the current procedures established by the Public Service Board requiring its prior approval of all research projects.

Department of Foreign Affairs: Defence and Nuclear Division (Question No. 187)

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 27 November 1980:

  1. What is the function of the Defence and Nuclear Division of his Department.
  2. When was it established.
  3. What type of defence and nuclear advice other than that which could be provided to the Government by the Minister for Defence does it provide.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. The Defence and Nuclear Division provides policy advice and coordinates activities on foreign policy aspects of defence and nuclear matters, including ANZUS and other security and defence cooperation arrangement, arms control and disarmament matters, Australia’s relations with other countries in the defence and nuclear fields and Australia’s participation in international organisations dealing with disarmament and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. It covers the responsibilities of my portfolio for nuclear non-proliferation policy including relevant treaties, notably the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, as well as nuclear safeguards matters including coordination, preparation and negotiation of nuclear safeguards agreements with other countries.
  2. The Division was established in January 1980 as part of a departmental reorganisation. The Division was formed by combining the Nuclear Affairs Division which was established in 1977 and the Defence Division which was established in 1971. Before 1971, Defence matters were covered by Division II of the Department.
  3. See answer to ( 1 ) above describing the responsibilities of my portfolio in the Defence and Nuclear areas. In the Defence area, the Division provides advice on foreign policy aspects of defence matters, including treaties such as ANZUS as well as other agreements. This role complements that of the Department of Defence relating to defence policy in these areas. The advice that the Division provides in the Nuclear area relates to international non-proliferation policy, international arms control and disarmament including international treaties and agreements and coordination of participation in relevant international organisations. The advice also relates to the development and implementation of nuclear safeguards policy including agreements and arrangements containing non-proliferation conditions and controls over the supply of Australian uranium to potential customer countries.

Department of Foreign Affairs: Economic Division (Question No. 188)

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 27 November 1980:

  1. What is the function of the Economic Division of his Department.
  2. When was it established.
  3. What economic advice does it provide other than that which would be provided to the Government through the Treasurer.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Economic Division provides advice on foreign policy aspects of Australia’s international economic relations (including trade, energy, aid, transport) and on foreign policy aspects of resources development (including maritime resources). It is also involved in Australian participation in a range of United Nations economic agencies and organisations such as the OECD.
  2. The Economic Division was established in 1976, previous to this it was called the Economic Relations Division established in 1974, and prior to that the Economic Relations Branch established in 1954.
  3. The advice of the Economic Division relates to the responsibilities of the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the overall conduct of Australia’s foreign policy, and specifically to the implications of developments in economic areas, both domestic and external, for that policy. The Division’s advice is also directed to carrying out the Minister’s responsibilities for the coordination of Australia’s participation in a range of multilateral economic agencies and bodies in the United Nations, and in the OECD.

In view of the growing economic interdependence internationally and the increasing sensitivity of economic issues to the foreign policies of Governments, the Minister for Foreign

Affairs has been committed, in consultation with other Ministers, to advise the Government on a wide range of specialized issues affecting Australia’s Foreign Policy relation in both the bilateral and multilateral spheres. The Economic Division draws on and tasks Australia’s overseas Posts in this work. It does not attempt to duplicate the technical economic advice provided by the Treasury and other Departments.

Department of Housing and Construction: Housing Policy Division (Question No. 197)

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 27 November 1980:

  1. What is the function of the Housing Policy Division of his Department.
  2. When was it established.
Mr McVeigh:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The functions of the Housing Policy Division of the Department of Housing and Construction are:

Development, co-ordination and implementation of policies for housing

Administration of housing programs including the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, the Home Savings Grant Scheme and the rehabilitation of the Commonwealth’s housing estate at Glebe.

  1. The functions of the Division have been carried out under various organisational arrangements since the establishment of the then Department of Housing in 1964. The Housing Division (renamed Housing Policy Division in 1 978) was formed following the amalgamation of the housing elements of the then Department of Housing and Construction into the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development in 1976. The Division was transferred to the Department of Housing and Construction in December 1 978.

