Senate
30 April 1980

31st Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke) took the chair at 2.15 p.m.. and read prayers.

page 1945

PETITIONS

Moscow Olympic Gaines

Senator CHIPP:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 49 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: that we the undersigned oppose the proposed boycott of the 1 980 Olympic Games in Moscow, and we therefore pray that the government take no action to prevent Australian athletes from competing.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Social Security Benefits

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– On behalf of Senator Mulvihill, I present the following petition from 52 citizens of Australia:

To the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth:

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

Adjust all pensions and benefits quarterly to the Consumer Price Index, including the fixed 70 ‘s rate.

Raise all pensions and benefits to at least 30 per cent of the Average Weekly Earnings.

Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:

The present static threshold of $75 per week for taxation purposes be increased to $ 1 00 per week.

A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Social Security Benefits

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 90 citizens of Australia:

To the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth:

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

Adjust all pensions and benefits quarterly to the Consumer Price Index, including the fixed 70 ‘s rate.

Raise all pensions and benefits to at least 30 percent of the Average Weekly Earnings.

Taxation relief for pensioners and other on low incomes by:

The present static threshold of S75 per week for taxation purposes be increased to S 1 00 per week.

A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Social Security Benefits

Senator CHIPP:

– I present the following petition from 28 citizens of Australia:

To the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth:

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

Adjust all pensions and benefits quarterly to the Consumer Price Index, including the ‘fixed ‘ 70 ‘s rate.

Raise all pensions and benefits to at least 30 per cent of the Average Weekly Earnings.

Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low in: comes by:

The present static threshold of $75 per week for taxation purposes be increased to $ 1 00 per week.

A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Social Security Benefits

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 86 citizens of Australia:

To the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth:

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

Adjust all pensions and benefits quarterly to the Consumer Price Index, including the ‘fixed ‘ 70 ‘s rate.

Raise all pensions and benefits to at least 30 per cent of the Average Weekly Earnings.

Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:

The present static threshold of $75 per week for taxation purposes be increased to $ 100 per week.

A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Citizens Band Radio

Senator ELSTOB:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 547 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth that:

Whereas the Australian Government has announced plans to terminate the availability of the 27 Megahertz-11 metre Band for use by operators within Australia

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the 27 Megahertz- 1 1 Metre Band Citizens Radio Service be retained after June 1 982.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Aboriginal Rights Treaty

Senator MELZER:

– I present the following petition from 10 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

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

Whereas before Europeans settled in Australia, the Aboriginal peoples of Australia had lived on their traditional lands from time immemorial and had in Aboriginal law and customs a clear title to those lands: and whereas Europeans and other non-Aboriginal people have occupied and used most of the traditional lands of the Aboriginal peoples against their will and without negotiation, compensation or treaty and whereas it has been the practice of nations established in territories previously occupied by indigenous inhabitants to reach a negotiated settlement with those inhabitants; and whereas that occupation has seriously damaged the traditional way of life of Aboriginal Australians and has caused poverty and hardship to be the fate of the great majority of their surviving descendants; and whereas the surviving descendants of the Aboriginal peoples have expressed a wish to have their rights to land acknowledged, to preserve their link with their Aboriginal ancestors and to maintain their distinctive identity with its own cultural heritage; and whereas the people of Australia in 1 967 voted overwhelmingly that the Commonwealth Parliament should have responsibility for laws relating to Aboriginal Australians; and whereas it is accepted internationally by the United Nations organisation, that each country should work to establish the rights of indigenous peoples to selfdetermination, non-discrimination and the enjoyment of their own culture; and whereas the Woodward Commission in 1974 established principles by which Aboriginal rights to land should be acknowledged and realised; and whereas the Senate of the Commonwealth Parliament in February I975 resolved that Aboriginal Australians should be compensated for the loss of their traditional lands and for the damage to their way of life; and whereas the National Aboriginal Conference unanimously resolved in April 1979 in Canberra to ask the Commonwealth Government to negotiate a Treaty with Aboriginal Australians.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government should invite the Aboriginal people of Australia to negotiate a Treaty with the Commonwealth of Australia, and any Treaty should contain provisions relating to the following matters: (i) The protection of Aboriginal identity, languages, law and culture, (ii) The recognition and restoration of rights to land by applying, throughout Australia, the recommendations of the Woodward Commission, (iii) The conditions governing mining and exploitation of other natural resources on Aboriginal land, (iv) Compensation to Aboriginal Australians for the loss of traditional lands and for damage to those lands and to their traditional way of life, (v) The right of Aboriginal Australians to control their own affairs and to establish their own associations for this purpose.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Invalid Pensioners

Senator PRIMMER:

– I present the following petition from 17 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled.

Petitioners of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

The current review of invalid pensioners by the Department of Social Security is being conducted in an atmosphere of intimidation and harassment. While we do not wish to reflect on the staff of the Department, the Director-General of Social Security, P. J. Lanigan, has stated that the present number of invalid pensioners ‘seems rather higher than might have been expected from the normal growth in the people eligible for this benefit.’ The clear implication is that the Department should seek to reduce the number of invalid pensioners. Further, the Director-General’s directive that the state of the labour market must be disregarded’ is absurd when disabled people are victimised in the labour market and when there is a permanent high level of unemployment.

Review of invalid pensioners by the Department of Social Security should emphasise people’s needs and entitlements and how to increase services and their access to services.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Life Insurance and Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I present the following petition from 378 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

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

That the proportion of pensionable people within our community is increasing at a significant rate. The number of people over 65 years old will rise from approximately 8.5 per cent of the population as it was in 1 970 to over 10 per cent by 1 990 and about 16 per cent by the year 2020.

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

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

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

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

Remove contributions paid by the taxpayer to superannuation funds from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income.

Allow as such deduction amounts necessary to provide the individual with a reasonable retirement benefit as defined from time to time by the Commissioner of Taxation.

Remove life insurance premiums paid from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income also.

Allow such a deduction to take the form of a flat rebate of 20 per cent of life insurance premiums up to a limit of$2, 500.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Acting Clerk- Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

National Women’s Advisory Council

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament 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 representative without intervention and interference by an unrepresentative ‘Advisory Council ‘.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Hamer, Lewis, Missen and Scott.

Petitions received.

Social Security Benefits

To the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth:

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

  1. Adjust all pensions and benefits quarterly to the Consumer Price Index, including the ‘ fixed ‘ 70 ‘s rate.
  2. Raise all pensions and benefits to at least 30 per cent of the Average Weekly Earnings.
  3. Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Maunsell, Puplick and Sim.

Petitions received.

page 1947

DAYS AND HOURS OF MEETING

Notice of Motion

Senator CARRICK:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

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

  1. That, unless otherwise ordered, the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday, 13 May 1980, at 3 p.m., unless otherwise called together by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable owing to illness or other cause, by the Chairman of Committees.
  2. That the Senate meet on Friday, 16 May 1980, and Friday, 23 May 1980, at 10.30 a.m. on each day, and that the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at 1 1 p.m. on each of those days.

page 1947

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1947

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN OLYMPIC TEAM: DEATH THREATS

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

-Has the attention of the Minister representing the Prime Minister been drawn to newspaper reports of death threats to the general manager of the Australian Olympic team, Mr Phil Coles? Is it correct that all members of the Australian Olympic team have been threatened with death, as claimed by Mr Coles both during a meeting of the Australian Olympic Federation in Melbourne and subsequently? Is the Government aware of any substance in these reports? If so, how have the threats been communicated to the athletes? Has the Government instructed that investigations be made into these matters by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, or whatever other appropriate body is concerned, to ensure the democratic freedoms of this country?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have not had my attention drawn to any such matter. I would appreciate it if Senator Button would give me the source of that material. Perhaps it is a newspaper article.

Senator Button:

– Today ‘sAge, page 1.

Senator CARRICK:

-I thank the honourable senator. I will certainly look at it. I will draw the matters to the attention of my colleagues in another place, specifically the Minister in charge of the Australian Federal Police. If there is any substance at all to the threats there is no doubt that the Government will want to investigate it and to find who is making the threats. It is an outrageous situation that in a country like Australia any such threats should be levelled.

page 1948

QUESTION

FALLING ENROLMENTS IN SCHOOLS

Senator LAJOVIC:

-Has the Minister representing the Minister for Education noted an article in yesterday’s Sun stating that 400 school staff face dismissal because of falling enrolments in many schools? Can the Minister inform the Senate whether the statement is correct? If it is, how significant is the fall in enrolments and which schools are mainly affected?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– A number of reports on these matters have been drawn to my attention. I asked the Commonwealth Department of Education to give me some information on the matter. I am advised that the Commonwealth Department of Education has recently released details of enrolments in government and nongovernment schools for 1 979 and projections for future years. These show an overall decline for all schools in Australia of approximately 5,000- that is, 0.2 per cent in 1979- compared with a decline of 18,000, or 0.8 per cent, in government schools and an increase of 13,000, or 2 per cent, in non-government schools. For 1980, total enrolments are projected to decline by between 6,000 and 7,000-0.2 per cent- with government school enrolments declining by 20,000 and non-government enrolments increasing by 14,000. The trends vary between the States. I will seek leave to have information concerning what I have said incorporated in Hansard.

Despite the falling enrolments in government schools and the fact that, on average, the Karmel resource targets have been achieved, the Commonwealth has maintained in 1980 the real level of its direct general recurrent funds for government schools in the States. In this way, the Government is maintaining its level of support for the staffing and other recurrent resources already achieved by government schools. I have not seen the Sun newspaper report, but there appears to be no basis for any such reduction in school staff.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted for the incorporation in Hansard of the material referred to by the Minister?

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

In NSW, Tor example, total enrolments in 1980 are projected to remain unchanged. However, government enrolments are projected to decline by approximately 6,000 or 0.7 per cent and non-government enrolments are projected to increase by 6,000 or 2.5 per cent.

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask that the document from which the Minister quoted be tabled.

Senator CARRICK:

-I am happy to do so. The document is a briefing from the Commonwealth Department of Education. It has been incorporated in Hansard.

page 1948

QUESTION

SUPPORTING PARENT’S BENEFIT

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question to the Minister for Social Security arises from what seems to be an increasing number of women who have signed declarations at the behest of field officers of the Department of Social Security saying that they are living in bona fide domestic relationships with a man and therefore losing their supporting parent’s benefit. At a later date it has been found on appeal that these women were wrong to have signed the declarations and that they were under a misapprehension as to the necessity to do so. Do field officers investigating people in these circumstances have with them the guidelines governing de facto or bona fide domestic relationships, as the Department calls them? Do they notify the clients of their rights under these guidelines? Do the field officers request the people involved to sign a standard form or statement? What protection have people in such circumstances from misstating their own case?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEI am not aware whether the field officers take with them any special form or statement on which they require a signature. I am aware that field officers make inquiries with regard to eligibility for any pension or benefit that is claimed. In some instances, whether a bona fide relationship existed would be one of the things that needed to be determined. I will check to see whether field officers take with them a form of a special nature and I will check also whether they make clear to the clients of the Department the terms of the Act and what people are required to do to establish their eligibility. I will see what further information can be given with regard to the administrative practice that is adopted by the Department in this matter.

page 1948

QUESTION

DOMESTIC AIRCRAFT: AVAILABILITY OF NON-SMOKERS SEATS

Senator HAMER:
VICTORIA

-Has the Minister representing the Minister for Health seen the results of a recent study carried out by the University of California which shows that cigarette smoke, which is proven to be a serious danger to the smoker, is also a danger to nearby nonsmokers? Does the Government accept the validity of this research? If so, is the Government taking any consequential actions in its area of responsibility, in particular by seeing that the internal airlines provide adequate numbers of non-smoking seats? I ask this question with feeling because on my last three flights I have been unable to get a non-smoking seat because not sufficient were available.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEI understand that the Minister for Health is aware of the research that was carried out at the University of California. I am not aware whether he has established the validity of the findings of that research. I am advised that as the result of a number of approaches by the Department of Health in recent years the domestic airlines have increased the proportion of seats allocated in aircraft to non-smokers. These approaches have included requests to the airlines concerned to take into account the effects of smoke inhalation on non-smokers when determining smoker and non-smoker seating configuration. The Department of Health will continue to keep the matter under review. I can only hope that Senator Hamer will be able to obtain the seat that he requires in each aircraft.

page 1949

QUESTION

DOMESTIC AIR FARES

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport: Is it a fact that Trans-Australia Airlines has recently announced a change in policy relating to advance purchase and standby fares? Is it also a fact that the Minister for Transport recently criticised TAA for making this announcement without the Government’s approval, despite the fact that in the announcement TAA acknowledged that its proposals were subject to Government approval? Is this the first occasion during the recent heightened competition between the two major domestic operators on which the Government has seen fit to criticise either of them for proposing new measures to improve services to the travelling public? If this is so, why did the Minister for Transport in this case single out for a reprimand TAA when it is apparent that counter moves by each airline to win more passengers are now the order of the day?

Senator CHANEY:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I should make it clear that the Government welcomes the increased competition between the airlines and their obviously increased readiness to offer competitive and innovative fares which will benefit the travelling public in Australia. I am not aware of the comment which Senator Wriedt attributed to Mr Hunt and I am not able to comment on it. I am not aware of whether Mr Hunt has made criticisms of other announcements. A series of announcements have been made subject to subsequent Government approval. The special discount fares which were offered by TransAustralia Airlines on the Melbourne-Sydney route for the coming May school holidays have been approved by the Government. Those fares will enable people to take advantage of otherwise empty seats on back-loading flights which are caused by the differences between school holidays in Sydney and Melbourne. Ansett Airlines of Australia is currently offering changes to its Apex fares which have yet to receive the approval of the Government. We have a series of announcements, therefore, which have in common one or other of the airlines producing something new for the benefit of the Australian travelling public. The airlines are rushing to advertise these benefits before they complete the process of obtaining Government approval. No doubt they are doing that so that they will get maximum commercial advantage from a course of conduct which the Government thoroughly encourages.

page 1949

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION: CRICKET BROADCASTS

Senator ROCHER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications: What were the objectives of the Australian Broadcasting Commission in spending almost $70,000 over a period ended 19 February 1980 to promise its cricket broadcasts? Was it necessary to spend nearly $55,000 for advertising on commercial television to communicate a message which was self-evident to Australian cricket lovers? Do commercial advantages accrue to the ABC from expenditure on advertising of this kind?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– As ali honourable senators are aware, the Australian Broadcasting Commission is funded by the Government and within its budget it operates at the discretion of the Commission. Part of its activities involves advertising various services which are provided by the ABC with a view to ensuring that the services reach the target audience. The Government does not, of course, seek to control the ABC in such matters. Whether money should be spent on advertising of that sort is a matter for the commercial judgment of the Commission. As far as commercial advantage in a direct sense is concerned, I understand that the advertising also directs attention to the availability of cassettes, booklets and so on related to the cricket, which are provided by the ABC. The ABC believes that advertising increases sales. But it is a matter for the judgment of the Commission. It may well be that in light of the considerable debate in this place and in the other place about the failure of the

ABC to obtain the television rights to broadcast cricket during the relevant season, the ABC thought it was necessary to draw attention to the continuance of the radio service.

Senator ROCHER:

– I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister try to find out, and let the Senate know, the value of the tapes and cassettes or publications to which he has referred, and will he give honourable senators some idea of the commercial value of that enterprise?

Senator CHANEY:

– I would be pleased to ask the ABC to provide that information for the honourable senator. I make it clear, however, that I did not wish to imply by my answer that the $70,000 or so worth of advertising was directed solely to the sale of those items. The major reason for the advertising was to attract a substantial listening audience and it is the belief of the ABC that it was effective in that regard also.

page 1950

QUESTION

LASER BEAMS

Senator ELSTOB:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment. The use of laser beams is now on the increase for amusement and in the industrial and medical fields. Will the Minister inform the House what controls and standards are imposed by Federal or State authorities for the use of laser? Are any safety regulations in force for the use of laser beams to produce multicoloured lights in amusement halls? Has the Minister read medical reports which state that the indiscriminate use of laser beams can harm eyesight? If there are no satisfactory Australiawide licensing laws to govern the use of laser, will the Government consider consulting State authorities to bring about licensing laws to cover laser beam use and operation?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I will refer that question to the Minister for Science and the Environment for investigation and reply.

page 1950

QUESTION

HEALTH INSURANCE

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the Government concerned at the considerable number of people who are opting out of health insurance funds, which is creating exceptional financial difficulties for hospitals and which must inevitably lead to an increase in fund subscriptions, which are already too high? In the interests of reducing health costs to consumers, has the Government given consideration to requiring patients to belong to a recognised health benefit fund before allowing them a subsidy from taxpayers’ funds, of course allowing for free treatment and hospitalisation of pensioners and indigent people? Also, has the Government given consideration to encouraging the funds to introduce a no-claim bonus for non-users of hospital and health facilities? If not, will the Government examine these proposals?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEThe Minister for Health advises that available figures show that there has been a decrease in the number of people covered for at least basic medical and hospital insurance, but the decrease appears to be relatively small at this stage. In December 1 978 the number of people covered for at least basic medical insurance was 8.672 million, and in December 1979 it was 8.448 million, a fall of 2.3 per cent. For basic hospital insurance the figures are: December 1978, 9.12 million covered, and in December 1979, 8.622 million covered, a fall of 4.2 per cent. The Government acknowledges the decreases in the number of persons covered by registered health insurance and is aware of the effects which a continuing trend of this nature might have on private hospitals and medicines. However, the Minister for Health points out that the decreases which have occurred do not justify the Government’s taking any hasty action. The situation will have to be monitored very closely and, if action proves necessary, the Government will act.

It is in this context that I note the suggestions of the honourable senator. He will be aware that the Government is currently reviewing various aspects of the health insurance arrangements. His suggestion that people, apart from pensioners and the disadvantaged, belong to a registered health insurance fund before they receive Commonwealth health benefits is one among many options which are available to the Government. With regard to other aspects such as the introduction of a no-claim bonus or something of that son, I should explain that the health insurance arrangements are based on the community rating principle under which the health risk of contributors is spread over the entire membership of an individual health fund. Under the community rating principle which this Government endorses, no distinction is made between individuals on the basis of age, sex, family size or claims experience. Whilst recognising that a no-claim bonus based on risk or experience rating may have some limited value as a deterrent to the overutilisation of health services, other arrangements considered more acceptable in the field of health insurance are already permitted. For example, a front end deductibles arrangement allows people to meet more of their initial health care costs from their own pockets in return for reduced health insurance premiums. The health insurance funds may, if they wish, operate deductible packages. Several offer various types of deductible packages and many individual insurers find the scheme that suits them best with the insurance funds. I will refer the matter raised by Senator Jessop to the Minister for Health to see whether he wishes to make a further response to it.

page 1951

QUESTION

INDEPENDENT AND MULTICULTURAL BROADCASTING CORPORATION

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. In view of the media speculation and public concern about the cost to the public purse of the proposed Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporationestimates of up to $ 140m have been quoted- can the Minister say what investigations the Government has carried out to determine the full cost, including all costs associated with the installation of and changes to technical equipment, of setting up this service? What are the results of those investigations?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– Honourable senators would be aware that the establishment of the Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation arises from pre-election undertakings made by the Government which it is proceeding to meet. Honourable senators would also be aware that the Special Broadcasting Service has been conducting pilot programs which have provided some experience in both radio and television for ethnic communities. I will have to refer the detailed matters about which the honourable senator has asked to Mr Staley for reply.

page 1951

QUESTION

AQUATIC WEEDS

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

-I ask the Minister for National Development and Energy what actions and/or recommendations have come forward from the meeting of the Australian Water Resources Council which was held on 23 November last on the control of aquatic weeds in inland waters? Are there any particular weeds or waterways to which this research or action has greatest importance?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The Australian Water Resources Council has established a committee comprising experts from both water and agricultural authorities to review the major problems caused by aquatic weeds in Australia in the light of the Mitchell report and the recommendations of the AWRC seminar on the management of aquatic weeds which was held in February last year. The committee has since completed its deliberations and made a number of specific recommendations. Its report will be considered by the AWRC Standing Committee on, I think, 20 May this year. I understand that the report identifies the major water-weed problem species but this information will not be available until the report has been considered by the Australian Water Resources Council.

page 1951

QUESTION

AGENT ORANGE

Senator EVANS:
VICTORIA

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, concerns matters relevant to the agent orange affair. Is the Minister aware of the well known statement by Mr Justice Windeyer in the Voyager case, Parker v. Commonwealth in 1965, to the effect that serving members of the armed forces cannot recover against other servicemen or the Commonwealth in respect of injuries negligently inflicted on them during their service? Is she further aware that in several cases in recent years this has been treated as a definitive statement of the law by Supreme Court judges in various jurisdictions, notwithstanding that counsel for the Commonwealth have been instructed by successive Attorneys-General not to rely actively on that dictum? Given this apparent confusion in the state of the law and given its obvious importance for the fate of the agent orange litigation now pending, what action does the Commonwealth propose to take to ensure that servicemen’s just claims can, in fact, be tried?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEThe Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, through his Department, has a comprehensive apparatus through which claims may be made by exservicemen for benefits under the Repatriation Act. I am not familiar with the judgment in the Voyager case which was mentioned by Senator Evans. I am also not able to deal with the aspects of his question with regard to confusion which may arise in the minds of veterans or others with regard to claims. I will refer the whole question to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and seek a response from him on these matters.

page 1951

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILL

Senator PUPLICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether he has seen an article in today’s Sydney Morning Herald under the heading ‘Secret Look at “Open

Government” Plans’ in which it is reported, in relation to the Public Service’s consideration of the freedom of information report by a Senate committee:

In only six months, small groups of anonymous public servants have whittled away the recommendations to leave mainly token administrative changes.

Is this Government still committed to having an effective freedom of information Bill? Will the Leader of the Government ensure that the response to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs is made within the promised six months? Is the substance of the report in the Sydney Morning Herald correct? If it is, does the Leader of the Government accept that it is behaviour such as this which brings governments into massive disrepute and that it is attempts such as this by the Public Service to protect itself and shield its work and frequent failures from public scrutiny which make effective freedom of information legislation in Australia so necessary?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I have not seen the article in the Sydney Morning Herald. Therefore I am unable to say whether it is correct in substance. I will look at it. It is the intention of the Government to produce an effective freedom of information Bill. I am not sure of the progress of the Government’s response to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. I will ask my colleague the Acting Attorney-General what progress has been made in that regard and I will inform Senator Puplick accordingly.

page 1952

QUESTION

TELEPHONE CHARGE QUERIES

Senator PRIMMER:

-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications indicate what options are available to Telecom Australia to curtail the number of call charge queries, which are stated to have been 50,000 in capital cities alone in 1977-78, and the consequent expenditure of $2. 5m to resolve those queries?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am not aware of what action can be taken by Telecom Australia. I assume that the honourable senator is referring to those people who make a query with respect to a specific telephone call. That is a matter which has not been brought to my attention. I will ask Mr Staley to let the honourable senator have a reply.

page 1952

QUESTION

SOVIET AGGRESSION

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs been drawn to the article circulated to many members of the Senate headed ‘Unite Against Soviet Aggression ‘? Can the Minister say whether the map depicting the southward thrust on Asia of Soviet expansion is accurate?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Like other members of the Senate, I had circulated to me an article titled Unite Against Soviet Aggression’. I have had only a short time to study it. It appears that it is accurate in its essential thrust of identifying points of Soviet expansion and aggression. I am unable to say whether the full copy is accurate. I will ask the Department concerned to put it under study and let Senator Walters know.

page 1952

QUESTION

GROUND WATER STUDY IN NEW SOUTH WALES AND VICTORIA

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware that his Government has made arrangements with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to participate in a joint ground water study of the areas of the Murray Basin in New South Wales and Victoria, together with the two State governments? Can the Minister inform the Parliament whether the joint study will continue or whether it will be abandoned as a result of the current campaign of terminating all associations with Russia, except where this country is selling war materials and similar goods to the USSR?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I do not have the information at hand. I will seek it and let Senator Keeffe know.

page 1952

QUESTION

IMPACT OF TELEVISION ON CHILDREN

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I refer to my recent questioning relating to the response of the Government to the inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts into the impact of television on children.

Senator Grimes:

– That is the Davidson report.

Senator DAVIDSON:

-Sometimes it is called the Davidson report. Has the Minister seen pages 2397 and 2398 of yesterday’s House of Representatives Hansard in which the Minister for Post and Telecommunications gave a detailed response to the recommendations of the Committee which the Government has accepted or rejected? Is the Minister aware that the Government has given this response to a member of the House of Representatives and that no information has been received by the Senate Committee? In view of my frequent inquiries regarding the Government’s response, for how much longer will the Government and the Minister for

Post and Telecommunications continue to insult the Senate Committee? In all seriousness, if the Minister looks at pages 2397 and 2398 of the Hansard he will see an answer which is about 1 Vi pages long and which gives the governmental responses to the Senate Committee ‘s report on the impact of television on children. In the light of the Prime Minister’s direction in relation to responses to reports, I ask in all seriousness: Will the Minister give me as Chairman of that Committee the Government’s responses? I ask for them immediately.

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am somewhat embarrassed to say that I have read only as far as page 2359 of yesterday’s House of Representatives Hansard. Now that I look at page 2397 1 see that there is a quite lengthy answer which has been put down by Mr Staley in response to a question asked by Mr Les Johnson in the other place. A number of parts of that answer appear to relate to recommendations of the Davidson Committee report. I am not able to explain why that answer has been given prior to a response being given in the Senate. Obviously I will seek an early reply from Mr Staley as to what has happened. I will also ask him when the Senate can expect a response on behalf of the Government to the report.

page 1953

QUESTION

ISLAM

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware that a representative of the Ayatollah Khomeini recently told a meeting in Sydney of Australian residents who are of the Islamic religion and have personal connections with Middle East countries that their two main aims in life should be: Firstly, to undertake a pilgrimage to Mecca and, secondly, to support Iranian-type revolutions in the country in which they reside? Does the Government have any views on such activities within Australia of a representative of the de facto head of the Government of Iran?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I had not heard that information before. If there were an attempt to generate inside Australia revolutionary movements of any kind of military character, other than the ordinary expression of viewpoints, of course, it would offend against the laws of the country. I suggest that Senator Sibraa supply me with the source of his information and I will have the matter investigated.

page 1953

QUESTION

ADELAIDE AIRPORT

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Transport aware of a statement made by Sir Lenox Hewitt with regard to

Qantas Airways Ltd and the suggestion that Adelaide Airport should become an international airport, particularly with regard to flights from Adelaide to New Zealand via Hobart? Is the Minister aware that Qantas has stated that runways at the Adelaide Airport would have to be extended to meet international standards? Can the Minister state whether any such extension of these runways is contemplated by the Government at the present time?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I think I was asked a question yesterday about the possibility of Adelaide becoming an international airport. I am not able to give any information beyond what I gave to the Senate then. Suggestions have been made that the Adelaide Airport should become an international airport. As I indicated yesterday, that would involve a number of things being done at the Adelaide Airport, not only with respect to runways but also with respect to passenger facilities and the facilities required for international movement- immigration and all the rest. Those are matters which I referred to the Minister for Transport for a response. I have to do the same with Senator Young’s question.

page 1953

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT TRAINING SCHEMES

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs been drawn to a statement made by the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures that the various Government employment training schemes have not been filled satisfactorily, that there is a surplus of funds and that employers find the present schemes unsatisfactory? Also, has the Minister noticed that this year there has been a repeated influx of skilled people from overseas? Can the Minister say what programs exist to fix up this paradox whereby we are recruiting people from overseas at the same time as the various schemes we have established do not seem to be working satisfactorily? What consideration has the Government given to these matters?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– For some years now the Government has been endeavouring to develop a variety of schemes to encourage young people to leave school with sufficient skills and sufficient motivation to go into technical training in the technical and further education institutions and in industry, to become apprentices and, ultiultimately, skilled tradesmen. The fact is that it has been a world-wide trend for young people to move away from that field, as Senator Bishop said. Senator Bishop has defined a very real problem indeed. It has been sought to undertake a very large number of measures.