Debates on Primary Industry Bills (Question No. 312)

Mr Kerin:

asked the Leader of the House, upon notice, on 4 December 1 980:

  1. What Bills relating to primary industry were debated in the 31st Parliament.
  2. How many speakers from the (a) Government, including the responsible Minister and (b) Opposition participated in each debate.
  3. How much time was allowed to (a) Government and (b) Opposition speakers on each of the Bills referred to in part (!)
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

The information requested is readily accessible in the following publicly available documents:

Index to Votes and Proceedings, or House of Representatives: Work of the Session;

and (3) as for (1), together with the Votes and Proceedings and Hansard.

Aboriginal Affairs (Question No. 8)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 26 November 1980:

What steps have been taken to persuade the Governor of Queensland to enter into arrangements with the GovernorGeneral under the Aboriginal Affairs (Arrangements with the States) Act 1973, as the Governors of the other mainland States did between April 1974 and September 197S (Hansard. 23 May 1978, page 2367).

Mr Viner:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

I am informed that the possibility of entering into a formal Arrangement with the Queensland Government in respect to Aboriginal Affairs has been raised in correspondence and in discussions from time to time since 1973. While the Queensland Government has shown interest in continuing discussions on issues of common concern, it has not responded positively to any suggestion that it enter into a formal Arrangement under the Aboriginal Affairs (Arrangements with the States) Act 1973.

Ethnic Communities Council (Question No. 29)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 26 November 1980:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the statement in the 1979-80 Annual Report of the Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria regarding their May 1979 application for Federal funding for the research project on the needs of the ethnic aged.
  2. Has any decision been made on this matter; if so, what was that decision.
  3. If a Federal grant has been made, (a) what is the amount and (b) what conditions attach to it.
  4. Have Federal funds been made available to Ethnic Communities Councils in other States at any time since their inception; if so, (a) what were the amounts in each case and (b) what conditions have attached to those grants.
Mr Macphee:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2), (3) (a) My attention has been drawn to the 1979-80 Annual Report of the Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria.

The Honourable Member may be aware that I announced on 22 September 1980 a grant of $5,000 to the Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria to assist the organisation to complete a research project on the needs of aged migrants,

  1. (b) The conditions attached to the Grant are in accordance with the standard form of agreement and grant conditions which apply under the Migrant Project Subsidy Scheme. I have separately provided the honourable member with a copy of the standard form of agreement and grant conditions.
  2. (a) The following grants have been made through the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to Ethnic Communities Councils:
  3. 1 ) Grant-in-Aid Scheme.

All grants are provided to employ a social welfare worker to assist the migrant community over a three-year period -

Ethnic Communities Council of NSW, 1978-79 -$19,000 pa.

Geelong Ethnic Communities Council, 1979-80 -$16,000 pa.

Mt isa Ethnic Community Council, 1978-79- $14,750 pa- Ethnic Communities Council of SA, (for the aged) 1979-80- $16,000 pa.

  1. Migrant Project Subsidy Scheme.

1978- 79-

Ethnic Communities Council of NSW, $3,000 for inaugural meeting of the Federation of ECCs

Geelong Ethnic Communities Council, $946 for information project.

Ethnic Communities Council of SA, $2,000 to purchase office furniture and equipment.

Ethnic Communities Council of Queensland, $2,500 to purchase duplicator and typewriter.

Ethnic Communities Council of Tas $522 to meet expenses for its inaugural meeting

1979- 80-

Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils, $5,000 assistance towards the costs of the second National Conference of the Federation and other meetings of the Executive as necessary.

Ethnic Communities Council of the ACT, $1,500 production of resume on ethnic communities in the ACT.

1980- 81 -

Ethnic Communities Council of NSW, $5,000 funding of seminars.

Ethnic Communities Council of Vic, $5,000 for survey on the aged.

Funds may have been made available by other Federal authorities. (4)(b) See answer to question (3)(b) above.