Primarily, of course, the Technical and Further Education Council and the Tertiary Education Commission have combined in very large expenditures on technical and further education to develop in Australia effective means of rapidly increasing technical and further education training and of creating environments in which young people will enter those institutions feeling that those institutions are at least of equal status to other institutions. I was able, as Minister for Education, to form a Tertiary Education Commission and to establish that technical and further education was not only a form of tertiary education but also of equal status to that in colleges and universities.

Senator Button:

– Come on! You did not do that; it was done by the Whitlam Government.

Senator CARRICK:

-The interjection is that that was done by the Whitlam Government. Of course, that Government refused so to do. In fact, the Whitlam Government decided that it would amalgamate universities and colleges and would leave technical and further education outside the ambit of the Tertiary Education Commission. So we had better get the facts straight. The record of history will show that what I said is so. The record of history will show that I, as Minister for Education, rejected the Bill, which was latent on the books, designed to form a tertiary education commission for only the universities and colleges. That was a Whitlam Bill. I brought technical and further education into that system.

The fact is that employers have held numerous discussions with governments to seek to find ways of speeding up the development of apprentices. Some progress has been made. The Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training Scheme and other schemes have been helpful. There is no scheme which naturally selects itself, here or elsewhere in the world. Senator Bishop, with his basic background in such areas, will know that the difficult situation today in regard to subcontracting makes it hard to get collections of journeymen together in one place to allow apprentices to be as readily trained as they were in the past. But my colleague, the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, has embarked upon a number of schemes. I will collect information on them and let Senator Bishop have it.

Senator BISHOP:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Will the Minister be good enough to examine the complaint made by the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures that in fact the funds are not being spent as quickly as they might be?

Senator CARRICK:

– Yes. I am sorry. I had made a note to comment on that. I was not aware that the funds were not being expended at the rate at which they had been allocated. I certainly will ask my colleague in another place to investigate the matter.

page 1954

QUESTION

SUGAR INDUSTRY: OIL CONSERVATION

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

-Is the Minister for National Development and Energy aware that the 33 sugar mills in Australia burn between 35,000 and 45,000 tonnes of fuel oil a year, worth nearly $7m at November 1979 prices? Is he also aware that the industry is prepared to spend in excess of $70m to install alternative energy sources for boiler fuel to reduce oil consumption by 90 per cent in some instances and at least 75 per cent in all instances, but it is prevented from doing this because the Government denies it the investment allowance and taxation concessions announced in the 1979 Budget for conversion from fuel oil to other energy sources? In view of the worthwhile savings in oil consumption available if the sugar industry converts to other energy sources, will the Minister give early and favourable consideration to amendment of the legislation so that his frequently stated aim of conservation of fuel oil can be achieved?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Representatives of the sugar industry approached me this morning and drew my attention to the fact that they are not eligible under the existing legislation to receive taxation concessions on the conversion from oil to other energy sources. The basic reason is that the industry would need to be a residual user of fuel oil at times in the conversion of sugar. It is true that they claim that there would be a very considerable saving of fuel oil, of the order of 40,000 tonnes a year. I have undertaken to put the matter under study to see whether anything can be done. I am very conscious of the fact that a saving of fuel oil of that amount would be significant in Australia. I had not previously realised that such a saving could be made. I will have discussions with my colleague, the Treasurer, and see whether anything can be done.

page 1954

QUESTION

APPLICATIONS FOR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

-The Minister for Social Security will be aware of the high proportion of migrants and Aborigines among those applying for unemployment benefit in the various regions of the Northern Territory. Is she aware that many of these people experience difficulty in completing the application form? Will she indicate what assistance is or could be made available to applicants who find themselves in this position?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEI am aware that migrants and Aboriginals have difficulty in completing some of the details required by the Department of Social Security on forms. I think it would be understood that people in the Department assist migrants and Aboriginals as far as possible. Many other agencies also give assistance to people who find themselves in these circumstances. Assistance for migrants and people with language difficulties is also available in most departmental offices. In general, the Department offers as much assistance as possible to anyone who has difficulties in completing application forms. If any specific difficulties are not being met, the Department will be pleased to find supplementary assistance in those cases. I will investigate the position in the Northern Territory to see whether there are any difficulties that could be overcome in ways different from those presently being employed, to ensure that the maximum degree of assistance is given so that people are able to determine their eligibility for unemployment benefit.

Senator ROBERTSON:

– I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister giving any thought to simplifying the application form for use by people in the Northern Territory?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEThe Department has not given any consideration to having a different form in the Northern Territory, as far as I know. The form which has been reprinted recently requires detailed information on many aspects to assist in the early determination of eligibility for unemployment benefit. In the reprinting of the form, which will be undertaken soon, it will be possible to look at any matters that are giving particular difficulty. If Senator Robertson would like to discuss these matters with me or my Department, consideration could be given to the matter. I think it has been the practice of the Department to have a form that is uniformly in use. If there are any difficulties which are able to be overcome, we will attempt to do that.

Many of the changes to the form that is in use at present arose from recommendations of the review team of my Department’s administration and from recommendations of the Myers Inquiry into Unemployment Benefit Policy and Administration. In many instances they were introduced to enable the Department quickly to determine that there was eligibility and to minimise any abuse under the Social Services Act. I know that in many instances queries have been made with regard to some of the information that is required. I do stress that many of the changes which have been made resulted from the recommendations that were made by the committees of inquiry into the administration of the Department.

page 1955

QUESTION

OLYMPIC GAMES: SOVIET PAYMENT OF EXPENSES

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Is the Government aware of an alleged report that the Soviet Ambassador in Luxembourg has made an approach to certain key Luxembourg officials that his Government would be prepared to pay expenses for that country to attend the Moscow Olympic Games? Is the Minister aware of any similar overtures having been made to Australian Olympic officials or athletes? Should any such approach be made, what would be the Government’s attitude?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Apparently I have not read my newspapers today as thoroughly as I might have. The fact is that I have not seen that report and I would be grateful if Senator Bonner would indicate its source. Certainly I have no knowledge of any such approach in Australia. I have no doubt that if it were made there would be no need for the Government to act. I am utterly sure that the Australian athletes would reject any such approach. Quite clearly it would be anunethical means of attempting politically to persuade people to go to the Games. The athletes themselves, who are wholesome and decent Australians, would react against it.

page 1955

QUESTION

BEEF PRICES

Senator GIETZELT:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is it not a fact that beef producers report a reduction of 25 per cent in the value of each head of cattle sold? Is the Minister concerned at statements by the Cattlemen’s Union of Australia that beef prices in shops do not reflect those paid to producers? Will the Government respond to that union’s call for quality grading of meat, renovation of the distribution network and the pegging of retail prices to cattle prices? Finally, is the Government not concerned at the failure of the market to provide consumers with cheaper meat?

Senator SCOTT:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Resources · NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

-I am aware of the fall in prices in the beef industry in recent times. As Senator Gietzelt has remarked, it is a significant fall of some 20 per cent to 25 per cent. That fall is to be regretted. It is due to a number of things, including financial circumstances in America and the competition in America from meats other than beef. These sorts of circumstances occur from time to time. I am aware, and regret, that the prices of beef in shops are as high as they are. However, let me say that the beef industry in Australia has just been through one of the most serious downturns in its history, and today’s prices are just starting to put the industry on the road back.

The honourable senator refers to quality and grading circumstances. The Government is well aware of the need for a satisfactory system of quality and grading performance. On another occasion, perhaps it was only yesterday, I answered a question referable to that situation. Investigations as to a proper system of quality and grading are being carried out over a wide canvas in Australia today. I do not believe that the pegging of retail prices is within the power of the Government. I am not sure that either the retailers or the consumers, who themselves are in some measure retailers, would agree that pegging of prices, was totally desirable. We are certainly aware of the downturn in the beef industry. We are concerned about it and we hope and believe that it is a temporary circumstance.

page 1956

QUESTION

TELEPHONE ACCOUNTS

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

-No doubt the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications will remember the questions I have asked previously regarding the correctness or otherwise of telephone accounts. He might even remember the unkind things he said about my mother’s being scared of the telephone. Has the Minister seen the Auditor-General’s report which lists 23 ways in which my mother might well have been worried by her telephone account? In other words, has he seen the Auditor-General’s report which lists 23 ways in which incorrect metering of accounts can arise, 15 of which would lead to overcharging by the Australian Telecommunications Commission? Will the Minister ask Telecom to institute immediately, and as much as possible, the photographing of meter readings as a means of readily verifying them and as a basis for quality control? Will he immediately institute detailing of subscriber trunk dialling charges, as I have asked for on previous occasions? Finally, will Telecom re-examine all complaints received over the last five years in which Telecom has dismissed a subscriber’s complaints, and will the Minister apologise to my mother?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-As a matter of fact I tried to ring Senator Townley ‘s mother, but I realised that I could not be sure what I would be charged so I put the thought aside. I did see, with what I can only describe as a sinking feeling, the report to which the honourable senator has referred. I cannot say that I have read the whole of the report. I have had a chance only to have some brief communication with Mr Staley, who I am sure would join me in apologising to the honourable senator’s mother. The report raises serious questions about charging practices which have been -

Senator McLaren:

– I raise a point of order. Mr President, my point of order relates to the ruling that you gave yesterday on the AuditorGeneral ‘s report. You ruled that Senator Walsh was unable to debate matters entailed in the Auditor-General’s report which you tabled yesterday. Are the Minister and Senator Townley now in order in referring to that same report on which you ruled yesterday?

The PRESIDENT:

– The point of order is not valid. The situation is not in parallel with that of yesterday.

Senator CHANEY:

– I withdraw any imputation against Senator Townley ‘s mother, if that was the main concern. The Auditor-General ‘s report details matters which have been raised in this chamber by a number of honourable senators. Senator Townley referred to his own frequent efforts. Senator Wriedt has raised the matter. Indeed, a number of honourable senators during a couple of sittings of Estimates committees have addressed a long series of questions to Telecom inspectors. Mr Staley has pointed out to me that the report identifies and documents problems which can now be addressed seriously by Telecom. Mr Staley is seeking from the Commission a detailed report and advice on the steps needed to overcome any problems. In conclusion, the difficulty which has been raised by Telecom in the past, when this matter has been made the subject of questioning by honourable senators, is the considerable capital cost which might be involved in changing the system. No doubt, in light of the Auditor-General’s report, the matter needs careful re-examination. I undertake that the Minister will be giving it that careful re-examination.

page 1957

QUESTION

USE OF OUTER SPACE

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. As there is a possibility of a conflict between Japan and Australia in areas parallel to the equator served by orbiting telecommunication satellites, can the Minister inform me of what international authority, if any, has jurisdiction over the allocation of areas of operation in space, the numbers of satellites in orbit, the recalling of redundant satellites and the general orderly planning of the use of outer space? Has Australia any representation on such an international authority, if one does exist?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am not aware of the answer to the honourable senator’s question. I will seek a reply from Mr Staley.

page 1957

QUESTION

MEAT INSPECTION COSTS

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry aware of a claim recently made by the New South Wales Livestock and Grain Producers Association that Australian consumers pay millions of dollars more for their meat than they should because of a duplicated abattoir inspection process? Is it a fact that, in New South Wales alone, Commonwealth and State inspectors, working side by side, cost consumers and farmers an extra $10m a year? Did a recent Federal committee of inquiry recommend the establishment of a single national body to control meat inspection in Australia? Is a Government decision on this matter close at hand?

Senator SCOTT:
NCP/NP

– I am aware that there are some anomalies in the meat inspection system in Australia which provides for double inspection and which involves a significantly greater cost than there probably should be. I am doubtful whether the increase is as great as Senator Messner indicated. A report known as the Kelly report was brought down and drawn to the Government’s attention recently. It stated, amongst other things, that some of the extra cost involved was referable to reinspection of meat at State borders and indeed within States. This sort of additional cost is a matter which comes within the province of the relevant State, not within the province of the Commonwealth. At this stage the Kelly report is with the State Premiers for their investigation and deliberations. It is not possible for the Commonwealth Government to take unilateral action in this matter. The views of the livestock and meat processing industries are also being sought and the final outcome will be pursued as rapidly as possible by the Commonwealth in co-operation with the States.

page 1957

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN REFUGEE ADVISORY COUNCIL

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I refer to a question I asked several weeks ago when I sought advice on the action of the Australian Refugee Advisory Council in having a seminar which apparently was off-limits to members of the Federal Parliament. What groups were represented at the seminar? Does the Minister not think that the personnel of Estimates Committee C, with their expertise, could have been invited to the seminar to make a positive contribution?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEI have a list of the names of, and positions held by, the members who constitute the Australian Refugee Advisory Council. It may be appropriate that later I seek leave to have that list incorporated in Hansard. It includes the Chairman, the Honourable Mr Justice Gobbo, and representatives of the Migrants and Refugees Committee of the Society of St Vincent de Paul, the Vietnamese Association of Queensland, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Returned Services League of Australia and organisations of that kind. I think that about 20 people are on the Advisory Council, which was established to advise the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs on the movement to Australia of refugees and their settlement in this country. To assist the Council in its work, it was decided to invite representatives of voluntary agencies, church groups and State and local government authorities who were involved in various aspects of refugee sponsorship and settlement. It was a meeting which was held on 1 4 and 1 5 April to which Senator Mulvihill referred. A total of about 100 invitees attended, including the members of the Council and staff. To ensure that the size of the participating group did not reach unwieldy proportions, invitations were confined to those organisations specifically involved in sponsoring or rendering services to refugees.

I am sorry that Senator Mulvihill felt that it was a conference which either had some secrecy attached to it or was exclusive in some way. Several months ago, the secretariat to the Council sent notices of the intention to hold the conference to a large number of organisations and individuals involved in various aspects of the refugee program. Over the last few years there have been regular consultations between government departments involved in various aspects of refugee settlement, and these, like the current national consultation on refugees, were open only to those organisations and were meant to provide an opportunity for organisations working toward a common purpose to confer about common problems and to exchange information. I agree with Senator Mulvihill that there are many members of parliament who have taken an active interest in immigration matters and in the settlement of refugees and who could have contributed to the conference. I will draw that fact to the attention of the Minister so that on future occasions that expertise and that willing capacity to assist can be involved in the discussions that might be held. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the names of the members of the Australian Refugee Advisory Council.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

page 1958

QUESTION

PETROL SUPPLIES

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister for National Development and Energy. On 1 9 February this year the Minister wrote to a garage proprietor in Brisbane in these terms: . . gasolene discounting is not caused primarily by the crude oil allocation system but rather by the existence of substantial stocks of particular refined products. The existence of excess stocks may also be coupled with the existence of spare capacity at certain refineries.

In view of those remarks, I ask the Minister why he made this statement on A.M. the other morning:

Petrol discounting has been a feature of Australia over the years. There is no glut.

Further, he said:

No. they’re not going in for aggressive marketing because they’ve got a surplus of petrol at all. That is not true.

Will the Minister please explain to me what is the difference between excess stocks and a glut of petrol? I reinforce the question I asked him earlier this week about a 20 per cent glut of petrol in Brisbane at present.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– There is no difficulty in reconciling these matters. In fact, what has happened is that under this Government the stocks of both crudes and products have been built up very substantially for obvious reasons of security, because there could be, whether from the Middle East or by some kind of accident in Bass Strait, a failure of supplies. Stocks have been built up so that there is a very substantial existence of product as well as of crudes at refineries. That is not a glut at all; it is simply the holding of adequate stocks. Indeed, the Government would be criticised very strongly if stocks of adequate products did not exist.

It is true that discounting of petrol has been a characteristic for a considerable time. To say that is not to agree with it or to approve of it. I am very well aware that independent operators believe that they are aggrieved in that the companies can supply their own outlets at a discriminatory low price, and therefore discount, while the independent proprietors who face a much narrower margin cannot discount. In point of fact what I have said is true. Senator Georges asked me whether in fact the supply of petrol available and the present competition were indications that the conservation policies of the Government were not working. I said no, that was not true and that, in fact, there was adequate evidence of a movement towards conservation, a movement towards more fuel efficient vehicles, a movement towards liquefied petroleum gas, and that the two were not related. I find that totally consistent.

page 1959

QUESTION

IRAN

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Yesterday I mentioned, in reply to a question asked by Senator Mason, that the United Nations had a resolution before it advocating trade sanctions against Iran on everything but food and medical supplies. I think Opposition senators indicated that they believed that this was not so. I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that on 13 January 1980 there was before the Security Council a resolution consisting of some three pages which I will seek to have incorporated in Hansard. The resolution failed only because Russia used the veto. Ten nations voted in favour of it and two nations, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and East Germany, voted against it. Bangladesh and Mexico abstained from voting. I think it is very important indeed that one should understand that, in fact, the United Nations Security Council, the highest body, desired to pass this motion. Indeed, it had overwhelming numbers to do so but the motion was defeated by veto. The part relevant to yesterday’s question states:

Decides that, until such time as the hostages are released and have safely departed from Iran, all states members of the United Nations:

shall prevent the sale or supply, by their nationals or from their territories, whether or not originating in their territories, to or destined for Iranian governmental entities in Iran or any other person or body in Iran, or to or destined for any other person or body for the purposes of any enterprise carried on in Iran, of all items, commodities, or products, except food, medicine, and supplies intended strictly for medical purposes.

The resolution is of very great significance, it being a Security Council resolution. I seek leave to have the full text of it incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

The Security Council,

Recalling its resolutions 457 (1979) of 4 December 1979, and 46 1 ( 1 979 ) of 3 1 December 1979;

Recalling also the appeal made by the President of the Security Council on 9 November 1979 (S/ 136 1 6) which was reiterated on 27 November 1979 (S/ 13652);

Having taken note of the letters dated 13 November 1979 and 1 December 1979 concerning the grievances and views of Iran (S/ 13626 and S/ 13671, respectively);

Having taken into account the order of the international court of justice of 15 December 1979 calling on the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to ensure the immediate release, without any exception, of all persons of United States nationality, who are being held as hostages in Iran (S/ 13697) and also calling on the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to ensure that no action is taken by them which will aggravate the tension between the two countries;

Further recalling the letter dated 25 November 1 979 from the Secretary-General (S/ 13646) stating that, in his opinion, the present crisis between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America poses a serious threat to international peace and security;

Bearing in mind the adoption by the General Assembly by consensus on 17 December 1979 of the convention against the taking of hostages;

Mindful of the obligation of States to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered and, to that end, to respect the decisions of the Security Council;

Conscious of the responsibility of States to refrain in their international relations from the threat of use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations;

Affirming that the safe release and departure from Iran of all those being held hostage is an essential first step in resolving peacefully the issues between Iran and the United States and the other States members of the international community;

Reiterating that once the hostages have been safely released, the Government of Iran and the United States of America should take steps to resolve peacefully the remaining issues between them to their mutual satisfaction in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations;

Further taking into account the report of the Secretary General of January 1980 (S/ ) made pursuant to resolution 467 ( 1979) of 3 1 December 1979;

Bearing in mind that the continued detention of the hostages constitutes a continuing threat to international peace and security;

Acting in accordance with articles 39 and 41 of the United Nations charter;

Decides that the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran shall release immediately all persons of United States nationally being held as hostages in Iran, provide them protection and allow them to leave the country;

Decides that, until such time as the hostages are released and have safely departed from Iran, all states members of the United Nations:

a ) Shall prevent the sale or supply, by their nationals or from their territories, whether or not originating in their territories, to or destined for Iranian governmental entities in Iran or any other person or body in Iran, or to or destined for any other person or body for the purposes of any enterprise carried on in Iran, of all items, commodities, or products, except food, medicine, and supplies intended strictly for medical purposes.

Shall prevent the shipment by vessel, aircraft, railway, or other land transport of their registration or owned by or under charter to their nationals, or the carriage whether or not in bond by land transport facilities across their territories of any of the items, commodities, and products-covered by sub-paragraph (a) which are consigned to or destined for Iranian governmental entities or any person or body in Iran, or to any enterprise carried on in Iran;

Shall not make available to the Iranian authorities or to any person in Iran or to any enterprise controlled by any Iranian governmental entity any new credits or loans; shall not, with respect to such persons or enterprises, make available any new deposit facilities or allow substantial increases in existing non-dollar deposits or allow more favourable terms of payment than customarily used in international commercial transactions; and shall act in a businesslike manner in exercising any rights when payments due on existing credits or loans are not made on time and shall require any persons or entities within their jurisdiction to do likewise;

Shall prevent the shipment from their territories on vessels or aircraft registered in Iran of products and commodities covered by sub-paragraph (a) above;

Shall reduce to a minimum the personnel of Iranian diplomatic missions accredited to them;

Shall prevent their nationals, or firms located in their territories, from engaging in new service contracts in support of industrial projects in Iran, other than those concerned with medical care;

Shall prevent their nationals or any person or body in their territories from engaging in any activity which evades or has the purpose of evading any of the decisions set out in this resolution;

Decides that all States members of the United Nations shall give effect forthwith to the decisions set out in operative paragraph 2 of this resolution notwithstanding any contract entered into or license granted before the date of this resolution.

Calls upon all States members of the United Nations to carry out these decisions of the security council in accordance with article 25 of the charter;

Urges, having regard to the principles stated in article 2 of the charter, states not members of the United Nations to act in accordance with the provisions of the present resolution;

Calls upon all other United Nations bodies and the specialized agencies of the United Nations and their members to conform their relations with Iran to the terms of this resolution;

Calls upon all States members of the United Nations, and in particular those with primary responsibility under the charter for the maintenance of international peace and security, to assist effectively in the implementation of the measures called for by the present resolution;

Calls upon all States members of the United Nations or of the specialized agencies to report to the Secretary General by 1 February 1980 on measures taken to implement the present resolution;

Requests the Secretary General to report to the council on the progress of the implementation of the present resolution, the first report to be submitted not later than 1 March 1980.

page 1960

QUESTION

MINING PROJECTS: EMPLOYMENT

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Yesterday and the day before Senator Button asked me a series of questions regarding the multiplier effect of processing plants in Australia and I think probably any manufacturing plants generally that might be envisaged. In subsequent discussion I think an honourable senator said: ‘Name some’. Mr President, you may recall the phrase. I have a list which in a moment I will seek to have incorporated in Hansard in order that I may name some. It contains a selection of the more significant mining and minerals processing investment projects which are either committed, planned or in the preliminary study stage.

The list has been compiled from information published by the Department of Industry and Commerce. Of course, it does not include a number of, as yet, unannounced projects about which the Government has been informed on a confidential basis by the companies involved. I made note of that yesterday. The latest estimate of the total value of mining and minerals processing investment projects, including those concerning petroleum, either committed, planned or in the preliminary study stage is $24 billion. This figure is necessarily uncertain to the extent that obviously the Government has not yet been notified of some planned projects that would add to the value, and to the extent that some projects which are planned may not be implemented.

As to the multiplier effect, the results of a recent empirical analysis of the employment effects of a large resource based project have been published by the University of Queensland. I refer to a T. D. Manderville and R. O. Jensen study entitled ‘Economic Impact of Industrial Developments at Gladstone’ which was carried out by the University of Queensland last year. It estimated that the direct, indirect and induced employment multiplier effect was around four.

This suggests that up to 160,000 extra jobs could be created throughout the economy if, as is quite possible, Australia doubled its share of world resource-based processing. Employment of this magnitude would increase the current total manufacturing employment level by about 14 per cent. Mr Manderville who is from the Economics Department of the University of Queensland, has also published this year a study on the economic impact of the Weipa bauxite mine. He has found an employment multiplier effect throughout the Queensland economy of about four. I seek leave to have the table incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

page 1962

INCOME TAX CONCESSIONS TO PRIMARY PRODUCERS

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Over the past few days several senators have raised with me the matter of the income tax concession announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on 1 4 April to assist primary producers by allowing immediate deductibility for capital expenditure on plant or structural improvements to conserve or convey water in a primary production business. It has been suggested that this incentive is of no use to a farmer who is suffering from the ravages of drought. Accordingly it is assumed that the farmer has neither the money to incur these expenditures nor the taxable income against which he has claimed these deductions. I sought specific and expert advice on this point.

The first point I would make on that advice is that this incentive has been announced as an encouragement to primary producers to increase their capacity to withstand drought. The legislation will apply to expenditures incurred by all primary producers and no time limit will be imposed as to when this expenditure may be incurred. It is a very shortsighted view to look only at the current situation.

I believe the point should be stressed that the fact that a farmer is suffering from the effects of drought does not necessarily mean that he does not have the income to take advantage of this concession, nor does it necessarily mean that he will not have a taxable income against which he could claim such a deduction.

I point out that there will undoubtedly be some farmers who, despite the effects of the recent drought, will have the wherewithal and taxable incomes in the current year. This could arise as a result of their business operations in the earlier part of the year or it could arise from the more recent sale of stock as a measure taken to ride out the drought. They could redeem their income equalisation deposits, or IEDs, which would have the effect of giving them cash to incur the expenditure and result in an assessable income of the amount of the income equalisation deposits redeemed against which they could deduct water conservation and conveying expenditures.

Finally, I should point out that the fact that a farmer does not have sufficient assessble income to absorb these new deductions in a particular year does not mean that those deductions are lost forever. Under the income tax law, primary producers are permitted an unlimited carry forward of losses arising from primary production.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

-by leave- Senator Carrick has raised a number of points. I think a statement of that importance ought to have been introduced as a ministerial statement and not in the way it was. He has raised points which, I believe, very rightly demand a response from the Opposition. Firstly, he has stated that the taxation measures introduced off the top of Malcolm Fraser’s head on 14 April were not designed as drought relief measures but were designed to increase the capacity of farmers to withstand future droughts. Whatever the merit of that argument may be, it begs the question: Why then were the measures disguised as drought relief measures? Why did not the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) have the honesty to say: ‘This is something we are introducing as an on-going program’? Why did he feel it was necessary to exploit the emotional climate which presently surrounds the drought in order to camouflage the introduction of these measures?

Senator Carrick also stated that some farmers will have quite high taxable incomes despite the drought. That is quite correct and that is the point the Opposition has been making. The sorts of farmers who will have high taxable incomes and who will be extremely well placed to take advantage of these measures are those who are not affected by drought and who have large off-farm incomes, of which the Prime Minister is a prime example. He has an off-farm income of at least $60,000 a year. I have no idea what his on-farm income is or what his income from nonPrimeMinisterial salary sources may be. He has an income of at least $60,000 a year from a farm which is not affected by drought. These measures are tailor-made to be exploited by people like the Prime Minister.

Senator Carrick raised the point that drought enforced sales of stock may also boost income in this year. That is obviously correct. I think it ought to be noted also that, so far as taxation provisions for income derived from sales forced by drought are concerned, the existing taxation Act provides that a further tax on livestock sales caused by drought may be deferred until future years. That is already in the Act. The Minister’s final point concerned income equalisation deposits. He has opened up an important area. If income equalisation deposits had not been sabotaged by the present Government in 1977, they would provide the sort of buffer fund that is needed and justified for farmers who are likely to suffer from drought. Income deposits would be made in years when incomes are high and deposits would be withdrawn in years when incomes are low. But because of the panic changes to taxation measures pertaining to averaging in 1977, the fact is that most farmers who use income equalisation deposits in that way- that is, those who make deposits when incomes are high and withdrawals when incomes are low- over the long term will pay more tax than if they had not so used the income equalisation deposits.

Conversely, those farmers who manipulate their taxable income in a way which destabilises it by the use of income equalisation depositsthat is, perversely, they make deposits in years of low income and withdrawals in years of high income- will pay less tax in the long term than they would otherwise pay. In other words, because of the panic changes introduced by the Government to the taxation Act in 1977 the whole principle of income equalisation deposits has been subverted. It is now a measure which provides incentives to farmers to manipulate their taxable incomes in a way which destabilises them instead of stabilising them.

The final point I make is that if the Government is concerned about increasing the long term capacity of farmers to withstand drought let it introduce a taxation rebate scheme which provides benefits proportional to expenditure for all those who incur such expenditure. That is not my understanding of what the Government intends to do. I understand that what the Government intends to do is to allow certain categories of capital expenditure to be an immediate deduction from taxable income. It is a deduction from taxable income and, therefore, provides the greatest benefits as do all income tax deductions to those people with the highest incomes. In this particular case when compounded by the effects of the investment allowance and also by the averaging provisions in subsequent years, the level of subsidy for a taxpayer with a taxable income above the maximum marginal rate of $33,000 is enormous. To quote a specific example, a taxpayer who has a constant income of $50,000 and who purchases, pursuant to these provisions, water reticulation equipment, pumps, electric motors, engines and so on will in fact receive in the first year a subsidy of 73 per cent. For every $100 that such a taxpayer spends on these measures the Government will provide 73 per cent. In subsequent years, because of the effect on averaging, a further 1 7 per cent will be picked up.

In other words, for the very richest- the Pitt Street farmers or other rich farmers- the Government will provide a 90 per cent subsidy for capital investment. Ninety dollars of every $100 of capital investment by these people will be funded by the taxpayers. The gains, of course, for the lower income groups- the farmers who do not have huge taxable incomes above $50,000- will be very much less. So, apart from the obvious distortion of rational investment decisions which massive subsidies of that type must create, the measure also is grossly inequitable within the agricultural sector.

At this stage, it might be pertinent also to draw the Government’s attention to the warning given by the present Director of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics at the Agro 79 Conference held in Perth last year. He warned farmers that taxation concessions of the type which induced the investment of outside capital in agriculture were not in the long term interests of the agricultural sector, let alone in the interests of the entire economy. If the Government rejects that analysis by its senior- I stress, senior- public servant in this area, the Director of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, I think that the Government ought to have the courage to say so. Of course, the point Mr Miller was making was that a 90 per cent taxpayer subsidy on capital investment obviously will attract a great deal of non-farm capital for investment in the agricultural sector.

Senator Messner:

– That is only a very limited area, Senator.

Senator WALSH:

– Does the honourable senator think that makes the principle right? Does he think that if it has only limited application it is correct? The point is that what this Government proposes to do is indefensible, either on equity grounds or on resource allocation grounds.

I make this final plea to the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick): If he has any influence with the Prime Minister or if the Prime Minister is capable of understanding the issue- that must be seriously doubted- will he ensure that, if the Government proceeds with this plan, it at least will change the form of what it proposes to the form of a tax rebate? That at least will provide uniform benefits, proportional benefits, to all those farmers who take advantage of it, instead of the proposed scheme which will provide a 90 per cent subsidy for those people on incomes of $50,000-plus a year and a subsidy of only a fraction of that for farmers on low incomes who really need assistance. ( Quorum formed).

page 1963

AUSTRALIAN LIVING STANDARDS

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received a letter from Senator Wriedt proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:

The failure of the Fraser Government to improve the real living standards of the average Australian family.

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

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

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

-On behalf of the Opposition, I have raised the following matter of public importance:

The failure of the Fraser Government to improve the real living standards of the average Australian family.

It is appropriate that this debate should follow the excellent speech we just heard from Senator Walsh, in which he gave an excellent example of the manner in which the Fraser Government has been operating since it has been in office, namely, the manner in which it is discriminating in the rural sector in favour of farmers and graziers of Mr Fraser’s ilk who are well able to withstand many of the ravages of the agricultural area, at the expense of those people who are less able to do so. It seems that the policy of Malcolm Fraser is just as strong in the bush as it is in the cities, that is, his policy of the more a person has the more he will get; the less he has the less he will get.

Addressing myself to the matter that we have before us, over the past few weeks a great deal of interest has been expressed in matters other than the economy, about which I need not say anything. But it is quite obvious that the Fraser Government has made a deliberate attempt to divert the attention of the Australian public away from what in fact is the most significant aspect of four years of Fraser government. I refer to the failure of the Fraser Government to improve the real living standards of the average Australian family. Let us take our minds back to 1 975, when Mr Fraser came to power. He made a series of promises which, I believe, led every Australian elector to believe that his standard of living would be very much higher under the Fraser Government, that the level of inflation would be lower, that interest rates would be lower, that personal and corporate taxation would drop and that smaller government would be the order of the day. There is no doubt whatsoever that Mr Fraser depicted himself as the lower taxation advocate and smaller government advocate. Perhaps I should repeat one of the promises he made in November 1975, just to remind us of what he said. On 1 7 November 1 975 he said:

We will undertake our program to introduce personal income tax indexation as a priority measure following the election -

That was the 1975 general election- as rapidly as circumstances permit. This will be a major, and I emphasise ‘a major’, guarantee of our commitment to reducing the personal tax burden which has been a major force behind inflation.

In the same speech, he went on to say:

Not merely will the growth of government spending be restrained by personal income tax indexation but consideration of all sections of the Australian people will be encouraged.

We believe that we should all be concerned about all sections of the Australian community. In spite of Mr Fraser’s frequent assertions that he proposed to govern for all Australians, under his government we have seen an assault on the living standards of wage and salary earners who, we know, constitute approximately 85 per cent of income earners. Is it any wonder that the wage and salary earners as well as the corporate sector are starting to weary of the incompetence, the failed promises, the massive overseas borrowings which have taken place, the increased interest rates, the higher taxation and, of course, the ever increasing petrol prices?

Let us pause for a moment and consider a couple of those. It was not very long ago that this Government, then in opposition, was berating the previous Labor Government for proposing to borrow $4,000m from overseas in order to develop Australia’s resources. Yet this Government, the Fraser Government, since it came to office already has borrowed $6,000m from overseas and also has permitted the States to borrow an additional $2,000m, making a total overseas borrowing program of no less than $8,000m under the Fraser Government. That amount has to be repaid in the years ahead. Some years ago we were told that an overseas borrowing program of that nature would ruin the economy. Yet here we are, after four years of Mr Fraser’s government, and twice the level of borrowing that was proposed by the previous Labor Government has been undertaken. It is interesting to consider that in one financial year, 1 983-84, which is only about two years away, the total repayment which the Australian Government will have to make on overseas borrowings by the Fraser Government- that is, the amount which the Australian taxpayers will have to pay out of taxes- will be nearly $ 1,000m.

Earlier I mentioned higher taxation. It is important to realise that, as I said, Mr Fraser promised that he would reduce taxation when he came to office, but since he has been in office, in fewer than four years, he has increased personal income tax collections by no less than $6,000m. A $6,000m increase in personal income tax has occurred under a government which claimed that it would reduce taxation on its coming to office. Naturally, with expectations of lower inflation rates, there was the possibility that interest rates would start to fall and that consumer confidence would rebuild. There was even the possibility that the massive amounts of money locked away in the savings banks deposits- these now amount to about $ 1 8 billion compared with about $12 billion four years ago- would be released and the consumer-led recovery to which the Government had so often referred might make a start.

There are some very good reasons why that did not happen and why the Government was forced to resort to other areas of possible economic recovery. It might be recalled that the first road out of the wilderness was to be via an investment-led recovery. Then there was to be a consumer-led recovery. Then there was to be a rural recovery through better rural commodity prices. Now we are back to a recovery which it is said will be induced by overseas investments at some time in the future but goodness knows when. One of the major reasons why the consumers of this country were reserved and held back on spending the massive savings which they had accumulated was the decline in real wages that has occurred during the term of this Government. People were apprehensive about the future. In times of doubt and uncertainty they will always pull back a little more and put more money away for what we generally call a rainy day.

Let us look at the record. In 1975-76 the average male weekly earnings stood at $169.60 a week. In September 1979 that figure had increased to $229.40 a week, an annual rate of increase of 7.6 per cent. At the same time, the minimum weekly wage rates for adult males rose by 7.3 per cent. There was an increase in average weekly earnings of 7.6 per cent and an increase in minimum weekly earnings of 7.3 per cent. But, significantly, over that period the consumer price index rose at an annual rate of 8.4 per cent. This means that in each year of the present Government the maintenance of the inflation rate has eroded wages and salaries, which has resulted in a decline in the real purchasing power of our disposable incomes. If anyone doubts that that has happened I suggest that he talk to a housewife who has to pay the bills and meet the prices which are increasing all the time. She would probably know better than all of us what it is like to keep up with the increasing prices with a wage or salary that is not increasing at those levels.

The Government promised tax indexation. Had that promise been implemented, the disparity between real wages and inflation might have been narrowed. But we know that that did not occur. In the Government’s very first year of office, despite the undertaking that was given, full tax indexation did not come about. In the following year, 1977-78, tax indexation was reduced to 80 per cent. In 1978-79 it was 35 per cent. In the Budget of 1978 tax indexation was scrubbed altogether. Instead, an iniquitous surcharge was placed on all taxpayers. Eventually, after considerable pressure, the Treasurer (Mr Howard) tried to redeem the situation and the tax surcharge was partially lifted from November 1979. Partial tax indexation of 38 per cent is to operate from 1 July this year. This is a record of vacillation and broken promises. I have listed in this chamber time and time again the occasions on which commitments were given by this Government, especially by Mr Fraser. Yet Mr Fraser has broken one promise after another. We are familiar with those broken promises. There is no need for me to restate them.

We are also conscious of the manner in which the policies of this Government have affected the price of petrol. Who would have believed two years ago that we in Australia would be paying as much as 37c a litre for our petrol? In fact, I understand that in some rural areas people are paying as much as 40c a litre. There has been a doubling of petrol prices. We must understand why petrol prices have raced away as they have over the past two years. It is simply because the Government, especially Mr Fraser, realised that here was a back-door method of getting thousands of millions of dollars extra income from the taxpayer while, at the same time, masquerading as a tax reducing government. This year the revenue from the petrol tax will be no less than $3,000m in round figures.

The increase in the crude oil levy which has brought about the increase in the price of petrol has simply been passed on to consumers. The price of petrol is one of the factors fuelling inflation. Yet when wage and salary earners go before the Arbitration Commission to try to restore the real value of wages and salaries, the Government argues that the consequences of its petrol pricing policies, that is the increase in its revenue from increasing the price of petrol, should be excluded from the Commission’s considerations. What an incredible proposition! Yet in this chamber the week before last we learnt that the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick) had invited the oil companies to seek from the Prices Justification Tribunal an increase in the price of petrol to compensate for the Government’s muddling with the prices of liquefied petroleum gas. This is yet another example of double standards being adopted by the present Government.

The increases in taxation have not been confined to the crude oil levy. We have seen increases in a number of other commodities such as tobacco, beer and spirits. The Government also introduced a 2 per cent revenue levy on all imports. The Budget Papers show how clearly the amount of personal income tax revenue has increased since this Government came to office. Bankruptcies are currently at their highest level. That is an astonishing position after four years of a government which claimed that it would ensure that there would be prosperity for people in the business sector, especially the small businessman. Vet these people are in continual trouble trying to maintain their businesses and employment.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the partial tax indexation which the Treasurer announced would operate from 1 July this year will be consumed by increases in housing loans and higher petrol prices. The Government will collect more in tax than it will hand back. The increased interest rates will further lower the real value of wages and salaries. If the finance companies borrow at an interest rate of 14 per cent or even more they will have to lend at rates of about 16 per cent. We already know that the Bankcard interest rate is 1 8 per cent. If the present trends in consumer finance were to continue it would not be surprising if interest rates were as high as 20 per cent by the end of the year.

All these factors are affecting the ordinary wage and salary earners in this country. There is no question that today their position is more difficult and that the reduction in real incomes is having a very serious impact on family life and the capacity of housewives and families to pay the bills. For example, we only have to look at the tragedy of health insurance. Medibank, which had been instituted by the previous Government, was destroyed by Mr Fraser despite the commitment that he would not do so. We all know now what an increased burden it is for the ordinary family just to maintain the health insurance to which every family is entitled.

We have had three years of alleged austerityausterity by a man, Mr Fraser, who as we all know said: ‘Life wasn’t meant to be easy’. Yet, this man is a millionaire five times over. In the discussion before this debate commenced there was reference to his income. His combined parliamentary and property income is somewhere in the order of a quarter of a million dollars a year. That is his good luck. What right has a man with an income of that level to be telling ordinary wage and salary earners that it is time they pulled in their belts, holding them back with no increases in real incomes and decreasing whatever real income levels they might be on? We have seen the complete disregard and lack of understanding that he exhibits of the lot of the ordinary person. He will go on and on. It is his intention to do that and to expect other people to continue living at certain income levels, while he enjoys the very best of it all. The petrol tax simply goes on forcing up the inflation rate which, in turn, forces up interest rates. That is making it progressively more difficult for the average householder to make ends meet.

The essence of the Opposition’s concern is to try to bring back to the attention of the Australian public- if that is necessary- the enormous burden which has been imposed by a government, and especially by a Prime Minister who does not understand the problems and difficulties of the ordinary wage and salary earner. If he did there might be a chance that he would take a more genuine liberal attitude not only to wage and salary earners but also to pensioners and so many other people in need. Of course, that is not his philosophy. That will never change. The only way that we can change the attitude at the government level is to get rid of Mr Malcolm Fraser.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– In bringing forward this matter of public importance the Opposition has mounted a fairly wide-ranging attack on the Government. There is only one aspect of it that I would like to mention and then dismiss, because I think the raising of it gives no merit to the Opposition. It was first hinted at by Senator Wriedt, when he said that the more one has, the more one gets. Later in his speech he made references to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), the fact that he has a farm and what the income of the Prime Minister might be. I simply say that in my view this sort of approach by the Opposition will bring nothing but contempt from the Australian electorate because it is no more or less than an attempt to excite the envy and resentment by one section of the Australian community of another. I believe it is unworthy of the Opposition and unworthy of

Senator Wriedt. In fact, the matter of public importance is meaningless if looked at in isolation. The matter of public importance is:

The failure of the Fraser Government to improve the real living standards of the average Australian family.

That means something only in the context of what alternatives are available whereby there could have been greater improvements in the real living standards of the average Australian family than have been achieved. In other words, it would be fair to the Opposition to criticise the Government if there were better alternative strategies available to it which would mean that the great mass of Australian people would be better off than they are under this Government. I suggest very seriously to the Senate that the Government has followed the best courses available to it to try to ensure that Australia remains a country where living standards are high, where incomes generally are high and where we have a high standard not only of material welfare but also of freedom which I think is almost unmatched anywhere.

The one thing in Senator Wriedt ‘s speech with which I do agree is that any assessment of the real living standards of the average Australian family requires one to touch on a whole series of policy areas. A single set of statistics or a single factor cannot be isolated to give a measure of the real living standards of the average Australian family. It is difficult to find out what is the average Australian family. We all know that in this matter of public importance the Labor Party is saying that ordinary Australians are not doing as well under this Government as they should be. The mass of policies referred to by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) give a very clear picture that Australia is faring very well, that it is faring much better than any of its trading partners, and that the situation, although it still has areas which are of great concern to the Government, is one in which we can be reasonably satisfied that the Government is doing a competent and good job on behalf of the average Australian family.

I want to touch on some of these matters. The first thing I want to mention is employment, because nothing is more central to the situation of the average Australian family than the ability to gain employment. That has been a problem area over the past six years. I want quickly to mention inflation and other aspects of the economy because no doubt the main thrust of this matter is the material standards of Australian families. One does need to touch, as Senator Wriedt did, on things such as the Australian family’s access to fuel, interest rates and industrial relations, which he omitted and which often have a serious impact on the welfare of average Australians who are left without jobs because of actions of trade unions, such as that strike action involving 10 weeks of unemployment which occurred in mining towns in Western Australia. There is also the matter of the tax record, which was referred to by Senator Wriedt. I welcome the fact that there is in this speech of Senator Wriedt ‘s, almost for the first time to my recollection, a recognition of the interdependence of all these areas of policy in the welfare of the community. I think we have achieved at least that much common ground, although Senator Wriedt takes a very different view to the totality of the view which I propose to take.

Let us look at the question of employment, because that is central to the thinking of most Australians as something which is important to most families. I do not think there is any more glaring example of the success of this Government as against the disasters which were occasioned by the policies of the previous Government. I do not wish to hark back to the Whitlam years as a permanent period that we produce almost as a means of frightening the public, but there were some frightening aspects of the years 1973 to 1 975. Some key things happened in those years. They have affected Australia up to the present time and do affect the credibility of the arguments which are now trotted forth by the Opposition. The key year in that period was 1974 because in that year there was a great increase in money wages in Australia. I think there was an increase in average weekly earnings in that one year of about 24 per cent. In the same year we saw the effect of that on the average Australian family. Private sector employment in 1974-75 fell by 150,000 jobs; 120,000 jobs were lost from manufacturing, and youth unemployment grew from 5.8 per cent in August 1974 to almost 13 per cent in August 1975, leaving 100,000 teenagers out of work.

I do think any serious economic commentator would believe there were, in the dislocation of the Australian economy which occurred at that time, the seeds of the difficulties we have faced since. A complete change in the earning situation was accompanied simultaneously by a drastic change in the employment position. So, we have had a continuing difficulty in obtaining increases in employment since that time because of the imbalance between labour costs and what could be gained by employing labour. From that point of view, it is very easy to understand why this Government gave priority to trying to control inflation and restoring the basics of the Australian economy so we could get back to the situation where a period of economic growth would guarantee that the average Australian family had access to the employment which is central to its welfare.

I turn now to the recent labour market changes which were referred to by my colleague Mr Viner in the other place in his statement on employment yesterday. Nothing could be clearer than that the effort which has been made by this Government is beginning to bear fruit. Mr Viner referred to the substantial improvement in performance that the reforms have produced. Between 1974 and 1978, full time employment actually declined- by about 27,000 jobs each year. In the 12 months to February 1980, full time employment increased by over 1 10,000 which was substantially more than the average annual increase in full time employment growth of 63,000 between 1971 and 1974. That statistic bears out the approach which this Government has adopted and which is directly aimed at the welfare of the Australian family which is talked about so eagerly by the Opposition. It is also worth noting, as Mr Viner did, that there has been an increase in manufacturing employment over recent months. That area witnessed an average decline over the last five years.

The fact is that, in the field of employment, the Government has always agreed that there have been difficulties. Those difficulties were very well documented by the previous Minister, Mr Street, in 1 978 in a way that is now totally accepted by the Opposition from what I gather in the speeches in the other place. We have now reached a position where the changes in the Australian economy are such that we are becoming internationally competitive. We are exporting more and have been able to produce more jobs in the private sector than were produced over the last few years. In this key area in which it is so easy to present the Government as being hardhearted because it is not rushing to spend money and insisting on everybody getting much higher wages, I think it is clear that our every attention is directed to the living standards of the average Australian family by improving the chances of employment for those families.

It is true also that for a vast number of Australians the social security area is important to the welfare of the family. I suppose that almost every Australian family in some way is affected by the Government’s attitude to social security. There are aged parents and aged citizens who are reliant on the pension. There are children who receive the family allowance. There are single parent families which need assistance. In these key areas which impinge at least on the wider families of Australia, if not on each individual family unit, it is clear that the Government has been careful to protect those who are needy. The basic pensions have been fully indexed on a twice yearly basis. There was, of course, a break in that policy. The pensions were indexed on an annual basis for a short period but that was a measure which the Government took in light of the general economic needs of Australia.

At the moment it is the continuing policy of the Government that basic pension payments are fully indexed on a twice yearly basis. Basic benefit payments are fully indexed for those over 1 8 years of age with dependants and for those under 1 8 years of age who are married. We have witnessed the extension of assistance to sole fathers with the introduction of the supporting parents benefit. In 1979 we extended fringe benefits to supporting parents. Of course, family allowances were introduced in 1 976. This reform was quite the reverse of the pattern which the Leader of the Opposition talked about. It removed the taxation deduction in favour of a payment to all parents with dependent children. That, of course, was not a regressive change; it was a change which favoured those on low incomes either not paying tax or paying tax at low rates.

The Leader of the Opposition also addressed himself to the question of taxation. One can produce all sorts of statistics and facts in this area with which to either provide information or confuse the position. Let me refer to a few fairly simple statistics in this area. I think they are helpful in understanding the pattern under this Government as against the pattern under the previous Labor Government. I have been provided with facts about taxes which are paid by wage and salary earners about whom the Leader of the Opposition spoke. The net payasyouearn tax take between 1973-74 and 1975-76 rose from $4,238m to $7,020m-in increase of 65.6 per cent in three years. As against that, during the period of the Fraser Government in the three financial years from 1976-77 to 1978-79 payasyouearn taxation receipts rose by 21.9 per cent. Whilst one can point to an increase in the tax which has been collected from wage and salary earners because there has not been full indexation throughout the period of the Fraser Government, the fact is that there was a far more substantial percentage increase in pay-as-you-earn taxation under the Whitlam Government than there has been under the Fraser Government.

Senator Wriedt:

– The housewife is concerned with the end result. She is concerned with what she is getting.

Senator CHANEY:

-The Leader of the Opposition now points out to me, as no doubt his wife has pointed out to him, that the housewife is concerned about what she has to pay. Perhaps it is helpful to refer to a question on notice asked by Senator Wriedt of Senator Carrick as Minister representing the Treasurer (Mr Howard) in which he asked for some figures over the relevant periods of the Whitlam Government and of the present Government. Changes in the consumer price index from 1972 to 1979 were documented by the Treasurer in an answer to question on notice no. 2210. In 1972, the percentage change was 5.9; in 1973, it was 9.5 per cent; in 1974, it was 15.1 per cent- that was the great year when everybody got so much more money in their pay packets and so many people lost their jobs in manufacturing and other areas of industry- in 1975, the figure was again 15.1 percent; in 1976, under the present Government, it dropped to 13.5 per cent; in 1977, it was 12.3 per cent; in 1978 it was 7.9 per cent; and, in 1979, it was 9.1 per cent. It is common ground that there has been a slight increase. I draw the attention of the Senate and in particular the Opposition to the comparative position of Australia and other countries. During the period of the Labor Government -

Senator Wriedt:

– Why don’t you finish? Be fair. Read the figures on the next page.

Senator CHANEY:

– I have not finished referring to the question on notice. It would be helpful if members of the Opposition stopped interjecting. During this very high rate of inflation under the Labor Government, our trading partners had very much lower rates of inflation. In 1 979 and 1980, our rate of inflation has been much lower than that of our trading partners.

I have been invited to refer to more of the figures contained in the question. Let us look at the personal income tax collections. Under Labor there was an increase in 1973 of 13.5 per cent; in 1 974, the increase was 5 1 .9 per cent- a mere increase of 5 1.9 per cent in one year! There was an increase of 14.1 per cent in 1975, 29 per cent in 1976, 2 1 per cent in 1977, 0.6 per cent in 1978 and 14.1 per cent in 1979. Those figures merely detail the other figures which I gave earlier. This Government has a far better record than that of the Labor Government.

Senator Wriedt:

– Read the last line of the same table. Please give us the full picture.

Senator CHANEY:

– I understand that the last line being referred to by Senator Wriedt relates to wages, salaries and supplements in real terms. I am quite happy to read that. In real terms; that is, in constant value dollars, one notes a change of 4.4 per cent in 1 972 , a change of 7.5 per cent in 1973, and a high point in 1974 of 1 1.6 per cent. Real wages rose by 1 i.6 per cent in 1974. Those are the figures which Senator Wriedt is so proud of. In that same year, 150,000 jobs were lost; and that is precisely the point that I have been making. Under the Labor Government in 1 975, there was a real increase of only 2.5 per cent in earnings. The figure was one per cent in 1976, 0.3 per cent in 1977, and 0.4 per cent in 1978. Later figures are not available. The important point is that there has been a continuing increase but not the sort of ridiculous increase which took place under Labor and which dislocated the labour market and caused massive unemployment in this country. No Liberal will be ashamed of quoting those figures because they reflect the lack of reality which afflicted the previous Government and which ultimately caused it to lose office.

The welfare of Australian families is tied up with the complex of policies which have been mentioned in this debate. It is the aim of this Government- I believe it is the achievement of this Government- to attain the highest possible level of economic stability and access to jobs which will last and to look after the general standards within this community. The Government aims also to look after the less well off who have been insulated from hardship by the sorts of measures which have been introduced by this Government, such as the automatic indexation of pensions. This Government has much to be proud of with respect to its dealing with the average Australian family. Its record will be improved when, on 1 July, families with a dependent spouse will receive further tax benefits which will improve their income position against that of dual income families. I believe that the average Australian famliy does appreciate this Government because of what it has done to protect the family’s position and living standards.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– This afternoon the Senate is debating a matter of public importance which was proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Wriedt. The matter of public importance is:

The failure of the Fraser Government to improve the real living standards of the average Australian family.