Railway Electric Traction System (Question No. 46)

Mr Les Johnson:

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

  1. 1 ) What sums have been allocated or are proposed to be allocated by the Federal Government on the proposed extension of the Sydney suburban 1 ,500V DC railway electric traction system south from Waterfall to Port Kembla on the Illawarra rail line, NSW.
  2. What other financial or non-financial assistance has been given to the NSW Government for the project referred to in part (1).
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Nil.
  2. The Commonwealth Government supported New South Wales in its successful request to Loan Council earlier this year for approval to borrow funds under the infrastructure program.

Herbicides: Application (Question No. 54)

Dr Everingham:

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

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the reply of the Minister for Transport on 26 March 1980 to question No. 3331 (Hansard, page 1299).
  2. Has the National Health and Medical Research Council specified the recommended methods of use to ensure safety in air spraying and other applications of herbicides; if so, where may these recommendations be found.
  3. Has the Government through any of its Departments sought to have such recommendations (a) implemented, (b) monitored, (c) supervised, (d) controlled or (e) enforced; if so, how; if not, why not.
  4. What (a) undertakings have been given or (b) actions have been taken by State authorities to minimise the impact of herbicide use on (i) users, (ii) residents near air spraying operations and (iii) gardens, crops, pasture, timber, shade trees, parks, reserves, recreation areas and susceptible non-noxious plants.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. Yes. In his reply the Minister for Transport indicated that the role of the Department of Transport is to ensure the safety of air navigation under the Air Navigation Act and that the responsibility for the safe application of agricultural chemicals rests with the appropriate State authorities.
  2. to (4) Similarly, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NH & MRC) is not empowered to make regulations or specifications on methods to ensure safety in aerial spraying of agricultural chemicals. The provision and enforcement of such regulations is properly a matter for the States and Territories.

Nevertheless, the NH & MRC has a long standing interest in protection of the general public and agricultural and other workers who may be engaged in, or affected by, the application of agricultural chemicals. Currently, an NH & MRC working party is considering the safe use of agricultural chemicals in aerial spraying. On receipt of the report of this working party, the NH & MRC may then issue guidelines which may in turn be used for educational purposes and possibly incorporated into appropriate State and Territory legislation.

Soviet Dissident Trials - Australian Attendance (Question No. 60)

Mr Jacobi:

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

Did his predecessor give an undertaking on 18 September 1 980 to implement paragraph 3 of the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on Human Rights in the Soviet Union (Hansard, page 1485); if so, (a) how many trials of Soviet dissidents have been attended by Australian diplomats or their staff within the Soviet Union since this undertaking and (b) how many trials of Soviet dissidents have Australian diplomats or their staff been actually prevented from attending during 1980.

Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) My predecessor did give such an undertaking.

  2. (a) In 1980 Embassy personnel have sought to attend two human rights trials in the Soviet Union and both instances have arisen since this undertaking was given.

    1. On both occasions the Embassy representative was prevented from entering the court room on the grounds that the court room was full.

Nurse Education Program (Question No. 101)

Dr Blewett:

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

  1. 1 ) Did he state on 1 3 October 1 980 that a basic nurse education program would be commenced in 1981 at the Launceston, Tas. College of Advanced Education.
  2. Have discussions about this proposed program just commenced; if so, how will it be possible to commence the program by 1981.
  3. Are extra funds being provided to Tasmania and Queensland in 1980-81 for expansion of basic nurse education in colleges of advanced education; if so, what sums.
  4. Are any evaluative programs being supported by the Commonwealth Government in relation to the pilot courses which provide basic nurse training in colleges of advanced education; if so, what programs.
  5. If evaluative programs are being supported by the Government will funds be made available for them in 1980-81, if so, what sums.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) On 1 3 October I announced provisions for the establishment of new college-based basic nurse education courses in Queensland and in Tasmania.
  2. and (3) Details of the arrangements for implementation of new initiatives in education arising from the Government’s election policy statements will be announced as soon as possible.
  3. Yes. Evaluations of basic nurse education programs in Victoria at the Preston Institute of Technology and the Lincoln Institute of Health Sciences are being supported by the Commonwealth Government through the Tertiary Education Commission’s evaluative studies programs.
  4. Yes. An amount of $53,856 is to be made available for these evaluations in 1980-81.