This is an extremely important matter of public importance. It is not meaningless, as suggested by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator

Chaney) who has just spoken. It is a matter which is only too well understood by families throughout Australia. The housewife understands this matter as she is faced with mounting food costs. Her husband understands it as more and more money is required to fill the family car with petrol. The children, especially those who have left school and who are vainly searching for work, understand this matter. Every member of a family in Australia understands this matter which was brought forward by the Opposition today.

This afternoon I will mention a few basic factors in relation to this matter of public importance. I will not undertake a detailed analysis of tax rates, income levels or poverty levels but if I discussed these matters the facts given would support Senator Wriedt ‘s proposal. Nor will I undertake a total examination of employment in Australia. I have often spoken in this chamber about employment but, with the exception of one matter, I do not intend to speak about it today. We must remember that the record of this Government on employment is shocking. We can all remember back to 1975 when Malcolm Fraser said that he would provide jobs for all. Since unemployment has risen continuously from about May 1976 we have had all sorts of excuses and promises from this Government about how the situation would improve. But we still have about half a million people unemployed. All of those people who have registered, all those who now see the futility in registering as unemployed, number about half a million in this country. One Minister, when trying to rationalise why this Government had not done better in its unemployment record, even said that unemployment was a myth. It is certainly not a myth to the children of all the families throughout Australia, who have gone through so many years of schooling with the thought that when they finish they will be able to take their rightful place in the work force. They are not able to find work.

But I do not intend to undertake a detailed analysis of the situation; I intend to look at basic, down to earth matters that affect the family. They are down to earth matters that members of the family know as they sit at home or go out to work and that children know when they look for work. They know that their living standards have not improved. I dare say that I will be able to provide sufficient information to suggest that not only have the standards of living not improved but also they have not been maintained. I refer now to food bills, something very basic to the family. Every housewife will tell us of mounting food prices. The housewife, after she has been to the supermarket, typically tells of increasing prices- not just two or three cents an article but 10, 20, or 30 cents. The housewife is not, as the previous speaker suggested, interested in the position in Australia in relation to the position in overseas countries; she is interested in what the money she has in her hand can buy when she goes into the supermarket. Her experience is confirmed by official statistics.

The latest figures available- to March this year- show that there has been an annual increase of 1 5 per cent in the price of food. In fact the latest figures are not atypical; they are quite typical of what has happened over the past year or so. Let us look at food price statistics for last year. In the quarter ended March 1 979 there was an increase of 12.4 per cent in food prices on an annual basis. For June 1979 the relevant figure was 14.6 per cent; in September 1979 the figure was 14.8 per cent and for December the relevant figure was 13.7 per cent. Now the figure is 15 per cent, and the housewife knows this only too well. The cost of food in itself, is not an argument which would support the proposition of Senator Wriedt. If wages were increasing as fast or faster than food prices, one could argue that there would be an improvement in living standards. But wages are not increasing as fast as food prices.

There are no official figures available yet for average weekly earnings for March 1980. 1 mentioned earlier that to March 1980 there was a 15 per cent annual increase in food prices. But if we look at the average weekly earnings for 1 979 and compare those figures with increases in food prices that I mentioned earlier, we will see that increases in average weekly earnings are well behind the increases in food prices. As I mentioned, to March 1979, food prices increased by 12.4 per cent on an annual basis. Average weekly earnings over the same period increased by 9.1 per cent. This was 3.3 per cent less than the increase in food prices. To June the average increase in food prices over the year was 1 4.6 per cent. Average weekly earnings rose by 7.5 per cent. This was 7.2 per cent less than the increase in food prices. A similar situation occurred in September. Food prices increased by 1 4.8 per cent over the 12 months and average weekly earnings increased by 7.8 per cent- barely half. To December the price of food increased by 1 3.8 per cent compared with an increase of 9.7 per cent in average weekly earnings- 4 per cent less than the increase in food prices. How is a family expected to maintain its standard of living when food prices increase as rapidly as that and average weekly earnings lag far behind? It certainly suggests to me that the average Australian family has not only failed to improve but also it has failed to maintain its standard of living. In fact, we now have altered living habits because of increases in food prices. I noted in the Australian Financial Review of 4 March 1980 the following comment: . . there is a marked trend to eat even cheaper meats, either at home or in the modish restaurant, where chefs facing pared margins on steaks are trying proven, economical, yet exotic meat meals enjoyed traditionally in other countries.

The same sort of thing is happening in families throughout Australia. Because their living standards are not improved; because their living standards are not maintained, they are having to make all sorts of arrangements to make their standard of living tie in with what they are receiving in average weekly earnings. Indeed, during the Government’s term, from March 1976 to March 1980, food prices increased by 55 per cent. There simply has not been this sort of increase in wages over that period. Low income families in particular are finding living harder and harder. The Government, of course, by its own direct action, has not assisted. Senator Chaney mentioned that the Government was careful to protect those who are needy, and he spoke of social security payments.

But let us look at what has happened with family allowances since June 1976. In June 1976 family allowances were increased but there has been no increase since. At that time, family allowances were paid on a four-weekly basis; they are now paid on a calendar month basis. Family allowances are being paid today at the same rate that applied in June 1976. Although they were not paid on a calendar month basis in June 1976, it is quite logical to compare the amounts paid on the calendar month basis as it prevails now with what would have been paid had the basis which prevailed in June 1976 been applied. In June 1976 the mother of one child received $15.20 a month. That amount of $15.20 a month has not been changed. In March 1980 values, that amount would be $21.80 a month. So a family with one child is now $6.60 a month worse off because family allowances have not been indexed. A family with two children is $16 worse off a month because family allowances have not been indexed over that period. If one looks at the level of family allowances as at June 1976 and at what it should really be in March 1980 if the allowances were indexed, one finds that a family with three children is $27.30 a month worse off, a family with four children is $38.60 a month worse off, and a family with five children is $5 1.75 a month worse off.

It is futile to say that the Government is looking after the needy, especially the families who depend so much on those family allowances, when those family allowances have not been indexed, and when a family of five is $51.75 a month worse off because of the lack of indexation. Pensioner families are finding the same thing: There has been no increase in supplementary assistance payments since November 1974. Up to $5 a week is now payable for supplementary assistance. Those people who are able to receive the $5 a week by way of supplementary assistance are those pensioners who are the most needy in the community, yet this payment of $5 a week has not been increased. If the amount paid in supplementary assistance were indexed, it would now be at the rate of $8.65, an extra $3.65 which would be very well received by those pensioner families who are among the most needy in the whole community. The child’s allowance for the pensioner family has not been changed either. It has not been increased since 1 975 when it was $7.50 a week.

So far I have not mentioned petrol costs in detail. Senator Wriedt mentioned how petrol costs are inflationary; they are affecting the cost of transport and are being passed into the charge on goods in the community. Each family knows how the Government’s petrol pricing policy has affected it. It is not necessary to dwell on this matter. All people in the community, but the Fraser Government, are aware of the adverse effects that this policy is having on the family. In country areas the situation is even worse. As honourable senators have only 15 minutes in which to speak on a matter of public importance, it is not possible for me to dwell on the situation in country areas but those of us who listened to the AM program this morning heard a person in the country saying that the cost of petrol in his area was 40.7c a litre for super grade petrol, and he was saying that people in the country cannot understand why they have to pay over 10c a litre more than people in the city have to pay. But even in the city, petrol prices are having an effect on the family. I have shown quite clearly, as my leader, Senator Wriedt, has shown, that the Fraser Government has failed to improve the real living standards of the average Australian family. Indeed, my suggestion is that the Fraser Government has failed not simply to improve these standards; it has failed even to maintain them.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

– Today we are debating, as a matter of public importance, the failure of the Fraser Government to improve the real living standards of the average Australian family. We must, for the purpose of this debate, first establish what is the average family. Statistics tell us that the average family is still the traditional family: The father is the breadwinner and the mother stays at home and looks after the children. Over 77 per cent of married women still stay home and care for their families, the majority of them having young children. Sixteen per cent of these women do some part time work. The trend established over the past 10 years of married women going into the work force has altered in the last three years. We find that, whilst the number of single women in the work force is continuing to increase, the number of married women in the work force is decreasing. In 1977-78- that is, as at August 1977-25.48 per cent of married women were in the work force full time and there were 16.8 per cent of married women in the work force part time. In 1978-79- as at August 1978-there were 22.5 per cent of married women in the work force full time, and 17.2 per cent in the work force part time. The following year there were 21.95 per cent of married women in the work force full time and 17.19 per cent in the work force part time. So we can see that there is a trend with 25.5 per cent of married women being in the work force as at August 1977 and nearly 22 per cent at present.

Senator Walsh:

– That is because there are not any jobs.

Senator WALTERS:

– If the honourable senator had been listening he would have heard me say that the number of single women entering the work force is still increasing, and it has increased quite considerably over that same period. I do not believe for one moment that that is the reason; I believe that women are deciding to do this. I have discussed this issue with a number of groups of young married girls who have decided that it places a tremendous strain on their marriages for them and their husbands to hold down full time jobs. The divorce statistics prove that fact because we find that there is one divorce for roughly every two and a half marriages each year. These young girls are opting for pan time work instead of full time work up to the time when they decide that they want to raise a family. The trend is showing that they are opting out of the work force until they have raised their families. At that time they either do some part time work or go back into the work force full time. This, I believe, is the desire of the majority of women. Some, through need, cannot do this. But I believe that this is the option that those who can will go for. The Government has made that option a viable proposition to them.

If we look at the way governments, over the past eight years or so, have paid recognition to the traditional family as a stable unit of our society, which I believe it certainly is, we can see that in 1972-73- that is, prior to the dependent spouse’s rebate being introduced- there was a concessional deduction for a dependant wife. In 1 972-73 it was $364. It certainly did not assist the low income families as it was not a deduction from their tax but a deduction from their income before tax. For three years that concession was not altered by the Australian Labor Party Government. In 1973-74 it remained at $364. That was some recognition of the mother! In 1974- 75 it was still $364- great recognition of the role the mother plays! With inflation running at a rate of over 1 5 per cent one can imagine how that assisted a mother who wanted to stay at home and bring up her children, as is done in the average family.

It was not until 1975-76 that the Hayden Budget brought in the dependent spouse rebate. This was of much greater assistance to the lower income families. The dependent spouse rebate was introduced at $400 in the last year the Labor Government was in office. This Government, in 1 976-77 increased that rebate by $ 100, making it $500. This $500 was a direct deduction from the sole income earner’s tax, the husband’s tax. The following financial year, 1 977-78, this rebate was increased through tax indexation to $555. It kept going up. In 1978-79 it was increased to $597. That was a continuing recognition of the part the mother plays in the home. As honourable senators would know, on 1 July this year there will be a very large jump in the rebate to $800.

Let us consider what this will mean to the income of the sole income earner, the father. In 1975- 76, with the dependent spouse rebate at only $400, he could earn the princely sum of $2,000 before tax was incurred. In 1976-77, when we increased the rebate to $500, that sum went up by $438. The following year, through tax indexation, when the dependent spouse rebate was $555, the tax free limit nearly doubled, it went up to $5,484. The following year it went up to $5,675 and, at the moment, it is $5,758. On 1 July it will go up to $6,553. A man with a dependent spouse will be able to earn $6,553 free of tax. Let us compare those figures to what applied in the Whitlam era. In the last year of the Whitlam Government the income earner could earn the princely sum of $2,000 free of tax if he had a dependent spouse. The figures are not comparable. They indicate to my way of thinking, that this Government has paid some recognition to the mother who stays at home to bring up her children.

We have heard a great deal today from Senator Wriedt and Senator Colston about petrol taxes, inflation, unemployment, and food prices compared to wages. When speaking about all of those matters they failed to mention the good side. Unemployment is decreasing. No one can possibly say that it is not. The figures have been coming down monthly. Senator Colston compared food prices to wages. That comparison is rather negative if one leaves out taxation because, whilst wages went up considerably during the Whitlam era, we know for a fact that taxes went up in that period more than at any other time in the nation’s history. In the three years of the Labor Government total net pay-as-you-earn taxation revenue went up 65.6 per cent. In the first three years of the coalition Government it only went up 2 1 .9 per cent. So there is hardly any point in Senator Colston talking about high wages when we know that the cost of food at that time was increasing because the rate of inflation was 1 5 per cent. Food prices were going up and taxation was being grabbed out of pay packets by the government of that time. There was a 65.6 per cent increase in PA YE tax collections. That was a disgraceful occurrence.

Senator Wriedt talked about petrol prices; a very legitimate argument. I believe the price of petrol affects the family’s income. However, it will affect families to a far greater extent if this country runs short of petrol. If we have to introduce petrol rationing people and families will be affected to a far greater degree. We know our petrol pricing policy is working. For instance, we know that consumption of home heating oil has fallen by 22 per cent. We know that consumption of lighting kerosene has fallen by 1 2 per cent. We know that heavy industry is moving from oil to other forms of energy such as electricity, either coal-generated electricity or hydro-electricity, and that the consumption of heavy industry oil has fallen by 4 per cent. We know that consumption of petrol is falling quite considerably. Apart from smaller cars being used, people are driving in a different fashion. They are driving to conserve their petrol. They know that it is a special commodity.

In 1975, under the Labor Government, only 29 oil wells were drilled. Twenty-five were drilled for exploration and four were drilled for development. In 1979, 96 wells were drilledfortythree for exploration and 53 for development. We also have the Rundle shale oil deposit. Billions of dollars are now being spent to bring more oil to this country. Without Rundle shale oil this country will be running very short of oil by the mid-1980s. Unless the price of petrol is high enough, the Rundle shale oil deposit will not be viable for the researchers to consider, far less develop.

The Government has a responsible oil pricing policy. The people recognise it as being a responsible policy. Whilst I would agree with Senator Wriedt and Senator Colston that it will and does affect families, I can assure both those honourable senators that without petrol or with petrol rationing families would be far worse off. The Government has a policy to support the average family. I am afraid that the Opposition is very short on policy. I believe that I have established that fact this afternoon.

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

– I was interested in Senator Walters’ views on the traditional family. She said that the traditional family is still very much with us and that 77 per cent of married women stay at home. Because this Government’s policy has been to increase the price of petrol in the way that it has, which in turn forces to the limit the price of every commodity that those women buy, one wonders how on earth they manage. Senator Walters said that they do some part time work. How true that is, but let us elaborate a little. Desperate to keep their families together, those women do work part time. Any money is better than no money, so those women are forced into the worst jobs in the worst conditions. They are desperate to keep their families from very real poverty.

The Opposition says that the petrol tax put on by this Government has forced up food prices. That is evident, especially to Senator Walters and me, because we shop. For her to say that people have changed their driving patterns because they are concerned about the conservation of oil is ridiculous. If people have changed their driving patterns, they have done so because they cannot afford to use their cars, they cannot afford to keep their tanks full of petrol. In many parts of Australia those people are desperate because travelling by vehicle is their major form of transport to and from work. Governments like the Fraser Government have done nothing about public transport. Another outcome of increasing the price of petrol, and so ruining the existence of many families is the fact that many families living in the country and in outer suburban areas can no longer use their cars to communicate; so they are faced with the real problem of isolation.

This Government has insisted that the prime problem is inflation. Its strongest move in combating inflation has been its stand against increasing the wage or the income of the average Australian family. In proceeding along those lines this Government is destroying Australian families and their aspirations. One of the things which Australian families aspire to is owning their home in which they can raise their children. That is becoming increasingly impossible for anything like the average Australian family. It was reported recently that a malaise has gripped the Victorian building industry and that that malaise has been there for the last five years and is getting worse every year. Why is it getting worse? It is getting worse because nobody can afford to buy a house. In the past six months in Victoria 30 building companies have foundered and there are others in deep financial trouble. The Age of 24 April 1980 contains an article which mentions one of the largest house builders in Melbourne, Jennings Industries Ltd. The article states:

Mr Chris Banks, general manager or the housing and land section . . . said . . . ‘It’s obvious that if the trend doesn ‘t stop more builders will go under.’

The Melbourne house market is the smallest it has been for years and this has resulted in a shake-out of builders.

Statistics reflect the gravity of the recession. In the year ending June 1979 a total of 26,642 building permits had been issued in Victoria- the lowest number since 1963, and half as many as at the height of the building boom in 1 973.

Victorian Housing Industry Association manager Mr Les Groves said the halcyon days of the early 1970s were unlikely to be repeated . . .

The ominous rise in the price of building materials also is affecting the ability of ordinary people in Australia to buy their own home. The rise in the price index of materials used in the building industry is seriously affecting them. The rate of inflation in building material prices has doubled in the 12 months ended February 1980. In that month the price index of materials used in house building went up by 2.4 per cent in the six capital cities. This is the highest increase for 5V4 years. Are we going to lay that at the feet of the wage earner? Is it because they have got such extraordinary raises in their wages and salaries that those prices have gone up, or might it have something to do with the Government’s policy in putting up the price of petrol?

Fewer houses are being built and more families are in great difficulty. What happens to the carpenters, bricklayers and building workers when fewer houses are built? They join the ranks of the great unemployed so their family’s security is lost. Then all industries which service the building go by the board and close down. So in an ever-increasing circle we have poverty staring the ordinary people of Australia in the face. What happens to families when the breadwinner loses his job? They cannot pay their mortgages. They cannot go on paying for those houses for which they have scraped and saved the deposit and which are their whole lives. Nationally, foreclosures of loans rose from one in 950 in 1974 to one in 70 in 1975. This is an indication of how much the Fraser Government cares about the families of Australia.

The Government makes pious statements about people being masters in their castles and owning their homes and it boasts that Australia has the highest rate of home ownership in the world. We are staring in the face the highest rate of foreclosure of mortgage loans in the world. The Committee for Economic Development in Australia estimates that growth in claims on the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation has been over 90 per cent a year over the last four years. So- the position is not getting any better. According to the Age of 19 May 1979, the Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation of Australia Ltd stated that claims from Victorian bodies holding defaulted home loans jumped by 600 per cent in 1978. One building society estimated that there were up to 4,000 repossessions in Victoria during 1978. Would we say that matters had improved? In 1 978 the rate of inflation was 9 per cent and this year it is at 11.5 per cent. It would appear that the Government’s scheme to bring down inflation has failed and that in trying to bring the rate of inflation down, using the methods that it has, it has ruined countless Australian families and their aspirations.

As though things were not bad enough, today we are told that the Federal Government has introduced a system for marketing Commonwealth bonds which will force up the interest rates yet again. It will force up the repayment rate for savings bank loans, it will force up the number of foreclosures, and it will force up the amount of heartbreak. Where will the families go? From February 1978 to February 1979 the number of housing commission tenancies in Victoria rose by 2. 1 per cent. What happens to those families? What happens to the low wage earners with a large family or the single parent families when they are looking for housing? People are being forced out of the area where they could buy private built homes into the public housing area. Little enough of that housing has been available to fill the needs, but the number of tenancies is rising. People are being forced out of their own homes. Low wage families can never aspire to buy their own homes. Families with many children cannot aspire to buy their own homes. Single parent families on the charity we hand out, can never aspire to buy their own homes.

What do they do about housing? They cannot afford to buy or to rent privately so they go to the housing commission. With the urging of the Federal Government, the Housing Commission in Victoria increased its rental charges to market rents. How did those people fare? The number of tenants in arrears in 1 978-79 in Victoria rose by 50.4 per cent. They literally could not afford to pay their rent. The number of tenants in arrears for over 10 weeks rose by 74 per cent. The total amount owed rose by 96 per cent from 1 978 to 1979. As the situation is so much worse one wonders what the current figures would be. The Federal Government has failed to assist families to buy their own homes. It has discouraged State governments from providing rental accommodation. It has discouraged State governments from building houses that people can afford. The prices are so high that low income families cannot afford the houses.

It is interesting to look at the taxation figures that Senator Walters was so keen on. In 1 952, the ordinary person paid 8 per cent of his income in tax. By 1 962, it had risen to 9.7 per cent. By 1 972, it was 16.8 per cent. But by 1978 it was 20 per cent. In 1978, of income 20 per cent was being paid in income tax by the ordinary people. The only year in which it was higher was in 1942 when the nation was at war. Perhaps ordinary people think that they are back in that position. They might feel that they are at war. They pay high taxes, and they get precious little back from this Government which will do nothing about housing ordinary families in Australia but which raises the tax on petrol which increases the price of all goods and services.

We have reached the point now where city petrol prices have doubled what they were before the election of this Goverment and country prices have trebled what they were before that time. This has occurred despite the fact that the Prime Minister, in his election speech in 1977, said: ‘Petrol prices in all country areas will be reduced to within one cent per litre of the normal city retail price without any increase in city prices as a result.’ Why? In the Age on 24 April this year, it was stated:

Ampol Exploration lifted profit 45 per cent in the March half despite a 20 per cent cut in its share of Barrow Island oil production.

Ampol Ex earned S5.4 million after tax in the half compared with $3.7 million in the first 1979 half.

All honourable senators were astonished to read the report which stated that Exxon Corporation in the United States had doubled its earnings to $US 1.925 billion in the first quarter from a year ago- the biggest quarterly profit ever made by a United States corporation. I suggest that is the direction in which the Australian oil companies are heading.

This Government does not care two hoots about the ordinary families of this country and it will do nothing about providing those families with ordinary, decent, basic housing. Indeed, it is pushing the ordinary families of Australia out of housing. I think some families will finish up in tents on river banks as so many of our Aboriginal friends have in the last few years. While this Government does not care two hoots about ordinary families, it does everything in its power to increase the profits made by the oil companies. Senator MacGibbon said that this country has been spending too much on social welfare. It is interesting to find that the Minster for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) feels much the same way. The Minister said that there were several reasons why government expenditure was difficult to cut back. Indexation was a major cause. Another cause was spending in the social areas which he attacked as diminishing the role of the individual in looking after himself. In other words, the Minister believes that these families can starve on their own from now on. The Minister went on to say:

Individuals and families should be given much greater financial responsibility and control over their education, their health and their general well-being.

The Minister’s attitude is: Pay yourself or go without so far as this Government is concerned. The Minister said that the policies of Liberal governments would be designed to increase the size of the private sector in the economy. He said:

To achieve that end, our budgetary policies will need to ensure that private enterprise is profitable, and that adequate incentives exist for individuals to work hard and invest diligently, and for companies to invest with the prospect of good returns.

All I can say is that this Government has not only failed to improve the living standards of the average Australian family but also depressed that living standard and is depressing it to a very grave degree.

Senator ARCHER:
Tasmania

-The matter of public importance which we are debating is:

The failure of the Fraser Government to improve the real living standards of the average Australian family.

The two words which are important are the words ‘real’ and ‘average’. Senator Wriedt in particular covered many items which were not real but illusory. I presume that they were based on his experience when the Labor Government was in office from 1972 to 1975. I will concentrate my remarks on industry in general and employment at the time of the Labor Government.

In the 1972-75 period, the country suffered a whole variety of malaises which it had not seen for many years. There was complete proprietorial despair and uncertainty, high and uncontrolled inflation, disastrous rises in costs of all sorts, a total lack of government restraint, real threats to the whole free enterprise system, catastrophic losses of jobs- for instance 1 64,000 jobs were lost in one year- losses of export markets, the loss of local markets, no development and real stagnation.

Does that represent the real living standard that the Australian Labor Party proposes now? Is this the situation to which it wants to return Australia? The real living standards as seen by people in the real world today are a mixture of elements such as stable incomes, regular jobs, improved employment, wider trade, greater competitiveness, lowering the needs of protection dependability, fewer guerrilla-type strikes, regular pay packets, the ability to plan ahead to determine a future for one’s children and to get a reasonable return for a reasonable effort. That is what I believe real standards are. Real living standards depend on all these things. It is necessary to have confidence at home and overseas in Australian industries. This Government wants Australia to be not only dependable but also to be seen and to be accepted as dependable. Buyers of Australian commodities need to know that Australia is dependable and that it can and will supply goods. They want to know what our costs will be and they want them to be reasonably stable. They do not want to get mixed up in any of our internal guerrilla-type strikes.

This Government, by its implemented policies and not simply by its utterances, has done a lot to restore confidence, to restart development, to regain lost markets, to encourage investment and to return to productive employment. Various taxation changes have been made to items such as the investment allowance and so on. Time will preclude my going into those matters at any great depth. All those measures have been brought in by this Government as a means of increasing productivity, increasing the number of jobs available and getting more people back to work. Let us compare the policies of the Australian Labor Party with the policies that this Government has implemented in the last two or three years. What would the Australian Labor Party do? It would start with a wealth tax which would be followed up by a resource tax or a super-tax. It would be followed by all sorts of other taxes and very soon Australia would be back to the 1972-75 situation after which this Government took over.

I should like to refer briefly to the clothing industry. I have had a reasonable amount of contact with the clothing industry in the last few years. I can tell honourable senators what people in the clothing industry believe constitutes real standards. From a liquidation situation in 1974, there is now a vibrant expansion in the industry. There is a clothing export council and sales are made overseas in various highly competitive markets. Since Christmas it appears that nearly 2,000 new employees have entered the clothing industry. Currently, it appears that there are about 2,000 vacancies which, I regret, cannot be filled. This is tremendous and it is highly encouraging. Jobs such as these demonstrate the real living standards for which Australians are looking. Last month, imports dropped by 7.9 per cent. Why? They dropped because more work means lower costs and greater competitiveness both in Australian shops and overseas. This is what real living standards are all about.

Government policies have encouraged the industry to become more competitive. Mr Hayden, Mr Lionel Bowen and Mr Hurford would abolish the investment allowance and would institute a wealth tax. They would again destroy industry. Australia would be back to where it was before this Government came into office. Jobs would be destroyed and the real living standards would be destroyed. Honourable senators opposite referred to savings. Are people still saving money? Has it become impossible for the average family to save money? Each month the savings banks figures show record levels of savings.

Senator Gietzelt:

-They are dropping.

Senator ARCHER:

– The banks show record savings levels. There has been no reduction. The deposits in savings banks are not from big business, they are not from wealthy multinationals; they are from what have become known as Mr and Mrs Blacktown, the average Australians. I stress the word ‘average’ because the motion referred to the ‘average Australian family’; not a family at the top or at the bottom of the scale, but the average Australian family. Recently I heard put at a seminar I attended in Sydney that the features of the Australian family are now a one or two income family, owning or buying its own home, with anything up to $20,000 or S2 5,000 in the bank, with a household income in excess of $300, with carpets, deep freeze, colour television and usually two cars. That is depicted as the average family unit.

The sub-average families concern me far more. The Government has demonstrated that they are concerned for that group also. But regrettably the motion before us particularly and specifically removes the sub-average family from the debate. The figures for housing loan approvals are good. The financial year 1974-75 was hailed as a good year, with loan approvals totalling 182,866. But in 1979 the number of loans approved was 234,000, a rise of over 50,000 approvals. Again building commencements in 1979 totalled 126,491, which is very adequate. Whilst Senator Melzer said that there was a drop in building commencements in Victoria and she tried to make the situation sound terribly disastrous, it would be of interest to her to know that in the same year New South Wales broke every record it had ever produced, as did Queensland for the same year -

Senator Melzer:

– It has a Labor Government.

Senator ARCHER:

– In Queensland?

Senator Mulvihill:

– It is the Wran Government that has worked the transformation in New South Wales.

Senator ARCHER:

– In Queensland? What about industry modernisation and expansion? What about exploration and development? What about jobs? Today’s figures show that 6,174,100 people are in employment in Australia- that again is an all time record- and the number is growing rapidly. Never before have so many Australians been engaged in full time employment. If honourable senators think that Australia has problems in this regard, how do they think we stand compared with countries such as the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Israel, Greece, France and Italy? Honourable senators opposite may pick the country. I invite them to tell me of any country in which the average family is as well off as is the average family in Australia today. The Government talks about employment. Employment is tied to development. Development is based on technology and rightly this Government has opted for higher technology- to stride into the eighties instead of adopting the less attractive alternatives. If we are to compete we have to compete on world markets and we cannot do that with outmoded technology.

The results of this Government’s policies are now clear and are working very well in continuing to restore and to improve the real living standards of the average Australian family. We have a record level of employment, a falling level of unemployment, a high and increasing level of savings. We have one of the world ‘s highest level of savings. We have one of the world’s highest home ownership rates, our level of inflation is below the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development average, our interest rates are two-thirds those of the United States and the United Kingdom. We have a rapidly improving export performance. There is remarkable development. I appreciate fully the panic that all this must instil in the Australian Labor Party, which can survive only while its members are preachers of doom and disaster. I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1977

AIR NAVIGATION AMENDMENT DILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 April, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator COLLARD:
Queensland

– When my speech on the Air Navigation Amendment Bill 1980 was interrupted last Monday evening by the motion for the adjournment of the Senate, I was discussing the matter raised in an interjection which Senator Cavanagh had made, in which he claimed that the DC 10 aircraft had a structural weakness. I think that I should dwell on that for a little while, mainly because even though we do not have DC 10s flying internally in Australia many of our people when they go overseas have cause to fly on DC 10s, which probably are one of the most popular aircraft flying internationally, as well as internally in countries such as the United States of America. I repeat: There was no structural defect in the aircraft. It was basically a maintenance procedure which caused the problem.

I suppose that aircraft manufacturers design aircraft not only to fly but also to handle all sorts of conditions. Indeed, John Brizendine, the President of the Douglas aircraft company, said that that company often designs aircraft to take into consideration Murphy’s law. The Chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which was looking into the matter of the certification and inspection process for the DC 10, asked Mr Brizendine

Well, considering that airline maintenance is subject to human frailties, do you believe in retrospect that the DC- 10 pylon is designed to accept enough maintenance abuse?

Mr Brizendine replied:

Well, that is a tough question. Murphy’s law says if anything can happen, it will, and we do our best to design for Murphy’s law as well as the FAA’s laws.

The FAA is the Federal Aviation Administration in the United States. It is interesting that the National Transportation Safety Board, in its finding, did not find against the aircraft. It ascertained that the cause of the smash was the retraction of flaps on the port wing and the fact that that wing stalled and the aircraft went into an asymmetrical stall and crashed. It found that the cause of that was a separation of an engine and a pylon resulting from damage caused by improper maintenance procedures which led to failure of the pylon structure. The NTSB went on to state that the Douglas aircraft company should look at maybe making a slight modification to the pylon so that it would not be open to such ‘abuse’ when maintenance work was done on it.

The fact of the matter remains that it was something to do with maintenance which caused the problem. That problem was restricted to only two airlines, that is, American and Contintental airlines, which were adopting the procedure of taking the engine and the pylon as a unit off the wing, in contravention of the manufacturer’s instructions. Unfortunately, when the Chicago aircraft disaster happened the engine, when it left the wing, took with it the No. I AC and DC generator bus and hydraulic pumps and broke the hydraulic lines. The result of that was that the captain lost his flight director instrument, the stall warning stick shaker and the slat disagreement warning lights. So, in actual fact, he had no indication that the port wing was about to stall. At all times the air crew acted with the highest degree of efficiency, which we have come to expect from the profession. They followed a copybook procedure, in accordance with all that was laid down for two-engine operation of a DC 10.

Further, in support of the aircraft, it turns out that had the crew known what was wrong the aircraft could have been flown in a circuit and landed. That has been done in a simulator. Experienced pilots have been told beforehand what the program will be and they have been able to fly the aircraft. Unfortunately, the crew, flying on the flight director, which was in the first officer’s position, tried to fly at a 14 degree angle of pitch, which the flight director indicated. That slowed their speed down eventually to 160 knots, which was the speed at which the aircraft crashed. In actual fact, had they maintained 163 knots, it probably would have kept flying. In the simulator program, by lowering the nose sufficiently to maintain air speed, it has proved possible for the aircraft to fly and to be brought back to a safe landing. Since then any airworthiness directives that have been issued have not concerned the structural integrity of the aircraft. Rather they have concerned maintenance procedures with a possible slight modification, mainly involving the recessing of a couple of bolts on the forward flange bulkhead of the aft pylon attachment and the installation of more redundant instrumentation so that the captain will, at all times, have instruments telling him of the complete position of the aircraft and his slats and an operative stall warning.

If airlines start losing money, this calls into question whether we, as communities or governments, have a responsibility to see as we have in Australia that airlines are able to make a reasonable return. I guess it is human nature that when airlines start to lose money the two things that suffer first are those that ordinary people do not see, that is, maintenance and crew training. I have given a specific example of an airline trying to cut corners. The resultant accident was a tragedy.

The Bills we are debating, as I said on Monday night, relate to the formation of Northern Airlines. Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia will withdraw from many of the intrastate routes in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory Government will have full responsibility for the certification of routes within its territory, as happens in the States. I think every speaker in this debate, without exception, has commented that this legislation marks the end of an era. Indeed it does. Every speaker, rightly so, has paid tribute to Eddie Connellan and his family and the role they have played in the development of the Northern Territory. Aviation, of course, was a necessity in the early days. Roads were primitive if they existed at all. The wet season meant isolation for months at a time. Eddie Connellan, in true pioneering spirit, established the airline that became known as Connair Pty Ltd. I daresay that history will treat him kindly and that he will be remembered along with some of the other aviation greats such as Sir Hudson Fysh, Sir Reginald Ansett, Arthur Butler and a whole string of other people who have made a magnificent contribution to aviation and to the opening up of Australia. Significantly, our colleague in the Senate, Senator Kilgariff, has played his role with Eddie Connellan. Mr Calder in the other place was one of the early pilots who helped open up many of the air services and strips. Indeed, we are seeing the passing of an era.

Northern Airlines is to be helped considerably by East- West Airlines Ltd. It is the major shareholder in the new airline. East- West Airlines has a fine record, not only as a regional operator but also as an innovator. East-West Airlines has opened up many tourist routes, particularly those from Sydney to Alice Springs, Sydney to Hobart and Sydney to Maroochydore. It is to be congratulated on what it has done. It has been entrepreneurial in its operations. However I think servicing the Northern Territory will be quite a task for it. Good, sound, hard work should see Darwin become one of the major tourist gateways to Australia. I hope and trust that the management of East-West Airlines will be competent enough to capitalise on that position. When people enter Australia through Darwin they could be taken to some of the wonderful tourist resorts that exist in the Northern Territory. I hope that East- West Airlines is up to that challenge.

On 1978 figures the population of the Northern Territory was 1 12,300. Its area is 1,346,200 square kilometres. In other words, the Northern Territory has 0.79 per cent of the total population and 17.52 per cent of the total area of Australia. That is not a very good base on which to start a viable airline operation. East- West Airlines has a task ahead of it. Its work will be cut out. But I am sure that with its entrepreneurial skills and knowing the airline business as it does it will certainly give it a go. I can do no more than wish it well in the task it has before it. I support the Bills before the Senate.

Senator SCOTT:
New South WalesMinister for Special Trade Representations (5.30 · NCP/NP

– I shall be brief in summarising the debate on the Air Navigation Amendment Bill 1980 and the Australian National Airlines Amendment Bill 1980. Such a debate does not always occur in this place. The Opposition has supported the Government on both measures. I thank all speakers for their contributions and their support for the legislation. Senator Gietzelt, who opened the debate for the Opposition, indicated his support for the Bills and stressed his concern about the quality of air services, the level of air fares and so forth. These are matters of which we are all aware and about which we all express concern. Such matters are now very relevant to the Northern Territory Government, because its control, through these Bills, lies in the economic and public interest areas. The Commonwealth retains powers relating to the safety and operation of the airlines.

Senator Kilgariff supported the legislation and gave an interesting history of airlines in the Northern Territory, drawing from the very considerable knowledge he has in that area. He expressed his appreciation of Mr Connellan ‘s contribution. Likewise, Senator Robertson welcomed the Bills and spoke with his usual authority. He asked a question about surveillance, the answer to which I shall provide in full for him in the very near future. Finally, Senator Collard spoke to both Bills and exhibited his knowledge of aviation and aircraft construction. It is not necessary for me to say any more than I have said. I commend the Bills to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 1979

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 31 March, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 1979

QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED (LOAN GUARANTEE) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 April, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– Is it the desire of the Government that the Qantas Airways Ltd (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1980 and the Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1 980 be debated cognately?

Senator Scott:

– It is the desire of the Government.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator GIETZELT:

– The matter the Senate is discussing continues the debate on a series of Bills that relate to the airline industry in Australia. The spate of such Bills indicates the growing importance of the airline industry in this country and the need for the Parliament from time to time to amend the legislation so that the needs of the Australian community are met as the industry evolves into an efficient and capable air service meeting the needs and expectations of Australians. The situation has developed in very recent times where the domestic airlines want to operate internationally and our own international airline wants to operate on an interstate, or domestic, basis in order to overcome some of the overlapping that exists in our vast continent. That demand is being evidenced by the requests of Ansett Airlines of Australia to fly to some of our neighbouring countries and the more recent suggestion that Trans-Australia Airlines should also participate in that new development.

However, the Bills the Senate is debating deal primarily with Qantas Airways Ltd and its needs to remain competitive with other international airlines. As we recognise, the question of making available sufficient moneys for the acquisition of aircraft is one we have to examine from time to time. We are aware that at the moment Ansett Airlines desires to borrow funds in the United States. This desire has evinced an amount of concern and public debate, to the degree that both the Congress and the Senate of the United States have set in train investigations into the way in which those loans were organised. Probably that is all I can stay as this stage, that the loans were organised. I trust that we do not have quite that problem in respect of our own national airline, Qantas, because the purpose of the Qantas Airways Ltd (Loan Guarantee) Bill is to authorise legitimately and properly the Treasurer, Mr Howard, to guarantee borrowings raised by Qantas Airways Ltd to finance the purchase of four Boeing 747 series aircraft.

The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney), who represents the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt), in his second reading speech, said that a fifth aircraft would be financed differently, which meant from internal resources. However, in recent months Press reports have suggested that the cancellation of the $60m sale of two earlier model Boeing 757 aircraft by Qantas may be the means by which some purchases will be made. Therefore, I would be grateful if the Minister in his reply later in this debate would indicate the bearing that the cancellation of that sale would have on the method of financing the total purchase of the five aircraft, which is the objective of Qantas. The Senate is concerned with guaranteeing the loan funds for four Boeing 747 aircraft. One can glean from the Minister’s remarks in his second reading speech that the $60m proceeds from the sale of the two older aircraft were to be used for the purchase of a fifth aircraft in the series of five to be bought. Of course, we are not completely sure whether that is fact or fiction.

In accordance with past practice the guarantee is limited to 80 per cent of the total purchase price of the aircraft, spare parts and associated equipment. We have similar legislation in Parliament every year. This guarantee represents $US230m or its equivalent in foreign currency. Whereas the provision of the guarantee does not involve a cash outlay by the Government, it does create a contingent liability for the Commonwealth. That requires the consent of the Parliament. In essence, it is routine legislation which is not opposed by the Opposition. However, the Opposition is concerned by the recent Press speculation concerning the financial state of Qantas. We are not able to make much judgment upon that speculation, other than to make an observation, because we have little information to hand to appreciate what that speculation means with respect to Qantas and its needs.

From time to time when these matters have been debated in the Senate we have drawn attention to the fact that a loan guarantee Bill is important legislation because it involves the people of Australia in a contingent financial liability. Such a guarantee is not given lightly, but it should be given if all the facts are available to the Parliament. To that extent, we should know something of the financial performance of Qantas at the present time and over the past year. None of these details are available; nor are there any details provided about the interest rates that may be charged. I draw attention to the controversy raging about Ansett ‘s overseas borrowing. We are entitled to that sort of information. It is a matter of great concern in the United States. There has been considerable discussion around the globe, and in our own Press, about the interest rates paid by Ansett Airlines of Australia on loans being made by the Export-Import Bank of the United States. So, it is appropriate in this kind of discussion where a public liability is involved that the interest rates should be disclosed. Qantas Airways Ltd is an important Australian institution, owned by the Australian people and administered by the Australian Government. It has a world-wide reputation for its high quality of operation. It is an outstanding airline by any comparison and it is one which every Australian is proud to recognise. This is its 60th year of operation. It is unique that a government airline should operate for this length of time and enjoy the reputation that it does. It is praise indeed when Sir Frederick Laker can say that it is an international airline par excellence.

Let us look at the assets and liabilities of the airline. The total assets of Qantas as at 3 1 March 1979 were $703m which of course puts it in the class of a very large enterprise. It provides services to 33 cities across a span of 25 countries. At the date I mentioned, it employed a staff of 13,379. Its revenue of $3 10m in 1974 had been more than doubled by the year 1979 to $744m. The point should be stressed that Qantas is simply a publicly owned transport enterprise operating efficiently but in a very difficult international environment. We know of the intense competition that exists in the international air routes and of the pressures that governments are subjected to in order to give concessions and franchises to other international competitors.

The sole Qantas shareholder is the Australian Government on behalf of the Australian people. Because of the lack of information provided by the Minister for Transport or the Government on the performance of Qantas, I have no alternative but to refer to a rather detailed report that appeared in the Australian Financial Review on 18 February. The writer of that article, Mr Ali Cromie, the transport writer of that newspaper, obviously had access to a great deal of information to which neither the Opposition nor the Parliament had access. That seems to the Opposition to be a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. I do not take umbrage at financial journalists or, for that matter, journalists of any nature who have the right to pursue, investigate, seek out and obtain information. I think that is a very important part of their role.

It is rather galling that the Parliament itself is denied, for a whole variety of reasons which I do not want to canvass to any great extent, access to this sort of information. If it is possible for a journalist to get that sort of information by whatever means available, that is good enough. But if it is possible for that information to be made available, it ought to be available to the Parliament; yet it is not. The article points to the possible loss facing Qantas this year of some $30m. The article stated that losses were expected to result largely from extraordinary items such as net unrealised exchange losses, which already amount to $22.8m on Qantas books. The final loss figure stated in the article would represent a major turnabout in the airline ‘s operating costs. We can only comment on and draw attention to that aspect because the Government is not prepared to make available to the Parliament all of the facts and the information that would enable us to say whether that judgment, that statement, is fair or false. The 1978-79 Qantas balance sheet shows an operating profit of $22. 7m. One would have expected and hoped that that would have been the case this year.

The article states that the major factor contributing to airline operating costs has been fuel and labour costs. It refers to low yield air fares as being set too low. We are all aware that in recent tin-.as Parliament has been expressing some concern about the fare structure. The article refers to the fact that the high load factors which are needed on all low fare routes are not being achieved on a year round basis. Reference is made to the Government’s failure in the area of strict capacity of control of other airlines to stop the poaching of third and fourth freedom traffic. Of course, we should have the information to establish the veracity or otherwise of these matters.

The former Minister for Transport was very long on rhetoric in respect of a number of these matters but very short on action when it came to international airline discounting. He made lots of statements. We well remember some of the declarations made over the ACTU-Jetset Travel Service Pty Ltd proposal of a couple of years ago. Despite all the rhetoric, noise and bluster of the former Minister, the Department of Transport while under his administration did not produce one prosecution. It is a case of all noise and no action. It must be remembered that the people who are able to get access to under-the-counter discounting fares are being subsidised by all those other people who travel and pay the regular fares. The article to which I referred earlier stated that that was a factor in preventing Qantas from completely implementing its new air fares package to Europe. We are dealing with an important area that the Parliament ought to be debating.

The article was written prior to the recent announcement by the new Minister of the conclusion of the new arrangements in respect to the United Kingdom, West Germany and Italy. The article stated that Qantas had failed to attract the high load factors necessary to make the air fares an economic proposition. It stated that an 80 per cent load factor is needed to make low air fares work and that in fact Qantas had achieved a load factor of about 6 1 .3 per cent, a level that is not sufficient to cover costs and provide an adequate margin for return. We would like the Government to say whether these are basic facts and whether they affect the profitability and the day to day successful management of such an important enterprise as Qantas. The article went on to state that Qantas ‘s fuel bill doubled from $ 104m in 1978 to a forecasted $208m for 1979-80, that fuel costs represent 50 per cent of hourly operating cost compared with only 26 per cent in the previous year and that this also was a major factor in increases in air fares. In fact, a spokesman for Qantas was quoted as saying:

Cheap fares because of oil price rises have ended. People will look at the Australian cheap fares era as a brief breeze.

That indicates that the Government’s world parity pricing policy and the general increase in petrol costs have great impacts upon other important areas of economic development in our country. These increased petrol costs have an effect on the average citizen and also the whole fare structure.

I make the point that there has been a total lack of information. This kind of detail can be made available to a newspaper reporter, who obviously has greater standing and is held in greater trust than the Parliament of Australia. We regard this as a most unsatisfactory position. I am making no criticism of the journalist’s capacity to get that information, but if that information is able to be obtained at that level it ought to be available to the Parliament. It is a situation that the Opposition does not like and will not tolerate. On every occasion and at every opportunity we will draw attention to it until such time as the facts on the airline industry are brought out in the open and until such time as we can discuss, debate and develop airline policies based upon fact and not upon exaggeration, misinformation or Press leaks. I do not think that that is a demand that is too much for the Government to accept.

I repeat that the only shareholder in Qantas is the Australian Government. Therefore, it is always under the control of the government of the day. Its financial directives come from the government of the day and the ultimate responsibility for its operations, decisions and fare levels rests with the Government and not with Qantas. If there is something wrong with the management of that organisation we are entitled to say that the Government has to give us an explanation. The fact that information is not freely available is a nice easy shield for Government supporters to hide behind. That does not help the Minister one iota. In fact, he is disadvantaged considerably if those facts cannot be publicly debated and if the policies cannot be defended.

It would be better if it was recognised that Qantas is the tool of government policy and that international airline agreements are agreements between this Government and other governments. It does not matter which airline we are talking about- whether Italian, German, British or our own- as all airlines are the transport enterprises of the country operating within the confines of the international airline agreement that has been developed over the years among the respective countries. Qantas is not a statutory corporation; it is a private company registered under the Queensland Companies Act and is directly responsible to this Government, or the government of the day. There are several other serious questions which need answering by the Government. To date no information has been provided to us, despite my colleague’s raising of these matters in the House of Representatives.

I refer to some of the facts that have been revealed recently. There have been some pronouncements. Good news about the airline industry invariably comes out under the name of the Minister. The bad news comes out under the name of some anonymous spokesman. It is usually released on a weekend or at a late hour when there is no way that the information can be double checked by the Opposition spokesman. The Minister in the other place has not said a great deal about the fares problem, neither has his spokesman in the Senate. It is not good enough that we do not have sufficient information about the fare structure and about the difficulties of the Government in consultations and discussions with other countries.

I turn to the purchase of the Boeing 747 SP aircraft which, it is proposed, will replace the chartered Air New Zealand Ltd DC8 aircraft. The Minister stated in his second reading speech that the operating costs of the new 747 SP aircraft would be the same as those of the Air New Zealand DC8. However, if we examine the Minister’s statement we find that the 747 SP can seat 336 passengers compared with the 150 of the DC8. So there seems to be some misunderstanding in that area by the Minister. Regularly we hear reports, as I said earlier, about domestic airlines wishing to extend their services to near foreign countries. These proposals are worthy of public examination but we cannot comment due to lack of information. If only to establish the facts and to show what benefits, if any, could be made available to travellers and to Australia as a whole, that information ought to be freely available.

For years governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America have followed the procedure, when applications have been made by companies for new licences to fly internationally, of holding a public hearing. Why can we not do that? Qantas charters DC8 aircraft from Air New Zealand. This whole exercise produces some interesting information. Qantas asked TAA and Ansett to quote for the chartering of those aircraft. I understand that the charter fares submitted by TAA and Ansett were considerably above the quotes by the successful tenderer- Air New Zealand, which operates 727 200 aircraft. The Minister stated in his second reading speech that Qantas, by using its 747 SPs, would be able to carry 124 per cent more passengers than the DC8 aircraft for the same operating cost. We must then question the claims by TAA and Ansett regarding their ability to offer benefits to travellers by entering air services to near foreign countries. It is regrettable that so often oversimplification confuses the difficulties associated with arranging international airline agreements.

The former Minister for Transport learned the hard way in dealing with the airlines of the Association of South East Asian Nations. The Minister might recall that last year we were dealing with similar Bills. At that stage we were under considerable pressure to ease the entry into Australia of airlines from that region. I repeat what I said then, that international airline agreements are difficult to negotiate. They have a standing in international affairs akin to that of treaties and of course each country pushes its own barrow. However, on a global basis, almost every country acquires a half share of airline traffic in and out of its own territory. Tremendous store has been placed on a rapid and continual increase in tourist traffic to Australia. Some increase has occurred, but we advance a note of caution. Earlier forecasts will need to be revised time and again in light of the level of escalation of international air fares which, as the Minister has said, has arisen mainly as a result of increased fuel costs. As I have only a few minutes left I will leave my remarks on the second piece of legislation until after the suspension of the sitting for dinner.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator GIETZELT:

– I now refer to the second Bill in this cognate debate, that is, the.Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1980. The purpose of this Bill is to enable the Treasurer, on behalf of the Commonwealth, to guarantee borrowings abroad by Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd to a limit of $US 12.2m, or its equivalent, to finance the purchase of Ansett ‘s twelfth Boeing 727-200 series aircraft.

I have made the point before in this Parliament that because this type of legislation involves the Australian Government in a contingent financial liability, and because clause 5 of the Bill makes provision for officers of the Commonwealth Public Service to have full access- I stress that point- to all of the financial accounts of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd and Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd, the Parliament should be presented, as a matter of course and as a matter of right, with proper detail of the operations of the companies and the circumstances that lead to the justification of a public guarantee being given to the borrowing of funds abroad. Again, that information has not been presented, as I have suggested in the first part of my speech. We have a scant minute and a half’s contribution from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs who represents in the chamber the Minister for Transport. This is completely unacceptable to the Opposition. It is an example of the Executive treating the Parliament with a degree of contempt.

The Bill deals with the provision of a financial guarantee. Therefore, as I have said, if one is to consider the justification of that guarantee, one needs to look at the financial objectives of the airlines and their financial performance. The Opposition is seriously concerned at a report which was published in the Melbourne Age of 1 April last and which dealt with the financial objectives of Trans-Australia Airlines and a statement by Sir Robert Law-Smith, the chairman of that organisation, that a higher dividend target for TAA would be strenuously opposed.

The dividend target, or the financial objective as it is known in the jargon, is set by the Government. If I recall correctly, it was increased from 10 per cent to 15 per cent in 1976. Certainly, the pressure that is applied now, because of TAA ‘s part in the two-airline policy, for a higher dividend objective has the tandem effect that any increases in fares that go to achieve that higher profit objective will likewise go to Ansett Transport Industries, belonging to the Ansett company. This is to the detriment and not to the benefit of air travellers. As has been said time and time again as we have debated transport Bills in this Parliament, this policy makes public transport more expensive and less attractive to the air traveller. It is really about trying to finance the inflated prices that were paid for Ansett shares in the wheeling and dealing that went on last year on the Australian Stock Exchange. I said at the beginning of that incident and throughout it that in no circumstances should air travellers in this country be called upon to finance the Stock Exchange punting of speculators that went on at that time. As I said earlier this evening, the Opposition is concerned about the fact that the Commonwealth is involved in some arrangement with Ansett Transport Industries. It has regard also to the way in which the American Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate, is currently looking at the borrowings abroad of that organisation.

I now give a few examples of what has happened with regard to fares, because 1 think that, in the last minute or so available to me, we ought to look at that matter. The economy fare between Sydney and Melbourne has risen by 54.8 per cent, and the fare between Sydney and Brisbane has risen by 54. 1 per cent. There is no accountability; there are no facts; there is nothing. The Parliament is not told the reason for the consistent increases in fares in this country, yet it is asked to give its assent to legislation which guarantees the financial viability of the airline industry in this country, both with respect to the Government-owned operation and that of the private sector. To the extent that we realise that funds have to be made available and to the extent that we appreciate that the industry needs Government assistance and backing to maintain an efficient and viable aircraft industry, the Opposition has no objection to what the Government is proposing to do. To that extent, the Opposition supports the legislation.

Senator MacGIBBON:
Queensland

– It is a pleasure to speak in support of these two Bills, one dealing with the loan guarantee for the purchase of some new Boeing 747 aircraft for Qantas Airways Ltd, and the other dealing with a loan guarantee for the purchase of one 727-200 series aircraft for Ansett Airlines of Australia. Given what is going on in the commercial world at present, it is somewhat of an irony that these two Bills should be linked together in a cognate debate. I look, first of all, at some aspects of Qantas ‘s operations in relation to the purchase of these two aircraft and then link them up with some of the uses to which the Ansett aircraft could be put.

Qantas Airways is one of the great Australian endeavours and achievements. It is one of the oldest airlines in the world, and it is one of the most successful, from an operational point of view, that the world has seen. As a Queenslander, I take great pleasure in its history. During Show Week in August 1920, in the Gresham Hotel, at those round-topped glass tables that are no more, but which I remember as an undergraduate, five men-Fergus McMaster and Ainslie Templeton, two western Queensland graziers; Alan Campbell from Primaries; the redoubtable Hudson Fysh; and Paul McGuinessmet together to form Queensland and Northern Territory Air Services, or Qantas Airways, as it later became known. The company was registered on 16 November 1920 with the purpose, first of all, of establishing aerial passenger, mail, and general air transport services linking up the railway termini of western Queensland and to operate in the Northern Territory to Port Darwin. Its second purpose was to develop and to popularise aviation on a commercial basis.