Pilots: Health Checks (Question No. 104)

Mr Jull:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

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

  1. How often are health checks of commercial airline pilots required by his Department.
  2. What are the principle areas of concern in assuring a pilot’s fitness for licence renewal.
  3. Is alcoholism regarded as a disease in the terms of these medical checks; if so, are pilots who have a drinking problem grounded.
  4. If pilots with a drinking problem are grounded, do they have the right of reinstatement if the problem is overcome; if so, what is the statutory period required before re-application for the licence may be made.
  5. How many pilot licences have been suspended because of alcoholism during the last 5 years.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Airlines pilots are required to have a physical examination every six months.
  2. The examination is a general physical examination supplemented periodically, but not at every six monthly examination, by electrocardiograms, hearing tests and, after age 45, eye tests.
  3. An established medical history or clinical diagnosis of alcoholism may be grounds for disqualification.
  4. A pilot who has been disqualified on the grounds of alcoholism is eligible for review if the condition is controlled. There is no statutory period before re-application may be made.
  5. One airline pilot has been disqualified for alcoholism in the past five years.

Oversea Visits Committee (Question No. 112)

Mr Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 26 November 1980:

  1. Who are the current members of the Overseas Visits Committee.
  2. How often does the Committee meet.
  3. How many times has the Committee met in the last 3 years.
  4. In each of the last 3 years what proposals for visits has the Committee (a) approved and (b) disapproved.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The current members of the Oversea Visits Committee are:

Chairman: First Assistant Commissioner, Departmental Structures Division, Public Service Board.

Members: Assistant Secretary, Accounting Development Branch, Department of Finance.

Assistant Secretary, Administrative Services Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs.

  1. Under the current quota procedures, which were introduced on 1 January 1978, the Committee meets once or twice a year to assess annual programs.

Ad hoc proposals and representations are examined by the OVC members individually as they arise with their comments being co-ordinated by telephone and referred to the Chairman for decision.

  1. Since the beginning of the 1977-78 financial year, the Committee has met on 30 occasions and held 293 telephone conversations. (The figures of 30 includes 25 for the period 1 July 1977 to 31 December 1977 when, prior to the introduction of the current quota procedures, the Committee met once a week to consider a visit proposals on a case by case basis.)
  2. The following table sets out details of the number of proposals (a) approved and (b) disapproved from 1 July 1977 to 31 October 1980:

Plant Variety Rights (Question No. 135)

Mrs Darling:

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

  1. ) Did he give an undertaking to a recent meeting in Brisbane, Queensland, of the Australian Agriculture Council that the Commonwealth Government planned to table draft legislation to establish plant variety rights in Australia.
  2. Did he also undertake not to proceed with the legislation in the New Parliament if the Australian Agriculture Council decided in mid- 1981 that it did not want to introduce the proposed scheme for plant variety rights.
  3. Does the proposed legislation’s future depend on the compliance or total agreement of State Ministers.
  4. Does the Government’s determination to proceed with this legislation signify the ineffectiveness of public institutions such as C.S.I. R.O., university and college of advanced education departments, and State Departments of Primary Industry.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. and (2) Yes. I issued a press statement on 4 August 1980, following a meeting of the Australian Agriculture Council in Brisbane, which stated that the Government planned to table draft legislation in the Parliament early in 1981 and allow it to remain there until the Budget Session of 1981. This would allow time for public discussion of the details of the legislation.
  2. Yes.
  3. No. The C.S.I. R.O., the States and the universities have an excellent record in plant breeding. The scheme would stimulate plant breeding programs in both Government funded and private organisations.

Community Youth Support Scheme: Newsletter (Question No. 138)

Mrs Darling:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 26 November 1980:

  1. Has the Commonwealth Government provided funds through the Community Youth Support Scheme (CYSS) program towards the production of a newsletter entitled Off the Streets which circulated among CYSS centres in New South Wales.
  2. Has the Government recently withdrawn from funding the newsletter; if so, why.
  3. will he examine the possibility of providing similar funding to the State CYSS Committee in Queensland for a similar venture.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes. Funding was recently withdrawn as the Newsletter did not meet the requirements for funding as outlined in the CYSS Guidelines and Administrative Arrangements.
  3. No.