The company was based in Winton and then it moved to Longreach, and it served the rail termini from Cloncurry to Charleville, extending through to Brisbane, as well as operating in the Northern Territory. Its Brisbane office was established in 1930 and it operated at Eagle Farm. But Eagle Farm was a bit too boggy- after all, it was only a dairy farm- and in January 1 93 1 it moved to Archerfield and operated from there until it moved to Sydney in the 1940s. As an overseas airline, its history started with the award of the contract, to operate the Singapore-Brisbane sector of the mail route in conjunction with Imperial Airways on 1 9 April 1 934, on the Empire airmail service. It did that initially with the de Havilland DH86 aircraft and later with the Empire Boats up to the time of the Second World War. During the Second World War it had a very heavy operational flying program and made a major contribution to the airline industry, to the whole of aviation, bo;h civil aviation and service aviation, and to the allied cause, with large maintenance and overhaul facilities.

The history of the present company starts in 1 945 when the Labor Government of that time nationalised what was a private company and established Qantas Airways, as it is known today, out of the nucleus of what existed before. Fortunately it maintained most of the senior personnel and, most importantly, maintained the operational skills and professionalism that Qantas had developed as a pioneer airline in the previous 25 years. It was government policy at the time- it still is- that there be only one Australian operator on the international air routes out of Australia, and Qantas became that chosen instrument. It expanded on the SingaporeBrisbane route to operate through to London, in association with Imperial Airways, which later became British Overseas Airways Corporation. In a pool agreement with BOAC Qantas formed the kangaroo route. It operated across the Pacific, after British Canadian Pacific Airlines failed, and ultimately across the United States of

America and the Atlantic. It became an around the world airline. It operated into other countries and developed quite a long route mileage, servicing the airports in many lands.

During the mid-1960s it realised that some of these routes were unproductive and unlikely to be productive in the longer term, so it started a program of route rationalisation. It pulled off the Atlantic route, the trans-America route and the South African route. Qantas essentially became a specialist long haul airline concentrating on the United States and European traffic. Of course, in that rationalisation it was aided by the evolution of transport aircraft which came about during the 1960s and the 1970s. The Boeing 707-300 series were really the first intercontinental long range passenger aircraft. The Boeing 747 series is the long range aircraft par excellence at present.

Today Qantas enjoys a very high reputation, particularly in the technical field. Its reputation for airmanship, engineering and maintenance is absolutely without equal. These factors add up to an unparalleled record of safety. It has had a varied career in the services it has afforded its passengers. Having paid my own fare around the world in the Christmas parliamentary recess, I can report from personal experience that the economy service offered by Qantas today is equal to any in the world. It is an excellent service and I am very proud of it. It is interesting to talk to travellers around the world and learn of their high respect for the service offered to passengers by Qantas. It is excellently received by travellers.

At present Qantas is a specialist on the long haul routes to the United States and the United Kingdom. But that position has not been achieved without paying a price. The airline has developed a philosophy of concentrating on one aircraft type. It has always been the dream of airlines to have one type of air frame and one type of engine. Qantas has specialised in the Boeing 747 series aircraft and the Pratt and Whitney JT 9D engine. There have been advantages in doing this. It simplifies crew training and maintenance training. An aircraft is a very complex and specialised structure. It simplifies the amount of money which needs to be tied up in spares holdings. All in all, it is very good economics if an airline can do it. This is the first time in the life of Qantas that it has ever achieved the position of having only one type of air frame and one type of engine. However, it means that the routes on which the airline can operate are restricted to certain characteristics. It is restricted to a long haul, high density route structure. It will not operate economically over short hauls and with low passenger loads. That is an argument I will develop later.

Senator Kilgariff:

– It is worth developing.

Senator MacGIBBON:

– It is worth developing because it means that people in the remote areas of the Northern Territory and Queensland, for example, suffer an economic penalty and inconvenience because these aircraft have to operate on a restricted route structure. This great dream of operating only one air frame and one engine type has had to be modified because of the great increase in the cost of fuel. As Senator Gietzelt has said, the cost of fuel to Qantas has gone up 100 per cent in the last twelve months. That has been a factor driving Qantas towards the new aircraft which we are debating in the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill. These aircraft will be equipped with the Rolls Royce RB 2 1 1 engine, which is a more powerful engine. Most importantly, it has about 10 per cent better fuel economy, which translates to much more economic operations with longer ranges or higher payloads.

I shall return to this matter of inflexibility because it is a serious matter to Australians for three reasons: Firstly, it is important for passengers wanting to get out of Australia- Australian citizens principally- and fly abroad; secondly, it is important for the business of getting tourists into Australia and into areas that are not served at present by overseas airlines; and thirdly, it is important to freighting capacity and developing our commerce. The importance of freighting capacity is showing up very clearly at present in the meat trade with the Middle East. The primary producers are developing very lucrative trade with the Middle East countries, but Qantas is serving only Bahrain. It has discounted its freight rates on that service very heavily, but Bahrain by and large is a rather poor transhipment point for meat trade into this area. One of the requirements of the Moslem religion is that its meat- in our case mainly mutton- must be killed under supervision and that it must be eaten within a certain period. That means that the delivery time between the abattoirs and the table must be as short as possible. If all the traffic has to go through Bahrain, which has poor quality transhipment and cold storage facilities, the trade is compromised to a very considerable degree.

I return to the matter of passengers getting out of Australia. The fact that Qantas is using big aircraft means that there are fewer departure points from this country. In effect, Qantas has only three departure points. It operates principally out of Sydney, but also out of Melbourne and Perth. As I said to Senator Kilgariff a few minutes ago, the people in the outlying States such as Queensland, Tasmania and South Australia as well as the Northern Territory are at a positive disadvantage.

Senator McLaren:

– Can Qantas not pick up passengers in Darwin?

Senator MacGIBBON:

– Yes, it can, but there is not much of a service through Darwin at present. Qantas has reduced its services quite a bit. This is very sad for people such as Senator Kilgariff and myself, who are either Queenslanders or Territorians. After all, it was the initiative of our forebears and our relatives that underwrote this most successful venture. We do not take too kindly to the fact that we are now disadvantaged by a board of directors and a company that is situated in Pitt Street in Sydney and is entirely unconcerned about our needs. Quite seriously, operating through only three ports produces a big economic penalty for people in the outlying States. It also adds measurably to the time of what is really a long flight from Australia to Europe or to the United States.

A limitation is also placed on tourists coming into the country. Overseas surveys of where people want to go when they come into Australia reveal that people in the main name two places, and neither of those places is Sydney or Melbourne. Most tourists want to go to the Great Barrier Reef first of all. Secondly, they want to go to Ayers Rock. If they want to do that they have to overfly northern Queensland on the way in, they have to fly from Sydney to northern Queensland, they have to fly back to Sydney and they have to fly out from Sydney again. So they fly that sector four times. In the most conservative estimate it takes 2lh hours flying time to travel from Townsville to Sydney. Therefore, a passenger is looking at a flight time of at least 10 hours, which is about half the time it takes to fly from Sydney to London. It is a very big economic penalty. That penalty cannot be evaded under the present system.

World tourists will not backtrack. They will not fly past a point, fly back to it and back to the starting point again. That does not work and, indeed, it should not work because it does not make sense. The tourist trade is very important to Australia. The point to be made is that we should not wait until the trade is developed before we provide the necessary services. For the ingress and egress of tourists the air service must precede the development of the trade. I heard a story in relation to this in Queensland recently.

Sir Lenox Hewitt, the Chairman of the board of directors of Qantas, was in a Boeing 747 flying across the Pacific inbound for Sydney. He asked over the public address system: ‘Hands up all those who are going to Sydney’. All the passengers put their hands up. That misses the point. Until a service is provided into Townsville passengers will not be on board the aircraft to put their hands up.

Senator Sibraa:

– Qantas will be going to Townsville in the near future, will it not?

Senator MacGIBBON:

-It will. I will come to that later. The second feature of this large aircraft syndrome of Qantas is that it has become hypersensitive to the government policy or having only one Australian operator on the international routes. Qantas has taken this belief to the point where it really is operating against the best interests of Australia. In 1 945 it was a perfectly realistic philosophy, but it is not so today when the trade is very large both into and out of Australia and is not realistic in view of the diversity of the trade. The trade is now so diverse that Qantas plainly cannot handle the demands made on it. Classically, this is shown up in the regional needs around the South East Asian and south-east Pacific areas where the internal airlines are the logical instruments because they have the equipment that is needed to service the airfields in Australia and the low passenger densities that are involved. For example Queensland has a series of major tourist air fields. In that regard it differs from any other State with the exception of Tasmania. New South Wales has only Sydney; Victoria has only Melbourne; South Australia has Adelaide; and Tasmania has two- Launceston and Hobart. Western Australia has got only Perth. Queensland has Cairns, Townsville, Mackay, Proserpine, Rockhampton and Coolangatta, all of which are major tourist areas.

Senator Withers:

-What about Port Hedland?

Senator MacGIBBON:

-I am talking about major airfields, not dirt strips. Queensland has a major requirement for a lot of international airports. It is plainly impossible for Australia to pay for the development of all those airfields. At the present time the airfields are adequate from an operational point of view- with some development of the terminals. They can be used by the 727-200 series aircraft on the Pacific and Asian regional routes to bring in this new trade.

Unfortunately Qantas has taken a position where it blocks the interna] airlines. It is blocking not only Ansett but also Trans-Australia Airlines. The terms it has given to the internal airlines are plainly unrealistic in a commercial sense. Qantas has said to the internal airlines: ‘We will charter you and operate the services with your aircraft under charter’. That is unacceptable to the internal airlines because there is no possibility of their bettering the terms of the contract. There is no commercial incentive for them to develop the trade and do more. The internals want to operate on a free enterprise system and compete for the traffic. Most importantly, they are prepared to do it without any subsidy at all to back their own commercial judgment, which is in direct contrast to the reported request by Qantas last week that it wanted as a subsidy $ 1 m or something like that to operate the Hobart-Christchurch service.

Another unfortunate feature of Qantas ‘s monopoly position is that while it has denied the internals the right to operate these routes, it has gone off-shore and gone into pooling agreements with a range of overseas airlines to provide this service. The one I would like to deal with first of all is the service to New Zealand- the BrisbaneSydneyMelbourne Wellington service- where Qantas has made a pooling arrangement with Air New Zealand. Air New Zealand is operating a service with a DC8 under charter to Qantas. One of the aircraft mentioned in this Bill is the 747 SP, which is being purchased by Qantas allegedly to fulfil this requirement and displace the DC8. The pooling agreement with Air New Zealand provides that from the revenue earned the operational expenses are deducted to give a profit divided equally between Qantas and Air New Zealand. That sounds superficially quite attractive because Australia does not have any equity or capital involved. That is not the whole story. If we were operating that route with a 727-200 series aircraft or any aircraft from the internal airlines, we would be helping to contain costs within this country because we would be able to use those aircraft at times when their use is restricted within Australia by the curfew. In any case we would be able to increase their overall utilisation on a weekly or an annual basis.

Another important point is the wages bill. I estimate that just on the BrisbaneSydneyMelbourne Wellington service there is over $ 1 m in wages in air crew alone without worrying about the maintenance costs from ground engineers and people like that. That money would be earned and kept in Australia. With the state of the economy today that is a consideration that should not be lightly put aside.

Senator Sibraa:

– But was the Air New Zealand tender not the cheapest one?

Senator MacGIBBON:

– I think there are more things in this than the honourable senator appreciates. If we look at the Cairns-Port Moresby route which has been operating since 1973, the Air Niugini pool is exactly the same as the Air New Zealand setup. It is a service that could well be operated by the internal airlines. My colleagues from Western Australia are beaming at this point. The Perth-Denpasar, Bali route operated by Garuda Indonesian Airways is one that could be operated quite comfortably by the internals. The Cocos Island-Singapore-Kuala Lumpur route is another one that could be done by the internals. That is a very interesting one because the Cocos Island-Kuala Lumpur route is operated by Malaysian Airlines System on a week and week about basis with Singapore Airlines Ltd through one of its sub companiesTradeWinds operating the Cocos IslandSingapore route. Those two sectors are flown under Qantas flight numbers, QF771 and QF772. 1 think it is misrepresenting to the international traveller a service performed by a foreign airline. All these routes could easily be operated by the internals if Qantas were not so restrictive in its approach to the whole matter.

The fares structure is another field that does not endear Qantas completely to the Australian public. Qantas has been quite critical of the internals. It has been on the offensive for the last 12 months, telling the internal airlines that if they bought wide bodied jets they would be operating at a much lower seat mileage rate. It was interesting to see the publication recently put out by Ansett in which it costed on exactly the same formula that the internal airlines usedboth TAA and Ansett- the TownsvilleSingapore and Darwin-Singapore routes. The Darwin-Singapore route should be more favourable to Qantas as a long haul operator than the internals, but Qantas charges $808 at the present time, for the economy return fare. Computed on the flag-fall and kilometre passenger basis of the internal airlines, that fare works out at $505. So much for the fact that the internals are more expensive than Qantas. That is a saving of $303, which is about a third of the Qantas figure. That is not taking into account the 5 per cent reduction that could occur if the internals were operating on excise free fuel the way Qantas does.

There has been some criticism in the Australian community about the expensiveness of Qantas fares. One wonders just how efficient some of Qantas ‘s commercial operations are, as opposed to its technical expertise. I well remember some years ago when a representative of Qantas was interviewed on a Four Corners program about the practice of discounting fares. The representative deplored this vehemently. Then the interviewer on the program said: ‘Well, we have been able to buy Qantas fares at a discount in Singapore, Baghdad and in the Middle East countries’. The same gentleman blandly said: ‘Well, we just have to meet the market in those situations’. If we can meet the market with discounting of regular economy fares and first class fares outside Australia- and my advice is that this still goes on in Singapore, Bangkok and the Middle East- those facilities should be available to the Australian public as well.

I wonder where Qantas is going with its fare philosophy. As Senator Gietzelt said, we do not have terribly much information on the economics of the company, but it seems to me as an outsider that it has opted towards a Laker-style charter operation with a heavy emphasis on discounted fares, advance purchase fares and things like that. At the same time it has tried to make the whole operation pay by increasing the economy and first class fares at a frequent rate. The people who pay full fares are subsidising those who receive the discount fares. It seems to me that it should be one way or the other. One either supports a Laker-style charter operation or one tries to run a regular, public transport service. I do not think the two blend very successfully. The point that concerns me, as I mentioned earlier, is the development in Australia of the tourist trade in certain areas which are not at present served by any overseas airline. It is my belief that, if Qantas Airways Ltd does not have the equipment or the capacity, as it clearly does not, to operate in these fields, it should be -

Senator Rocher:

– To operate economically.

Senator MacGIBBON:

– It is not only a matter of operating economically but also a matter of having the facilities available at those airports to take 747 aircraft regularly.

Senator Withers:

– As well as Customs officers.

Senator MacGIBBON:

-Yes, facilities must be provided for Customs and migration officers. The two needs go hand in hand. The tourist trade is very important to Australia. The House of Representatives Select Committee on Tourism estimated that for every 25,000 tourists who come into the country 1,400 new jobs are created ultimately. That is a very significant factor, in these times of unemployment. The proposal that two services be operated a week between Townsville and Singapore will bring about 20,000 tourists a year to Australia. That will bring an additional $ 10m in trade and is something that is of importance to Australia at the present time.

I should like to deal with Senator Sibraa ‘s comment about Qantas operating into Queensland. I welcome very much the announcement made during the week by Qantas that it would run a Boeing 747SP twice a week on the routes Sydney-Brisbane-Honolulu and Sydney-Brisbane-Townsville-Honolulu. The north American traffic will be a great help to north Queensland. But it will do nothing to develop the Asian and the Pacific trade about which I have been talking principally. I think it is time that all the airline operators in Australia got together and realised that we are Australians. We have an enormous capital investment in aircraft. It is up to us to use those aircraft to the hilt in order to maximise the economic advantage that will accrue from the intensive utilisation of those aircraft to the benefit of the whole Australian community. There is no place for a narrow dog-in-the-manger attitude on the part of the external operator to deny to internal operators access to routes for which they have the capacity and the equipment. Qantas does not have that capacity or equipment. Let us all get into the job and do something for the country.

Senator SIBRAA:
New South Wales

– As my colleague Senator Gietzelt said, the Opposition does not oppose the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1980, the purpose of which is to authorise the Treasurer (Mr Howard) on behalf of the Commonwealth to guarantee borrowings raised by Qantas Airways Limited to finance the purchase of four Boeing 707 series aircraft. This follows the announcement by the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt) in January of the Government’s approval for Qantas to purchase five aircraft, one of which will be financed by Qantas through internal sources. I must say that I am pleased that Senator MacGibbon is one government senator who is appreciative of the Labor Government’s nationalisation scheme and the fact that the Labor Government nationalised Qantas in 1945. I also agree with many of the remarks that he made about tourism and about the Asian and Pacific trade. I intend to deal with those matters later in my speech.

I wish to make some remarks now about the publicity surrounding the campaign for Ansett Transport Industries Ltd- the campaign being run by Rupert Murdoch and by the Australian newspaper- to become the second international carrier for Australia. I believe it is a subject about which a great deal of nonsense has been spoken. I refer particularly to claims which have been made that Qantas is overprotected and therefore that Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett are not protected. I think we have to ask ourselves this question: Can we afford the luxury and the extravagance in which very few countries indulge of having a second international carrier. I think one only has to look at Europe, for example, and at the situation in West Germany where there is one national airline- Lufthansa German Airlines. One only has to look at Holland which has one national carrier, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines. These two airlines have access to huge markets. Those markets are much bigger than those to which Qantas has access. I think we need to look at the fact that here in Australia Qantas has competition from, I think, either 23 or 24 international carriers which operate into Australia. They include companies, as Senator MacGibbon has said, that indulge in the practice of fare discounting and make the Australian aviation market a cut-throat market.

I think we must ask ourselves whether we can afford the duplication of administration costs Qantas presently operates out of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and, to a lesser extent, Darwin. In the last few weeks, announcements have been made that Qantas intends to operate out of Hobart, Townsville and Adelaide. I think we need to look again at the situation that exists in Europe. I will use the two examples to which I referred earlier. KLM is a large international airline that operates on an administrative sense only out of Amsterdam. The huge airline Lufthansa operates only out of Frankfurt and, to a lesser extent, out of Munich. We are talking about Qantas operating out of seven ports in Australia. We are talking about a second international airline operating, in an administrative sense, out of 14 different places in Australia. I do not think that the situation can bear those sorts of administrative costs.

Qantas has a great disadvantage because of the distances that people travel. The passengers of Qantas travel further than passengers of any other airline in the world. The first pickup for additional fares for Qantas- that is, outside Darwin- probably would be Singapore. If we compare the distance from Sydney to Singapore with the distance that international airlines in, say, the United States and Europe travel and the markets to which they have access, one realises the problems faced by Qantas. It has been said by many people in the past that Qantas is disadvantaged because of a high wage structure. That is true but Qantas has maintained a highly competitive economic position. In 10 years the productivity of Qantas employees rose by 150 per cent. At the moment Qantas employs approximately 13,000 people throughout the world, 11,000 of them in Australia. In debates in the past- not in this debate tonight- many ill informed attacks have been made on the wage rates and the conditions enjoyed by Qantas employees in this country.

I know that a number of people compare the profit made by Qantas with the profits made by airlines that operate out of Asia, the Middle East, and also with profits made by European carriers. They say that Qantas should make more money and the reason why it does not is related to high wages and good conditions. I would not complain if the wages and conditions enjoyed by Qantas employees turned out to be the very best in the world. I think that while the safety standards and the maintenance standards of Qantas remain the very best in the world, the employees should at least get some of the highest salaries and should enjoy some of the best conditions in the world. When international airline travellers were asked in a recent survey what they looked for most in an airline, they said that their first preference was a safe, reliable operation. Cheap air fares came next.

On the subject of Ansett becoming an international carrier, I put it to the Senate that I do not think that Ansett could become a fully fledged international airline for years. By ‘fully fledged ‘, I mean competing on all Qantas routes. I noticed a statement by Rupert Murdoch the other day that Ansett Airlines was in the position to undercut Qantas on any of the routes flown by Qantas. I put it to the Senate that that is nonsense. What type of aircraft would Ansett use? The 747 aircraft have been shown to be the most efficient of the long haul aircraft that are available. Where would Ansett get the equipment? At the moment there is a long waiting list throughout the world for 747 aircraft. How much would the equipment cost, especially at a time when we are looking at staggering increases in fuel costs? In 1972 Qantas ‘s fuel bill was $ 17.5m, in 1978-79 it was $ 104m and in 1980 it has risen to $2 10 m. I notice in a statement made by Sir Lenox Hewitt the other day that in 1981 the bill could rise to $400m.

I believe that Ansett Airlines of Australia certainly would be in a position to pick the eyes out of some of the international routes which Qantas operates at the moment, especially with the equipment it has in the Boeing 727, when that equipment is able to operate on a particular route. But I put it to honourable senators that, in the long term, we would have two international airlines which would require government subsidies. I think that at the moment it would be far better for Australia to give priority to upgrading our airports for the Boeing 747s, which have shown themselves to be much more economic than any of the other equipment being operated by the domestic airlines. I would think that Ansett Transport Industries would be in a position to operate on the long haul routes in a charter-type operation. It probably would have to charter the required aircraft to do so. I shall quote from a recent article on charter operations because I believe that a great deal of the gloss has gone off charter operations right throughout the world. The article states:

Firstly we must be clear that no city in continential Europe has sufficient traffic to support charter nights from Australia- they would be an absurdity.

The Australia/London market is, however, sufficiently large to consider, and indeed the scheduled airlines’ advance purchase traffic- two thirds of the total- could have been carried on whole aircraft charters with an adequate frequency from all Australian cities except Darwin, through which an occasional charter service might have operated from Sydney or Melbourne.

In that event the traffic between Darwin and London would have had to pay for the empty seats between Sydney and Darwin or Melbourne and Darwin and for the cost of a transit call at Darwin.

Theoretically, a total of eight scheduled services per week could have been justified for the remaining one third of traffic between Australia and London, four by British Airways and four by Qantas.

The traffic available would have permitted a total of four scheduled services each week to be operated from Sydney to London, with one calling at Brisbane and another calling at Darwin. The remaining four scheduled services could operate from Melbourne to London with one calling at Perth. You might consider, and I would agree with you, that that is a far from adequate level of service.

If, in these circumstances, Qantas had attempted to maintain a minimum saleable product- a daily service between Australia and London- by carrying sector traffic as well as end to end traffic, nearly 800 passengers would be needed in each direction weekly between Australia and Singapore and another 800 passengers would be needed in each direction weekly between Singapore and London. Given the other airlines which would also claim a share of that traffic, the total market would just not have supported that volume of capacity and the situation would be reduced to absurdity. And for absurdity you should read insolvency!

As I said, much of the gloss has gone off the charter operations. I think that we have only to look at the situation with Laker and the Skytrain to realise that. Originally he ran the Skytrain from London to New York. He then got authority to operate it between London and Los Angeles and it was not working, it was not making a profit. He then linked New York and Los Angeles in the same Skytrain charter-type service, and that has not been paying either. The current situation is that Laker has been granted advance purchase and normal economy fares between London and New York and between London and Los Angeles. In other words, at the moment what Laker is doing, with the exception of first class travel, is running a normal airline service because the charter operations, even on those maximum density routes, has not worked out.

I shall make some remarks about tourism and competition because I think that at the present time, in terms of expenditure outside Australia, Qantas is the single greatest promoter of the country to foreign tourists. Anyone who has seen the Qantas advertisements used overseas I am sure will agree with me when I say that those advertisements are excellent. But the statistics are there to back up the statement I have just made. Of all the tourists who come into this country, 36 per cent travel with Qantas. Qantas is operating in competition with 23 other international airlines. It brings in 36 per cent of all the tourists and I believe that approximately 34 per cent to 35 per cent of all those tourists who have come to Australia also leave Australia on Qantas.

I think that at the moment a great case can be made out for Qantas going domestic. Surely there is a case for international tourists who have come into this country by Qantas to be able to use Qantas internally. I think also there is a case for travel on Qantas by Australians leaving Australia. Recently some examples have been given of the sorts of fares which would be available in the situation I have just spoken about, that is, international travellers coming into Australia being able to use Qantas. According to the figures given recently by Sir Lenox Hewitt, passengers would be able to travel from Melbourne to Perth and return for $101, as against the present cheapest domestic fare of $252. They would be able to travel from Sydney to Melbourne and return for $54, as opposed to the present cheapest domestic fare of $85. Also, the fare of people from Western Australia who would be travelling to Sydney and return and travelling out of Australia, going to Honolulu or the West coast of the United States of America, would be $337 return, which I believe is a saving of $ 1 54 on the present domestic fare.

Senator MacGibbon:

- Senator, why does Sir Lenox Hewitt not apply those seat mile costs to his overseas trade? If he did that he would be able to cut his fares to London and the United States by about one-third.

Senator SIBRAA:

– I will answer some of the points made by Senator MacGibbon later. But I believe that the remarks he made about travel between Darwin and Singapore were correct. I agree with him on the figures he gave for that. But if we are really looking at tourism in this country and what we can do to assist it, I believe that a very good case can be made out for TransAustralia Airlines, the domestic carrier, to merge with Qantas. I think that that would solve many of Senator MacGibbon’s problems. That could be done, just as BOAC merged with British European Airways and just as in New Zealand Air New Zealand Ltd merged with the National Airlines Corporation.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Just as Lufthansa merged.

Senator SIBRAA:

– That is right. If that were to happen, I think we would have a more efficient use of TAA’s aircraft and we would provide tourists with access to existing TAA ports at reduced rates. It was very interesting to look at a recent printed survey. I disagree with Senator MacGibbon on what are the main attractions that people want to see when they come to Australia. I submit that the Sydney Opera House would rank very highly in what people would want to see. The survey asked international visitors to Australia: ‘If you came to Australia again, what particular area would you like to visit?’

Senator O’Byrne:

– Tasmania.

Senator SIBRAA:

– Of the people questioned, 22 per cent said Queensland, outside Brisbane; 23 per cent said Perth; and 22 per cent said the Northern Territory. We will not get the international tourists into those areas without cheaper air fares. Senator O’Byrne remarked on Tasmania. One of the scandalous things is that, of the visitors who came to Australia, only 2 per cent went to Hobart on their first visit and only 1.4 per cent went to Darwin. They are both places which are served by TAA. If cheap fares were available we certainly would get a great increase in the number of people who go to Darwin and Hobart.

Having said a number of complimentary things about Qantas, I shall now say something about what I believe are some of the errors Qantas has made. I think Qantas has to realise that it is not catering for an elite but for a new class of traveller. Hundreds of thousands of Australians took their first overseas visit on Qantas and travelled to the Association of South East Asian Nations countries, but when the fares were reduced I do not think that Qantas realised that those people would then be looking to utilising those cheaper fares and travelling to Europe and the United States. The growth in travel was tremendous. As we can see from this Bill which is before us tonight, Qantas has not had the equipment to cope with that growth. It has not had the aircraft to establish new routes. I believe that at the moment there is sufficient traffic for Qantas to fly into South America. Indeed, it is a great pity that because of lack of travellers in the late 1960s and early 1970s Qantas gave up its travelling rights into Mexico. I think that at the moment if that link still existed it would be a very lucrative link indeed.

In 1976 the combined total of people travelling by South African Airways and Qantas into South Africa was 26,000. That was when Qantas went off the route. By 1978 South African Airways alone was carrying 28,000 passengers. Some people have said that Qantas pulled out of South Africa for political reasons. That has never been admitted. I suggest that on those figures it is about time Qantas went back in. Even if there is a political problem, there is a very good argument for it to do so in terms of the number of people who want to go to South Africa. There is also the political argument that Qantas should fly to London through a country such as Kenya. Perhaps it would be possible in servicing South Africa to service Kenya and fly on to London.

There have been mistakes in the Middle East. Qantas had a large office in Cairo which it sold. I believe that at present it would like to have that office back. As Senator MacGibbon said, Qantas uses Bahrain as a refuelling point. It is obvious for political and trade reasons that it would be better for Qantas to stop in Saudi Arabia instead of Bahrain.

Senator MacGibbon referred to the Pacific region. There is a danger of the Pacific region being taken over by the United States carrier, Continential Airlines, which is one of the major airlines travelling into the South Pacific. It is an area that is desperate for a regional airline. Ansett Airlines of Australia has said that it could help the region by flying into Noumea and Fiji but, of course, that is not good enough. Ansett could fly into those areas and probably make a profit but a regional airline in the South Pacific would have to go to the Cook Islands and some of the small island states. We go to the South Pacific Forum and South Pacific Conference every year and are accused of ignoring the needs of the island states, being paternalistic and overflying the area. We have a large aid program in the South Pacific. Perhaps we should be paternalistic and say at the South Pacific Forum and the South Pacific Conference that Australia has a plan for a regional airline in the South Pacific. I know there have been such plans in the past but they have not worked. Perhaps we should say that as part of the large aid program we have in the South Pacific we will subsidise a regional airline in the area. There is a group of small island states in the South Pacific. Most of all they need contact between one another and efficient transport. They have one of the highest fare structures that exists anywhere in the world.

What worries me is that if Ansett becomes an international carrier a future conservative government could facilitate a situation in which Ansett and Murdoch could operate the only Australian international carrier. The motive would not be service, as it is with Qantas at the moment; it would be purely one of profit. Qantas is a successful enterprise. It has the highest safety standards in the world. It requires bold and imaginative management to cope with the challenges created by the new air fares and the increased cost of fuel. The management must realise that hundreds of thousands of Australians wish to take advantage of those fares in travelling to an ever increasing number of overseas destinations.

Senator COLLARD:
Queensland

-We are discussing cognately the Qantas Airways Ltd (Loan Guarantee) Bill and the Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Bill. The first is to enable Qantas Airways Ltd to buy some further 747 aircraft. The other Bill is to enable Ansett Transport Industries Ltd to buy a 200-series 727 aircraft.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Why shouldn’t you subsidise it?

Senator COLLARD:

– I did not say that we are subsidising those purchases. I said that we are discussing legislation to enable the purchase of those aircraft. Senator Sibraa said that Senator MacGibbon thought it was a good idea that Qantas had been nationalised. I did not read that into Senator MacGibbon ‘s speech. Knowing Senator MacGibbon as I do, I do not think that he meant that. One of the reasons why some of our statutory authorities are successful is probably that we have tried to make them run on a private enterprise basis. We have established boards to be in charge of them. I instance TransAustralia Airlines, Qantas, Australia Post and Telecom Australia. Those authorities have on their boards businessmen who know a little about the commercial world. I favour loosening the strings a little more. I understand that when the annual report of Qantas comes out a large part of its anticipated loss will be attributed to the restrictions which the Treasury put on it when it sought to borrow money on previous occasions.

Senator Sibraa also said that some of the airlines from one-airline countries operate from one port only. That imposes some economies but I put it to the Senate that some of the countries to which he referred would not be as large as two or three fair sized cattle stations in western Queensland. We are looking at a far different kettle offish.

The Qantas Airways Ltd (Loan Guarantee) Bill enables Qantas to buy four 747 aircraft. It will actually purchase five of these aircraft. The purchase of one of the aircraft will be financed internally by the sale of some of the older Qantas aircraft. Qantas will be buying three 200-series Boeing 747s, one Combi and one special performance Boeing 747. The new aircraft will come equipped with the RB2 1 1 B2 engine. Its specific fuel consumption is a 7 per cent improvement on the existing JT 9D 7A and 7F models. Part of the deal is that when the Rolls Royce D4 engine is available- I believe the first one will come into service in March 1982- the existing 747s equipped with Rolls Royce engines will be re-equipped. That engine will have a 53,000 lb thrust compared with the existing 50,000 lb thrust. It will have a further 4.8 per cent improvement in specific fuel consumption. Qantas has not been hung up on the commonality of buying one engine. I chastised it on this matter in a similar speech some time ago. It is good to see that it is breaking out of the mould that it was in.

The SP aircraft which Qantas is buying, to which Senator MacGibbon alluded, will enable it to fly into Wellington which has an airport with particular problems. It is situated on a peninsula with some high ground around it. It has many problems with wind currents and down draughts. It has 6,550 feet of runway available for take-off and 5,950 feet available for landings. In wet conditions there is a 15 per cent reduction in the distance for landings. Qantas will operate the SP at a maximum certificated take-off rate of 610,0001b. This means that it will be able to uplift from Wellington 16 first class passengers, 320 economy class passengers as well as 6,800 kilograms of cargo and mail. It will be able to fly to Sydney with statutory reserves. (Quorum formed). The purchase of the SP aircraft will enable Qantas to replace a chartered Air New Zealand DC8 aircraft at no increase in cost and will allow for a 50 per cent increase in traffic growth. This is important when one recognises that one-third of Australia’s international tourists come from New Zealand.

Obviously, when new aircraft are bought and new routes are planned decisions are not made overnight. It is obvious that Qantas has been planning to make some alteration to its route structure for some time because of the purchase of the SP aircraft. One of those changes which has been announced is a flight which will go from Auckland to Brisbane then to Townsville and Honolulu and return. That is significant, particularly for north Queensland. The Townsville runway and tarmac do not need any modification for this aircraft. The runway is 9,310 feet long. The SP aircraft will be able to take off with a full load and sufficient fuel, with statutory reserves, to fly to Honolulu. That has to be a plus for Qantas and Australia, but more particularly for Queensland and north Queenslanders. Having an SP aircraft in the fleet also has strategic advantages for Australia in that we will have an aircraft with such a range that if necessary we can fly to anywhere even if we have to overfly a lot of countries because of political considerations.

One topic which has been running hot and which has been alluded to in some speeches is the recent one-off charter flight by the Ansett organisation from Townsville to Singapore and return. Unfortunately, neither Qantas nor TAA has entree into the media. Because of the Murdoch interests in the media one would have thought that Utopia had arrived with this one-off flight. I spoke on a television program, and I suppose the harshest thing I said about it was that it was a con. The nicest thing I could say is that it is rather mischievous. I say that because people in Queensland are, rightly, very parochial. We think rightly that we have been hard done by by the international airlines, not only Qantas, that we have some great tourist attractions, and that those attractions have been bypassed. Unfortunately, this one-off charter certainly was no answer to the problem, but people thoughtindeed, anticipated- that this was the start of a weekly service, without realising the full implications.

The first implication is that if we wanted to start a weekly 727 service to Singapore, Singapore would demand another 747 flight into Sydney. Immediately load factors are reduced, fare structures will have to be looked at once again. Indonesia would want to buy into the argument because we would be overflying them. On top of that, there are capacity arrangements with all the member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations. The ASEAN countries will not sit back and watch Singapore pick up what they think will be a bit of cream. Negotiation for extra flights in and out of a country is a veritable can of worms. It does not matter what Sir Lenox Hewitt, Sir Peter Abeles or Mr Lyn McKenzie of TAA say, one just does not say that these are the fares we charge on an international route. It has nothing to do with the domestic fare structure. The whole international fare structure is calculated through negotiation, whether we like it or not. It is of no use saying that we could fly this or we could fly that. It is just not on. Unfortunately, a great head of steam has been built up over this whole matter and it will not be too easy to dissipate it. As I have said, a lot of people think that Utopia has arrived.

It is unfortunate that Australia is at the end of every shipping and air route. That means that we have to compete and work hard for every bit of international trade we can gain. It is the same with tourism. If we think there are tens of thousands of people overseas clamouring at the gates of airports to come into Australia, we are deluded. It is only when one travels overseas that one realises what an insignificant place Australia really is, desirable though it is to live in. I would not want to live in any other place. (Quorum formed). If we want to encourage tourists to Australia we have to work hard at it. It is interesting to look at visitor arrival statistics for travellers resident in Singapore, because that is the destination that has built up a head of steam. That survey of international visitors by the Australian Tourist Commission shows that the number of visitors who came into Australia from Singapore in 1978 was 9,306. If one takes out those visiting friends and relatives, which is 17.18 per cent, or 1,599; those on business, which is 26.6 per cent or 2,475; and people attending conventions, which is 2.93 per cent, or 273- every one of those categories would have a dedicated destination- one has left the holiday category which involves 26.95 per cent and the general term of others, which involves 26.33 per cent or a total of 4,958 to be distributed around Australia’s tourist resorts, if that is what those in the ‘holiday’ and ‘other’ categories are coming for.

There is not a massive market waiting to come in. That does not mean to say that there could not be if we worked hard at it. The figures for those going out of Queensland to Singapore show that there are 139 passengers per week distributed over five flights, or 29 passengers per flight. That adds up to a total of 7,228 passengers per year. Of those passengers, 30 per cent, or 2, 1 69, join other flights out of Singapore to other destinations. So, there are really only 5,060 passengers per year flying out of Queensland to Singapore as a destination, or 98 per week or 20 per flight. It will be a massive marketing job to build up our overseas tourist trade, particularly with Singapore. As I have said, it is unfortunate that, because of the publicity given to the matter lately, a lot of people think the market is waiting there for us to open up the floodgates and tourists will come rushing into Australia.

Another factor to be taken into consideration if this were true would be the lack of accommodation. This has been demonstrated many times. I am sure that as members of Parliament travel around, not even in the height of the tourist season, they find that at times it is very hard to get accommodation in Sydney or Brisbane. At times throughout the high season accommodation gets to be at a premium along the north Queensland coast. The tourist industry has to get its act into gear also and provide a lot more accommodation of good standard so that people can be encouraged to come into Australia.

It is quite ironic that the two Government airlines have been entrepreneurial enough to put together, using existing schedules, a package which can service north Queensland. The package does not require any further international or fare negotiations. The Qantas-TAA deal which starts on 29 May will use existing flights across the Top into Darwin which will then pick up existing Qantas flights. The same applies on the return voyage. Without committing ourselves to any more negotiation, this package will enable us to put our toe in the water to see how deep the tourism bucket is for north Queensland. I commend the deal. I hope it is successful. There is nothing to stop the Ansett organisation’s doing the same sort of deal.

Mention has also been made of the fact that there are not many international flights through Darwin. In a previous speech today, I stated that Darwin could become one of the great tourist gateways to Australia. After the devastation of Cyclone Tracy, all international airlines ceased operating into and out of Darwin. I understand that Qantas is the only international airline that has resumed flights through Darwin. That says something for Qantas. I hope that it can put more flights through Darwin and that other international operators will use Darwin as a gateway to Australia. If markets that demand medium sized aircraft with intercontinental capability can be developed, and Qantas is not prepared to look at such aircraft, bearing in mind all the problems associated with negotiations concerning South East Asia, either TAA or Ansett or both should be allowed to develop such routes provided domestic traffic is not called on to subsidise it. That then would open up the other can of worms. It would only be fair to say that Qantas should be allowed to top up its across Australia flights with domestic passengers. That would open up another can of worms because we know that international flights returning to

Australia are notorious for being extremely late. It would be unfair, if such a proposal were allowed, to expect our own domestic trunk operators to fly empty across to Perth or up to Darwin for the sake of running a timetable return flight. The proposal is not all as easy as it looks.

I turn now to the domestic problem. Quite a bit has been said in the debate up until now about the domestic fare structure. Australia has a massive problem with its transport whether air, rail or motor vehicle, because it has a very small population. The population, I think, is onefourteenth the population of the United States, yet Australia has a land area equal to the size of the United States, less Alaska and Hawaii. To make it worse, Australia’s population is concentrated mainly on the eastern coast. This creates a problem in supplying a good air transport service to the Australian population. On top of that, the airlines have to contend with the fact that Australian airline staff” have probably the best working conditions in the world. The conditions are far superior to those in America with which we are often compared. Australia has the best safety record in the world. That does not come cheaply. Our fleet size is not large. We cannot capitalise on economies of scale.

Let me explain. United Airlines, a United States company, has 18 Boeing 747s, 70 DC8s, 37 DC 104 164 Boeing 727s and 59 Boeing 737s. Braniff International has 3 Boeing 747s, 16 DC8s and 88 Boeing 727s. Republic Airlines, which is recognised as a regional operator, has 35 DC9s and 25 Convairs. TAA has 11 Boeing 727s, 12 DC9s, 1 1 F27s and 4 Otters. We certainly cannot capitalise on economies of scale. From my reading of the situation we compete very well on a fare basis. Let me quote our current fare formula. The economy fare has a flagfall of $19.80 and a charge of 7.227c per kilometre. The standard class fare, which is the fare for Fokker Friendship aircraft routes, has a flagfall of $ 1 9.80 and a charge of 9.034c per kilometre. First class travel has a flagfall of $24.75 and a charge of 9.034c per kilometre. Additionally, over 2,200 kilometres, on the routes to Perth and Darwin, a rate of 6.143c per kilometre for economy class and 7.679 per kilometre for first class applies. The situation is as simple as that. The rates are not greater the further the distance travelled or anything like that. As a matter of fact, as I have just stated, fares per kilometre are less for passengers travelling over 2200 kilometres to Perth or Darwin.

The United Kingdom has no fixed fare formula. The Civil Aviation Authority’s approach to the regulation of domestic air fares is one of approving fare levels which can reasonably be demonstrated to bear a close relationship to the costs incurred by the traffic carried at those fares. The United States Civil Aeronautics Board sets what is known as a standard industry fare level. The fare level effective at 1 March 1980, in American dollars and cents, is, for the terminal charge, which is equal to our flagfall, $23.86 plus 13.05c a mile up to 500 miles, plus 9.95c a mile from 501 to 1,500 miles, and plus 9.57c a mile over 1 ,500 miles.

Let us look at the comparison between costs from Heathrow Airport in London to Belfast. In Australian terms, the British fare is $77.20; the United States fare is $64.64; and the Australian fare would be $57.60. Our fare rate on the short haul is good. Let me now look at the long haul rates which we have always been concerned about and relate them to travel from Sydney to Perth. I cannot quote the British fare as there is no similar long haul stage. The Australian fare, in economy class, is $245.50. Working a figure out from the fare levels that I gave earlier, I believe that the American fare, in Australian dollars, would be $236.10. That includes the statutory 8 per cent tax that the Americans add but does not include whatever else the Americans might wish to add. The Civil Aeronautics Board allows airlines to charge between 105 per cent and 130 per cent of the standard industry fare.

We know that passengers on long haul flights have been discriminated against. That was pointed up in the domestic air transport review. Long before the ‘Fair International Air Fares’ campaign started in Western Australia, my colleagues from Western Australia were telling people, quite rightly, that they were being hard done by. It is interesting to note that their protestations have borne fruit and the last three air fare increases have taken that aspect into consideration. The long haul passengers are now being treated better than they were before.

Another factor that helps the Australian airlines is utilisation. We get probably better or at least equal utilisation of our aircraft compared with levels of utilisation in other airlines. That says something for the way our domestic airlines control their industry and the way they arrange their servicing. This means that we are able to keep our fare levels down to a reasonable amount. I think that our international and domestic operations, in an area where there is always room for improvement, have nothing to be ashamed of. I hope that they can work together to make more use of Australia as a tourist destination and that their fare structures can be kept as low as possible to encourage people to travel around and so that people coming into Australia can get to the destinations they want- I think, particularly north Queensland- without any excess cost and without having to backtrack. I commend the Bills to the Senate.

Senator MacGIBBON ( Queensland )-I seek leave, under Standing Order 408, to make a personal explanation.

Leave granted.

Senator MacGIBBON:

– I thought I heard Senator Sibraa say something to the effect that I had approved of or praised the nationalisation of Qantas Airways Ltd. Senator Collard, who has just spoken, confirmed my belief. I would like to put the record straight. I made no comment at all on the nationalisation of Qantas in my brief resume of the history of the company. All I said was that in 1945 the company was nationalised. It has not been my practice, in the 22 months that I have been a member of this chamber, to indulge in point scoring of that nature. Had I made any comments about nationalisation they certainly would not have been supportive.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The Senate is debating cognately the Qantas Airways Ltd (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1980 and the Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1 980. The first Bill relates to the provision of certain equipment for Qantas Airways Ltd. Its purpose is to authorise the Treasurer (Mr Howard) on behalf of the Commonwealth to guarantee borrowings raised by Qantas to finance the purchase of four Boeing 747 series aircraft. The decision to acquire the aircraft, as the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt) said in his second reading speech, was taken after a major examination of Qantas ‘s fleet requirement to mid- 1983. The factors which were closely examined include future fuel supply and price, the aircraft types that will be available and likely market growth. The second Bill relates to the provision of certain equipment for Ansett Transport Industries, commonly referred to in the Bill as a domestic airline. The Minister said in his second reading speech that he is still negotiating with the two airlines on the future form of the airlines agreement, but that in line with the recommendations of the domestic air transport policy review it is the Government’s intention to retain the principle of having two major airlines operating over Australia’s trunk network. The Government will therefore continue to support the provision of such guarantees to the Ansett transport organistion.

The Opposition does not object to the passage of either of these measures. I pay tribute to the comments that have been made by oneof my political protagonists, a member of the National Country Party, Senator Collard from Queensland. He has approached this matter, as I view it, in a practical and commonsense way. Despite the fact that he is of different political persuasion from my colleagues and me, it is obvious from his remarks that he has applied himself practically to the problems of Qantas and of aviation generally in Australia. I believe that the Minister for Transport and the officers of the Department of Transport should pay particular attention to his remarks, particularly those in respect of transport operations in north Queensland, bearing in mind that he is a senator for Queensland.

I take advantage of this debate to say something in defence of the administration of Qantas, the workers of Qantas and the operations of Qantas. It appears to me that in recent times there has been a concerted attack on the administration, the work force and the operations of Qantas to undermine its efficiency and its economical operation. For instance, we have seen reports in newspapers that Government back bench members have expressed concern at or opposition to the reappointment of Sir Lenox Hewitt as Chairman of Qantas. I say now, without fear or hestitation, having close contact with representatives of the trade union movement that deal with Qantas Airways Limited, that Sir Lenox Hewitt has proved himself to be an outstanding administrator, a great conciliator, who is understood by all sections of the community who operate within the airline industry and one who receives the respect of the trade union movement operating in that area.

I have just read the last annual report of Qantas. It is a record of achievement for Australia’s international flag carrier. It is of great credit to the board of Qantas and to the workers of Qantas. In the time that Sir Lenox Hewitt has been the Chairman of Australia’s international operator I think he has done a magnificent job in building up the international reputation and prestige of the airline and in giving great incentive and encouragement to the work force of Qantas Airways Ltd. When one reads the report one sees that in the last financial year Qantas carried 1.7 million passengers. In aggregate terms that is over 10 per cent of the Australian community. Cargo tonne kilometres increased by 3 1 per cent and mail tonne kilometres increased by 1 5 per cent. The revenue load factor increased to 61 per cent from 57 per cent in the previous financial year. The profit on airline operations- as distinct from hotel operationswas $22. 7m compared with $ 15.9m in the previous financial year. It was the third successive year of increased earnings on airline operations. Its assets, as mentioned by my colleague Senator Gietzelt, were $703m last year. It provided services from Australia to 25 countries. Qantas employs over 13,000 Australian workers, 2,000 of whom are based overseas.

As I have said, I pay credit to the Chairman and the board of Qantas for the way in which they have fought to preserve, and indeed to extend, the international routes of Qantas, to protect the jobs of not only the workers employed by Qantas but also to protect the jobs of those who provide services of one kind or another indirectly to Australia’s international aircraft. At the same time as I pay tribute to the work of Sir Lenox Hewitt as Chairman of Qantas, I pay a great tribute to Mr Harry Wilson, one of the joint federal secretaries of the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union, who has done a tremendous job to bring about an understanding between the management and the work force of this great international instrumentality.

Senator O’Byrne:

– And the safety of Qantas.

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLANDIndeed, as my colleague, Senator O’Byrne, has said, to bring about the safety of Qantas. It is all very well for honourable senators opposite to engage from time to time in political attacks on the Opposition ‘s friends in the trade union movement, but Mr Harry Wilson, one of the joint secretaries of the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union, is a very great Australian. Members of the Government should acknowledge the work that he, as the joint secretary of one of the most powerful unions, has contributed in ensuring that there is understanding between the management and the workers of this great organisation. All those who work for Qantas are proud of the fact that they do, because it is a very successful and a proud Australian organisation. Not only has it the reputation of providing a great service but, as my friend, Senator O’Byrne, has reminded me by way of interjection, but also more importantly, it is one of the safest- if not the safestinternational air carriers in the world. It is one of those great services which has increased its profit and reduced its charges.

In an attachment to the last Qantas annual report, one sees that in 1945- that is some 35 years ago- the return air fare from Sydney to London was $ 1 , 698 and in 1 980, despite increased costs, inflation and all the pressures that bear on the economy, the fare, as advertised at the time of the presentation of the report, was $720. Every person I know who works for Qantas is proud of the fact that he works for Australia’s international airline. I believe that the overwhelming majority of Australians- if not all Australiansare proud to see the flying kangaroo on the tail of the Qantas 747s when they are abroad.

My friend, although my political opponent, Senator Collard made reference to publicity about an Ansett charter flight which recently operated from Townsville to Singapore. Arising from a lot of the publicity which came from that flight, there was a inference that Ansett had decided to carry out the charter flight from Townsville to Singapore and return either because Qantas could not do it or because it was not interested in doing it. I do not know anything about that matter, but I note that very little publicity was given to the fact that, at or about the same time, Qantas indicated that it was prepared to alter its Australian flights from Darwin to Singapore in order to link up with the internal commercial services from Townsville to Darwin.

On the same subject, I understand that the Australian Broadcasting Commission was contemplating doing a Nationwide program in the last week or so about the controversy surrounding the flight from Townsville to Singapore and return, and that an invitation was issued to Sir Lenox Hewitt to appear on the program as chairman of Qantas. I am given to understand from sources within the Australian Broadcasting Commission that the invitation was extended to the chairman of Qantas to appear on the program. After he accepted the invitation, the ABC decided not to proceed with the program. The inference, of course, was that the ABC wanted to say that the chairman of Qantas, Sir Lenox Hewitt, had been invited to appear on the program but that he had declined to appear. But when the invitation had been extended to Sir Lenox and he had decided to accept it to state the case of Qantas to the Australian people, the ABC decided conveniently not to proceed with the program.

So far as I am concerned- I think it fair for me to say that I speak on behalf of the overwhelming bulk of the work force of Qantas AirwaysSir Lenox has proved himself to be a most competent administrator. He has obtained the understanding and co-operation of the industrial unions which are involved in the operation of the airlines and, above all, to his great credit, he set out to protect the jobs of Australian workers. All honourable senators who were in the Parliament in 1975 will remember well how he was one of those public servants who were called to the Bar of the Senate by the then members of the Opposition, the members of the present Government, the members of the Liberal Party and of the National Country Party. Honourable senators will well remember how he was prepared to stand up and to defend himself and the administration that he represented at the time. There is no need for me to say, having seen him at that time on that fateful day when decent mensenior public servants- were called to the Bar of the Senate by those who sat on the opposition benches at the time, how well equipped he is to look after himself.

Senator McLaren:

– Those same people accused us yesterday of trying to conduct a witch hunt.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Of course they did, as my colleague Senator McLaren has said. We, as the members of the Labor movement, believe in the great public instrumentality- the great Australian instrumentalityknown as Qantas. It is one of Australia ‘s great instrumentalities. It is acclaimed internationally, and I trust that all Australians, even those who believe in the principle of private enterprise, will acknowledge that Qantas and those who work for it have served Australia with great credit and with distinction.

Finally, having made those remarks about Qantas, I take advantage of the debate to be somewhat critical of the Government and of the Department of Transport. I have placed questions on the Senate Notice Paper, one on 20 February of this year and another on 6 March of this year. It is now the end of April- almost May- and answers are yet to be forthcoming to those questions which I have placed on the Notice Paper. It seems to me to be so typical of this Government and the Department that they refuse to acknowledge that members of this Parliament, people who are elected by the citizens of Australia, are entitled to receive answers reasonably expeditiously on these important matters. Because I am particularly interested in the air operations at Sydney, on 20 February I placed a question on the Notice Paper asking:

How many people were carried by: (a) Ansett; and (b) Trans Australia Airlines, on the: (i) short haul routes; and (ii) long haul routes, within Australia in each year from 1975 to 1979.

What have been the dates of increases, and the percentage increases, in domestic air fares in each year from 1975 to 1979.

How many passengers have been carried by: (a) Ansett; and (b) TAA in each quarter for each year from 1975 to 1979.

What increases have occurred in road transport costs in each year from 1975 to 1979.

I particularly mention these matters to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle), who is sitting at the table, for reference to her colleague the Minister for Transport. I further asked:

How many overseas visitors passed through: (a) Melbourne’s Tullamarine Airport; and (b) Sydney’s KingsfordSmith Airport in each year from 1 972 to 1 979.

How many Australian tourists left Australia via: (a) Tullamarine Airport; and (b) Kingsford-Smith Airport in each year from 1972 to 1979.

I would have thought that it would have taken a mere day for a Fourth Division clerical officer to have worked out the statistical answers to those questions. Those questions were placed on the Notice Paper in February 1980 but they remain unanswered. They are important to the future operation or the placement of a second airport to serve Sydney.