National Youth Advisory Group (Question No. 139)

Mrs Darling:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 26 November 1980:

  1. ) What percentage of persons who were not students between the ages of IS and 25 years were unemployed at 1 November 1980. .
  2. Have any unemployed young persons been appointed to the National Youth Advisory Group; if so, how many.
  3. If unemployed young persons have been appointed to the National Youth Advisory Group, is the number representative of the incidence of unemployment among young people in the community.
  4. Are (a) State or (b) Federal public servants and (c) secondary and (d) tertiary students represented in their respective capacities on the National Youth Advisory Group; if so, how many.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The information sought is not available. Similar information was published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics for March 1980 in the bulletin The Labour Force, July 1980. The percentage of persons then aged 15 to 25 years, not attending an educational institution who were unemployed was 10.5 per cent.
  2. No.
  3. See (2).
  4. All representatives on the National Youth Advisory Group are appointed because of the personal contribution which they can make to the work of the Group.

Of the 12 members, one is employed by a State statutory body, one by the Commonwealth Government and another is a secondary school student.

Moorabbin Airport, Victoria: Floor Coverings (Question No. 161)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 26 November 1 980:

  1. 1 ) What type of floor coverings are to be (a) removed and (b) laid at Moorabbin Airport, Victoria, under contract RSA205 mentioned on page 49 of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 8 April 1 980.
  2. When were the floor coverings which are to be replaced originally laid in their present location.
  3. Were the floor coverings new or used when laid.
  4. Who were the unsuccessful tenderers for the contract.
  5. Was this question first asked on 9 September 1980, and did it remain unanswered at the termination of the 31st Parliament.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. (a) Domestic quality linoleum; (b) Industrial quality linoleum.
  2. Prior to 1967.
  3. New.
  4. Southern Carpet Service, Moorabbin, Victoria. Willcon Distributors, Albert Park, Victoria.
  5. Yes.

Department of Education: State Offices (Question No. 196)

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 27 November 1980:

  1. What is the function of the State Offices of his Department.
  2. Do these offices employ approximately 750 staff.
  3. Are any of these staff members employed in teaching; if so, how many.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) A statement of the functions and activities of the State Offices of my Department is provided in its annual report for 1979 pp. 48-54 which was tabled in the Parliament on 20 August 1980. It will be noted that a major function of these offices is the administration of the seven Commonwealth schemes of student assistance listed below:

The Postgraduate Awards Scheme

The Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme

The Secondary Allowances Scheme

The Adult Secondary Education Assistance Scheme

The Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme

The Aboriginal Study Grants Scheme

The Aboriginal Secondary Grants Scheme

The largest of these schemes is the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme which in 1979 provided means tested benefits to over 90,000 students in universities, colleges of advanced education and TAFE institutions. Under the remaining schemes a further 60,000 students were assisted.

Among other activities, the State Offices are also involved in administration and in liaison with State education authorities related to the Commonwealth Transition program. Education Program for Unemployed Youth, Contingency Program for Refugee Children, and the courses provided under recommendation 14 of the Galbally Report.

  1. The present staffing strength of the State Offices is:

Full time staff, 675 officers. Part time staff, 1 2 officers.

Seasonal staff (December-April each year) 820 man months or, 68 officers equivalent. Total staffing resource, 755.

  1. None of the staff members are engaged on teaching activities. Some field staff are concerned with counselling and guidance to Aboriginals who are receiving assistance under the Study Grants and Secondary Grants schemes, mentioned under (1).