Senator O’Byrne:

– They treat the Parliament with contempt.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-As my colleague Senator O’Byrne says, they treat the Parliament with contempt. After many months of deliberations, the Major Airport Needs of Sydney Committee, which comprises representatives of the Commonwealth and New South Wales brought down a report. The Commonwealth representatives on that Committee recommended the introduction of parallel runways at Mascot, which of course would have brought about more traffic at Kingsford-Smith Airport. The New South Wales representatives said that in their opinion a second airport was needed. While this seesawing has been going on between representatives of the Commonwealth and representatives of New South Wales, the fact remains that civil aviation is the responsibility of the Commonwealth. The Federal Government cannot go on blaming the New South Wales Government for the impasse that has occurred. The Commonwealth Government is responsible for civil aviation policy. It has to make the final decision and provide the finance. It is up to the Federal Government to provide the answers to the questions asked on these matters by honourable senators. I ask the Minister for Social Security to tell the Minister for Transport that if the questions I have posed are not answered at the time of the presentation of the Estimates to the Parliament next session I will be moving for deferral of the consideration of the estimates of the Department of Transport until the questions asked by honourable senators on this side of the chamber are replied to. Until those questions are answered, as my colleague Senator O’Byrne has said, the Government is making this Parliament a complete and utter farce.

The other matter I want to raise on this subject relates to the operation of Qantas. At present the principal aerodrome from which Qantas operates is Kingsford-Smith Airport. This Government established what is known as the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport Noise Abatement Committee. That Committee consists of representatives of all councils surrounding the area of Kingsford-Smith Airport. Those councils are Leichhardt Municipal Council, Lane Cove Municipal Council, Rockdale Municipal Council, Sydney City Council, Kogarah Municipal Council, Hunters Hill Municipal Council, Marrickville Municipal Council, Hurstville Municipal Council, Sutherland Shire Council, Randwick Municipal Council, South Sydney Municipal Council, Drummoyne Municipal Council, and Botany Municipal Council. On 6 November last year, after having placed a question on the Notice Paper in September last year, I received an answer to my question asking:

What is the role of the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith ) Airport Noise Abatement Committee.

I was told:

The role of the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport Noise Abatement Committee is to assist in improving public understanding of the aircraft noise problem, to facilitate public participation in finding the best possible answers and to advise on aircraft noise problems on a local level.

The Committee operates under the following terms of reference which were announced by the then Minister for Civil Aviation in December 1969 -

Those terms of reference have been operating for 11 years. They are:

Informing the public on aircraft noise problems and the action being taken.

Maintaining a continuous liaison with airlines, community groups and other interested authorities about possible noise nuisance to proposed housing and other community projects.

Discussing current aircraft noise problems and seeking satisfactory answers.

Acting as a clearing house for all specific noise nuisance complaints relevant to Sydney and co-ordinating resolution of complaints.

Recommending appropriate additional investigation and research into community noise problems associated with aircraft operations at the airport.

In pursuance of that role and the terms of reference, people from the councils I mentioned and other organisations were appointed to the Noise Abatement Committee. On 12 September 1979 I asked:

Has approval been given for Learjets to operate at Mascot (Kingsford-Smith) Airport during the curfew hours of 1 1.00 p.m. to 6 a.m.;

The answer I received was:

Learjet 35 and 36 model aircraft have been approved to operate during the curfew. Earlier model Learjets have not been so approved.

I also asked:

Were the views of the Noise Abatement Committee or of the local government organisations within the vicinity of the airport sought before any decision was made;

The answer to that question was no. I suggest that if the Government is to make determinations or if the Minister, in his own right, is to make determinations about a relaxation of the curfew arrangements that have existed at Sydney Airport for many years without reference to the Noise Abatement Committee established to liaise with the Government and consider all of these matters- given its role and terms of reference- it is a complete and utter waste of time and of the taxpayers’ money to have a Noise Abatement Committee. I am not arguing with the Minister’s determination that Learjets might be able to operate outside the established curfew hours. That is his decision and his decision alone. What I am objecting to on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of people who live around that airport is that their representatives, who had been recognised by the Government and by the Minister previously, did not have their views taken into account. The matter was not even referred to them for consideration before the Minister made his determination.

I suggest that if the people of the southern, eastern and the near western suburbs of Sydney are to take seriously the activities of the Noise Abatement Committee then the new Minister for Transport, who is also a New South Welshman, should have another look at how he treats his responsibility to the committee and how he views and sees the role and the terms of reference of that committee that is representative of the councils in the area concerned. Having made those comments I repeat that I think Qantas is a great Australian instrumentality. It has served the Australian nation with credit and distinction. The work force of Qantas is to be congratulated on the service it performs for the Australian community. (Quorum formed).

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

(9.5 1 )- I thank the Senate for the debate on the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill and the Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Bill. We have heard many speeches from senators and a great deal of interesting comment has been made with regard to our overseas airline industry and the performance of Qantas Airways Ltd. I have noted with pleasure the comments that were made by Senator McClelland and others in support of the service which has been given by the Chairman and the members of the staff of Qantas throughout Australia and overseas. I think we all share the pride that Senator McClelland expressed in Australia’s overseas airline. These two Bills enable the Treasurer to guarantee borrowings on behalf of the Commonwealth. I think it is fair to say that there is general support for them in the Senate.

A few matters were raised that require some comment. One matter was raised by Senator Gietzelt on which I am able to give some advice. He raised the matter of the purchase of a fifth aircraft. In the second reading speech of the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt) it was mentioned that Qantas was purchasing a fifth aircraft to be financed from its own resources. It is true that the proceeds of the proposed sale of two Boeing 747 aircraft to Eastern airlines is an important source of funds to assist in the purchase of a fifth aircraft, which is a Boeing 747SP. This sale has fallen through. Qantas is looking to alternative purchasers and undoubtedly the aircraft will be sold, but it may take some time for that to be finalised. At this stage there is no reason to be concerned about that matter. I give that information in response to the comments of Senator Gietzelt.

Senator McClelland properly drew attention to questions on notice on which he requires information. I do not have that information available in the Senate this evening, but I will alert the Minister again to the comments of Senator McClelland. I will also point out Senator McClelland ‘s comments regarding answers this session to questions that are on the Notice Paper. I hope we are able to achieve an early answer. I will also draw attention to the remarks he made with regard to noise abatement and in general to the matters that were raised throughout the debate. With those comments, I thank the Senate for its support of these Bills and I commend them to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 1999

AIRLINE EQUIPMENT (LOAN GUARANTEE) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 2 April, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 2000

BOUNTY (POLYESTER-COTTON YARN) AMENDMENT BILL 1980; BOUNTY (ROTARY CULTIVATORS) AMENDMENT BILL 1980; AND BOUNTY (DRILLING BITS) BILL 1980

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 1 8 March, on motion by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– The Opposition does not oppose these three Bills which authorise bounties for the production of polyester-cotton yarn, rotary cultivators and drilling bits. For that reason, I do not intend to speak at great length. The Bounty (Polyester-Cotton Yarn) Amendment Bill 1980, according to the second reading speech which was delivered last September in the House of Representatives by the former Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, the present Minister for Education (Mr Fife) is an interim measure prior to consideration by the Government of the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on the textiles, clothing and footwear industries. In the second reading speech delivered by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle)- other reports indicated this also- it was stated that the report of the IAC should be received by the Government any day now. This Bill extends until the end of August 1981 a bounty of $1.50 a kilogram. Some officers from the Department are present in the chamber. I have one question and, although I do not insist on an answer to it, if the answer is available I would appreciate it. What does that $1.50 a kilogram bounty represent in terms of an effective rate of protection, as the IAC uses the term?

As I stated, this Bill was first introduced in September 1979. It seems extraordinary that it has taken this long- almost eight months- to reach the Senate. It is even more surprising when one contrasts that with the fact that the Wool Industry Amendment Bill was brought into the House of Representatives last Thursday week and the Government insisted on it being debated the following Wednesday afternoon. Only six days were allowed for examination of that highly complex Bill. The wool industry had been given no previous opportunity to examine any form of draft legislation, notwithstanding assurances by the Government that ample time would be given for consideration and comment on the Bill by the wool industry. It contrasts starkly also with the package of, I think, nine or 1 1 Bills concerning the sovereignty over the seabed introduced last Thursday and scheduled for debate in the House of Representatives tomorrow.

It is quite impossible for the Opposition to follow its established procedures through committees and party meetings when Bills are introduced at such short notice. When they are Bills of the complexity and importance of the Wool Industry Amendment Bill and, even more so, of the importance of the package of Bills pertaining to the sovereignty of the seabed, it is most unsatisfactory that the Government should arrange its program in this way. It is no wonder, when one looks at the other pieces of legislation that stayed on the Notice Paper for months- I think every one who was associated with them had forgotten that they were on the Notice Paper- that the country is in a mess. The Government quite clearly is incapable of organising its own parliamentary business efficiently.

I refer now to the general question of bounties being used as a substitute for tariffs or import quotas. I have expressed this view before and I believe it is a correct one: Bounties are a preferred means of assistance, firstly, because they are more identifiable and, secondly, because bounties do not have the effect on the consumer price index, particularly in the present circumstances, that increases in protection by way of tariffs or quotas would have. Although they have not yet been used extensively for this purpose, they do have the potential to be concentrated on a regional basis in a way that tariffs and import quota protection cannot. If a government decides that there is a social justification for maintaining industries in certain centres, towns or cities, it is possible to provide assistance selectively to industries in those towns and cities by way of a bounty. It is not possible to do this with import quotas or tariffs.

I am not sure why the Government has introduced the Bounty (Rotary Cultivators) Amendment Bill. No indication why it was introduced was contained in the second reading speech of the Minister. This Government has a record of ad hoc and inconsistent policy making. That Bill continues the bounty for one further year at the reduced rate- indeed at half the rate which was previously payable- of $20 a kilowatt of power compared with a bounty of $40 which had been paid in the previous year. The IAC report which was produced a few years ago recommended a bounty of $20. Last year, the Government rejected that recommendation and paid a bounty of $40. This year, without giving any specific reason to the public, the Government decided to adopt the original IAC recommendation which it had rejected the previous year. Moneys for these bounties will be appropriated by the Government, in a strict legalistic sense by the Queen’s representative. I wrote a letter to Her Majesty the Queen in which I stated:

In view of your forthcoming visit to Australia to open the new High Court of Australia building, I would like to explain to you why I will not be present on that occasion.

I originally accepted an invitation and until a few days ago I fully intended to be present when you open the building.

However, during the past week revelations have been made in the Australian Parliament and Press which have cast a shadow over the integrity of the entire Australia judicial system and the High Court in particular.

These revelations concern the allegation that the Chief Justice sat in judgment over cases in which he had a pecuniary interest. Although the Australian Government is apparently prepared to accept a most insubstantial explanation from the Chief Justice, I no longer feel able to be present at the inauguration of a compromised institution.

In the light of these new circumstances, you may wish to review your decision to attend this celebration.

I have the honour to remain, Madam, Your Majesty’s most humble and obedient subject.

Thereafter, my signature appears. These three Bills have the support of the Opposition. I do not think there is any need for me to add further to my remarks.

Senator ARCHER:
.Tasmania

– I find it very difficult to follow such an extraordinary act. I wish to comment only briefly. I refer to the Bounty (Polyester-Cotton Yarn) Amendment Bill 1980. Although its purpose is to carry on this bounty, it is an important Bill, just the same. I should like to use this debate to say a little about the textile and clothing industries. In March, when the Bills were debated in the other chamber, I noted that the debate provided the opportunity for Mr Hurford, the Opposition spokesman on this matter, to expound the policies of the Australian Labor Party. To me, those policies indicated a complete return to the 1972-75 period when the Labor Government was in office.

I think we should examine briefly the position taken by Australian governments in relation to these industries after the last war. Labour intensive industries were established on purpose and extended. After the war, protection was judged to be appropriate. Whether that decision, which was made in the circumstances of the day, is judged, in 1980, to have been wise is irrelevant and academic. The immigration policy was put into force. Many companies were established and a considerable amount of capital was invested.

It brought with it the best aspects of industry development. It brought development of the Australian industries generally. It approximately doubled the Australian population. It introduced many new cultures and skills to this country. It provided work in decentralised areas by broadening the whole base of the Australian economy. At a time when the rural industries of Australia were starting to contract, it was of immense value to a whole host of areas that otherwise would have been in a very poor state. However, it also brought some of the less attractive aspects which go with industry development. It brought in some companies from overseas which at that time were interested only in becoming established under protection. It increased the cost to the community of some commodities. It tended to remove some of the market forces.

Whether the pluses and the minuses which go with those two aspects need to be balanced is a matter of opinion. Whether they did balance is a matter of opinion. However, over several years the situation not only continued but also, due to the circumstances both at home and abroad, was heightened. It has now reached a stage at which it would be just as foolish to hang on to total protection as it would be to talk about its short term abolition. I think that David Trebeck would be pleased to hear me say that. I believe in the free trade concept; I certainly believe that free trade is desirable. I believe also in motherhood and a whole range of other good causes.

I believe that we have an obligation to the industries we have established and to the people we have brought into the country. They also have an obligation, in respect of the public purse, to minimise the extent of their required support. They have an obligation to ensure that they operate at optimum efficiency. When we look back to the situation of 10 or 15 years ago in particular, clearly they did not operate at optimum efficiency. The best case I could ever use as an illustration is what we call the Industries Assistance Commission ball-bearing case. I believe that we will never again in any of the supported industries face the sort of situation which was faced in that case.

Let us look at the situation with respect to the clothing and textiles industry. The clothing and textiles companies which survived the 1974-75 onslaught are now, in the main, first rate companies. By any world standard of quality and productivity, that is a fact. It is also a fact that those industries are not responsible for the period of huge levels of inflation, the loss of total competitiveness, et cetera, which were part of that era. Since that time those companies have done a magnificent job of restructuring. They are now more stable than they have ever been. Now that the Australian currency has settled down to a reasonable value, the possibility of their remaining viable now is extremely high.

We have to consider the fact that Japan is no longer a threat to the Australian market and that most of the European market already has gone into a price range which makes it noncompetitive with us. We even find that countries such as Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong and Korea are now reaching a standard of development which is making their prices less and less competitive and is giving our manufacturers a better chance again. It is providing our clothing manufacturers with an opportunity to produce a considerably greater number of garments. But at present that does present difficulties. I wish to draw attention to three problems which I have identified in recent times. At the moment, in spite of approximately 2,000 vacancies having been filled this year, there are still approximately 2,000 vacancies in the clothing industry in Australia- in fact, in Sydney and Melbourne.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Are you sure of your Sydney figure?

Senator ARCHER:

– Yes, I am. I have been through many of the factories. I regularly read the advertisements and check them out. I would say that at the moment there would be 2,000 vacancies in Sydney and Melbourne alone. That is a pity because they just cannot be filled. The clothing industry is very much a work oriented industry. The employees who went out in 1974-75, being work oriented, immediately went into other employment. They will not come back to the clothing industry. It is very hard to find new labour which is keen to go into that sort of industry.

The second problem is related to the tariff and quota policies, which I find quite often can work against the Australian industries. On an expanding market, when there is a shortfall in supply that shortfall has to be picked up by increased overseas purchases when the product cannot be made at short notice locally. Conversely, on a contracting market, all the effects of the deficiency fall on the Australian manufacturers. In my opinion, quotas should be returnable without penalty to the authority concerned. I think that we should encourage quota holders who believe that they will have a surplus to hand their quota in to the department concerned and then endeavour to buy as much Australian made goods as they possibly can. At present, they buy imported goods to keep their quota alive. I think that is quite undesirable and quite unnecessary. It certainly works to the disadvantage of the Australian industry. There needs also to be increased flexibility to provide a greater degree of interchangeability in order to follow fashions. That might not apply so much to this cottonpolyester area, but it does apply to it to some extent. Certainly it is far more likely to be desirable in the woollen fabric area, in which fashion can change quite a lot from year to year and in which quotas, whilst they are now slightly more flexible than they were, need to be freed much more.

The third problem relates to the vagaries of the tariff, which allow for crafty subversion, I suppose we should call it. There are well known cases of that. Importers are able to bring in goods from overseas which comply nominally with the tariff requirements. I think that a couple of such cases are worth mentioning. One is when a fabric has been dyed or overprinted in self colours which can be washed out when the fabric gets here. But the fabric comes in as a dyed or overprinted fabric. There is the brushing of sheeting. Probably it is done on one side only, but that fabric comes in under a different tariff category as a result. Those are clear cases of tariff subversion. In the cotton-polyester area there are all the dealings with substitutions of weights and grades, purely and simply in order to get around the tariff. It would not matter how many times we changed the tariff, changes and complete substitutions would still be made. Whenever there is such a circumvention, the pressure increases on the nearest line. With reasonable performance shared by all, there can be expansion, more employment and less assistance. That is one of the aspects which we need to consider in developing our attitudes towards these matters. Increasing production improves efficiency and reduces costs.

I notice that the honourable member for Adelaide, Mr Hurford, in his address on this matter, proposed the setting up of yet another authority. I certainly am against authorities in industry. I will not bother reading what he said. But I think that to inflict another dead hand of government on any industry is undesirable. I am firmly of the opinion that the industry will be able to organise itself without our adopting any more of the big brother attitude. What will get both clothing and textiles on the track again is the continued control of inflation and the improved international competitiveness of our industries. It will be responsible industrial relations and stability generally that will get the industry back into world competitiveness. There is no reason why they cannot do so.

I mentioned industrial relations. I refer particularly to the great example being shown by both the major unions. The Australian Textile Workers Union and the Clothing and Allied Trades Union are keeping their members working and assisting management in the very difficult period of reforming and recasting currently being experienced. I trust that with the sort of leadership these unions have that a bigger and better membership for both unions will result. It is opportune to mention both Fred Peterson and Bill Hughes for the job that they have done. I also mention another old friend of mine, Derek Holden in Tasmania, who was a table tennis associate of mine many years ago. They have exhibited a very real understanding during these very difficult times. They have assisted in trying to solve the problems in the interests of their membership.

As productivity and competitiveness improve, so these industries will gather their own resources. I support the Bill as a temporary measure. I look forward to positive longer term measures being brought in. When the Industries Assistance Commission report is dealt with we will enter a period when, with considerable planning, these industries will face a long term future. There will be a lot of shaking down but I believe that an undertaking will be given to allow these industries to gain the best of the technological advances of the age. The clothing and textile industries both deserve great credit for the redevelopment that they have achieved. I believe they will continue in that vein, and they should be encouraged to do so.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– This debate gives the Opposition an opportunity to go outside the ambit of the Bounty (Polyester-Cotton Yarn) Amendment Bill and cognate Bills and deal with an effective manpower policy. I notice that in the second reading speech the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) referred to a holding action until the Industries Assistance Commission report on the textiles, clothing and footwear industries is made public. I think when we take that reference in conjunction with all the prophecies in today’s Australian Financial Review, it could be that the industries are not completely on the same wave length. My contribution relates largely to the work force. I listened intently to Senator Archer’s speech. I was pleased to note the compliments that he paid to the Australian Textile Workers Union and the Clothing and Allied Trades Union of Australia and their officials, most of whom I have had a long experience with.

The latest figures indicate that 36,300 people are employed in the textile manufacturing industry, 69,000 are employed in the clothing industry and 12,600 are employed in the footwear industry. Senator Archer used the word ‘competitiveness’. I suppose that means a lot to many people, as does the word ‘ rationalisation ‘. I know w that Senator Archer conceded that the two unions concerned have never adopted a Luddite stance in relation to any technological changes. What I am fearful of is not so much the gospel that has been espoused by Senator Archer but some of the loaded questions that have emanated from Senator Sim. I respect Senator Sim’s diligence in the field of international affairs. But every time he asks questions about our trading relationships his idea seems to be that a better adjustment of trade may be brought about by propping up governments in Asia that are less likely to move towards the Left. That argument could hold some water but it seems to me that if we allow excessive imports we will have a problem with rationalisation. I doubt whether this Government is in a position to do anything effective about making adjustments and placing people in other employment.

Senator Archer said that 2,000 jobs were going begging. A week or so ago the Estimates committees sat. I sat in with some of my colleagues on Estimates Committee B, which dealt with the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs. Among other witnesses was Mr J. E. Cooley, First Assistant Secretary, Manpower Programs and Policy Division. Anticipating the matters raised in Senator Archer’s speech about the capacity of the mechanism responsible for job placement and whether it is really up to the task, I drew Mr Cooley ‘s attention to the Scandinavian countries, particularly Sweden, which have a highly computerised system. I asked how close we were to emulating Sweden. Mr Cooley said that the Commonwealth Employment Service had commenced an investigation into the introduction of a computer system. I said:

That will happen over five years. Could you not get a crash program which operated more quickly?

Mr Cooley said:

I think that is a crash program, Senator.

I do not think that is a very speedy approach. I got in touch with one of the best Ministers for Labour we have ever had, the Honourable Clyde

Cameron. I sent him the extract from the transcript of the Estimates Committee hearing. He replied as follows:

Dear Tony,

Thank you for letting me have a copy of your Questions re computerised job banks in Australia.

I don’t believe Cooley when he says that he can’t install this thing in less than five years. You may like to know that when I was Minister I gave instructions for this system to be installed then and it surprises me that it has not already been completed. Thanks once again for keeping me in the picture.

That letter is so important that I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. I will not transgress Standing Orders by walking across to the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Senator Scott) to show it to him but I think he will agree that I have accurately quoted the contents of the letter.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Senator J. A. Mulvihill, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600

Dear Tony,

Thank you for letting me have a copy of your Questions re computerised job banks in Australia.

I don’t believe Cooley when he says that he can’t install this thing in less than five years. You may like to know that when I was Minister I gave instructions for this system to be installed then and it surprises me that it has not already been completed. Thanks once again for keeping me in the picture.

Yours sincerely, CLYDE R. CAMERON M.H.R. for Hindmarsh

Senator MULVIHILL:

-I do not deny the magnitude of the redeployment of people that is taking place. I sat in recently on a meeting between the Honourable Bernard French, M.L.C., Secretary of the Federated Rubber and Allied Workers Union of Australia, and the former Minister for Productivity, Mr Ian Macphee, when Firestone Australia Pty Ltd closed down. Eight hundred people had to be placed in other employment. I give credit to the Minister. He spelt out the position loudly and clearly to the other employers. I am thinking of Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Co. (Australia) Pty Ltd in particular. The Minister spoke to those companies directly in our presence. I was pleased with what happened. But we cannot redeploy 800 people too often. Any democracy has its limitations. Unless we are issuing wartime manpower directives, we have to offer people the carrot. We cannot force them to get transfers to another State. I know that Dunlop Australia Ltd has consolidated its operations largely in Victoria. But if we suggested to a happily married man of 42 with children of 1 1 and 13 years of age living in

Bankstown that they should go to Victoria it would be rather difficult to convince his wife and children to that effect. I would not expect them to move. They would probably be content in the State in which they lived. These are the problems which arise in implementing an effective manpower policy.

I wish to deal with another aspect. Whether a Labor government is in office or the present Government is in office, we are committed to a reasonable migrant intake and the intake of a number of refugees. I visit the Villawood Hostel fairly regularly. I sometimes visit illegal immigrants in the detention centre and at other times I conduct a general survey among those at Villawood. This Government is committed to the intake of a number of political refugees. At the moment the percentage from South East Asia is very high in view of the turbulence in that region. Senator Sim would be one of the first to argue that what he calls victims of totalitarian governments should be taken in. The Government cannot have its cake and eat it too.

Political refugees may be brought in as a future component of our work force, but many of them, due to what they have gone through, are not people with fairly vigorous physiques. Therefore, they will not go into the manufacturing industries or a lot of other laborious occupations. I am not arguing on the numbers of ‘them’ and us’. I refer to the syndrome mentioned by Senator Sim. To get on side with Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore and the South Koreans, we might have to say that we will take more of their manufactured goods. If we accept that proposition, we will have to tell the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that we will have to reduce drastically our intake of political refugees. If they are to be placed in the textile industry, the relevant unions would not object because of the background of those persons. How many people can be put into that industry? People who come here under the family reunion policy- which the Opposition advocates, as does this Government with certain variations- are the types who will go into the manufacturing industries.

I warn the Government that it would be futile if this Industries Assistance Commission report were to go along with the magic words ‘new techniques’, ‘rationalisation’ and ‘competition’. They might sound good. To me it is the same as the charge of the Light Brigade in British history. I think it was Lord Cardigan who was the illfated leader of that charge. People never think of the soldiers slaughtered and lying on the battlefields in the Crimean War. One can apply that situation to the present situation. One picks up the Australian Financial Review and sees that a textile firm- I will not mention its name- has been able to slash the jobs of 300 workers. Nobody worries much about where those 300 people go. The Australian Labor Party’s manpower committee, of which I am chairman, has met economists and other experts. They are pretty short on information on what will happen. I know we talk about computers. Let us be fair about it. Those who have been dismissed have been largely the process workers, not on high wages, who have reached the age of 45 years and who have played a notable role in this industry. Industrial disputes have been minimal. It is of no use kidding the higher educated boy and girl who come into the work force in their early 20s by saying that we can make them computer programmers. We cannot. That is why the matter is so complex.

It may be argued that there will be infinitesimal retail price reduction, but I doubt it. Even my Government had some of these economic witchdoctors like Dr Brian Brogan. He was supposed to be a socialist. The doctrines of Dr Brogan and people like him were disaster theories. I fear for New Guinea, because Dr Brogan went there to assist that country with its economy. As far as I am concerned, it would do better to dispose of him, perhaps put him on an island. He is one of a number of economists. Some of them are supposed to have the same political views as I have. As a matter of fact, if I want certain advice on trade I go to the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage). He was a highly efficient officer of the Reserve Bank of Australia. I know his views prevail much more now than they have done in the past. His view is that a sane tariff protection policy is important.

A certain Government member anticipated this speech- I will not name him- and said that the Opposition is standing still. Perhaps one can take the best of the past and build on it. It was a Federal Labor government in the Curtin-Chifley era that sent a representative to the inception of the United Nations in San Francisco. Together with what were called the small nations, we hammered the theme or the doctrine of full employment. We still believe in it. I am not Utopian; I realise that because of the nomadic habits of Australians there will always be some unemployment. If it had not been for the inability of the Government to bring in an up-to-date computerisation system- something that had the vision and long term planning for which the Honourable Clyde Cameron was renowned- there could have been full employment. The Government has not introduced such a system. My own party’s committee had all sorts of people before it, but they were short on perfect blueprints of how people can be redeployed.

I will be in Sydney all next week and certainly I will check on what Senator Archer says. Senator Ryan always has her ear to the ground, particularly in relation to opportunities for women in industry. I find that the position is contrary to what Senator Archer says. How many girls simply want to be apprenticed as a hairdresser? I know of five in the central-western suburbs of Sydney