Invalid Pensions: Western Australia and Electoral Division of Swan (Question No. 96)

Mr Beazley:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 26 November 1980:

  1. 1 ) How many persons were in receipt of an invalid pension in (a) 1978, (b) 1979, (c) 1980, to 25 November in (i) Western Australia and (ii) the Electoral Division of Swan.
  2. How many invalid pensions were discontinued to pensioners resident in the Electoral Division of Swan in (a) 1978, (b) 1979, (c) 1980 to 25 November.
  3. How many discontinued invalid pensioners resident in the Electoral Division of Swan appealed against the Department’s decision.
  4. How many of the appeals were successful.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. The number of persons in receipt of invalid pensions in Western Australia and the Electoral Division of Swan in 1978, 1979 and 1980 is shown in the table below:
  1. to (4) Statistics relating to terminations of pensions and to appeal are not available by electoral division.

United Kingdom Retirement Pensions: Exchange Rates for Australian Pension Assessment (Question No. 99)

Dr Blewett:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 26 November 1980:

  1. 1 ) Is the exchange rate used by the Department of Social Security in determining the value of United Kingdom retirement pensions for Australian pension assessment reviewed on a regular basis.
  2. If so, what were the dates on which new exchange rates were set for use by the Department of Social Security since 1 January 1976.
  3. What procedures are followed in setting exchange rates for use by the Department of Social Security.
  4. Does the Department of Social Security deduct bank charges for the conversion of British Government pension cheques to Australian currency from the estimated worth of the United Kingdom retirement pension in setting the value of Australian pensions; if not, why not.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. The dates from which new exchange rates were applied by the Department of Social Security since 1 January 1976 are as follows: 1 April 1976 24 June 1976 1 4 October 1976 6 January 1977 31 March 1977 18 August 1977 2 February 1978 30 March 1978 6 July 1978 18 January 1979 10 May 1979 27 September 1979 27 March 1980
  3. The Department of Social Security monitors variations in the exchange rate on a regular basis and adjusts Australian pensions generally when there has been a variation of 5c Australian or more per pound Sterling and the rate appears stabilised.
  4. No. The Social Services Act contains no provision, for the purposes of determining eligibility for receipt of Austalian pensions, enabling pension income, from any source, to be reduced by the amount of any bank charges paid for converting such to Australian currency.

Chermside and Nundah Social Security Offices (Question No. 140)

Mrs Darling:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 26 November 1980:

  1. How many (a) permanent and (b) temporary Commonwealth Public Servants were employed at (i) Chermside and (ii) Nundah Social Security Offices, Queensland, on (a) I January and (b) 1 July for each year from 1 977 to 1 980.
  2. What were the (a) designated positions and (b) functions of each staff member in each of the categories referred to in part (1)
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) Both Chermside and Nundah Social Security Offices became operational on 10 October 1979. Prior to this payments to clients in these areas were attended to centrally, in Brisbane. Details since that date are as follows:

    1. (a) Chermside, 1 January 1980 - 38 permanent; 1 July 1980-38 permanent.
    1. 1 January 1980-1 temporary; 1 July 1980-1 temporary.
    2. (a) Nundah, 1 January 1980 - 55 permanent; I July 1980-56 permanent.
    3. 1 January 1980-1 temporary; 1 July 1980-1 temporary.

  2. These designated positions and functions of these officers were as follows:

Social Welfare Recipients: Interviews (Question No. 143)

Mrs Darling:

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 26 November 1980:

Can benefit recipients and pensioners refuse to answer questions from Social Security field officers without a 3rd party, consented to by the pensioner or benefit recipient, being present.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

There is no provision under the Social Service Act which requires a recipient of a pension or benefit to answer a question from a departmental field officer. Failure to answer a question, however, could cause delay in the determination of the claim or cause an existing payment to be suspended.

There would be no objection to a recipient of a pension or benefit being accompanied by a person or his or her choice during an interview.

Emergency Relief Funds: North-west Melbourne (Question No. 278) Dr Theophanous asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 3 December 1980:

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to reports that emergency relief funds for the northwest suburban region of Melbourne have already been expended.
  2. Has the Minister’s attention also been drawn to the fact that a request has been lodged by the North Western Suburbs Regional Consultative Council for immediate emergency relief funds of $ 100,000 from the Commonwealth.
  3. Is the Minister prepared to grant this sum or any part of it immediately.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question.

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. No. An announcement was made on 19 September, 1980 that an amount of $125,000 would be disbursed by the Commonwealth government to assist Victorian agencies providing emergency relief. Advice has been sought from the Victorian Minister for Community Welfare Services, the Honourable Walter Jona, MP concerning grants to particular agencies. Following receipt of this advice, a decision will be made on the distribution of available Commonwealth funds.

Sandgate Social Security Office, Queensland (Question No. 227)

Mrs Darling:

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 2 December 1980:

  1. How many (a) permanent and (b) temporary Commonwealth public servants were employed at Sandgate Social Security Office, Queensland, at the (i) beginning and (ii) termination of its full-time operations.
  2. What were the (a) designated positions and (b) functions of each staff member employed at the (i) commencement and (ii) termination of the Sandgate office’s operations.
  3. On what basis was the decision to terminate the operations of the Sandgate office made.
  4. Is it a fact that the decision to close the office affects the distribution of social security benefits and pensions to constituents in the Electoral Division of Lilley; if so, did the Minister or officials of the Department of Social Security attempt to notify my office of the impending termination of operations of the office.
  5. Will the Minister undertake to attempt to notify my office of major changes to staffing and other aspects of administration of social security offices in my electoral division in the future.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. The following staff were employed at the Sandgate Office:

    1. Beginning of operations, 16.12.74:
    1. Nil.
    2. Termination, 27.1 1.80:
    4. Nil.
  2. The designated positions and functions of these officers were as follows-

  3. The decision to close the small three man advisory office at Sandgate was taken in the light of:

    1. the need to provide a full range of departmental services to the overall region including the higher density areas such as Clayfield, Nundah and Wavell Heights;
    2. the need to optimise the use of scarce resources including trained staff and funds; and
    3. the impending expiry of the lease on the small office at Sandgate on 28 November 1980.
  4. The three man office at Sandgate provided only an advisory service to the residents of the area. It did not have the capacity or delegation to issue counter cheques or approve the payment of pensions or benefits. The new and larger office at Nundah which is located 8 km from the old office at Sandgate has these powers and provides a comprehensive range of departmental services. Overall it is considered that the level of service to all the residents of the Region and the Electorate of Lilley has been improved with the opening of the Nundah Office. A regular visiting advisory service is provided to the residents of Sandgate by a departmental officer who operates from the Sandgate Courthouse every Wednesday.
  5. Yes. All honourable members are advised of any significant changes in departmental operations in their electorate.

Republic of Korea (Question No. 12)

Mr Holding:

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

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the article headed ‘Seoul purge aims to stop critics’, in the Age of 25 August 1980, page 8.
  2. Is he able say whether (a) at least eight journalists have been arrested, (b) 617 publishing companies and 172 periodicals have been closed down and (c) 400 Journalists have been purged in South Korea in recent weeks, as alleged in that article.
  3. In view of Australia’s trade and diplomatic links with South Korea, what steps has Australia taken to outline Australian human rights and Press freedom policies to the South Korean Government.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. My attention has been drawn to the article in the Age and I have obtained the following information in response to your questions.
  2. No accurate figures are available on the number or journalists so far arrested although it is believed that at least eight, as quoted in the Age have been arrested.

I can confirm that 617 publishing companies have been closed down, and that on 31 July the Ministry of Culture and

Information withdrew publication licences from 1 72 periodicals accused of ‘social corruption, carrying obscene and decadent articles and causing class awareness and social uneasiness’.

  1. I am aware of the concern expressed by a number of Australian citizens regarding events in the Republic of Korea. The Australian Ambassador in Seoul has conveyed the Government’s concern to the ROK Government on a number of occasions. He has sought information about the welfare and whereabouts of persons detained and the charges to be brought against them.

In answering a question without notice in the House on 3 December I reaffirmed the Government’s concern about the death sentence imposed on Mr Kim Dae Jung and the adverse effect his execution would have on our relations with the ROK.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 4 December 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1980/19801204_reps_32_hor120/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant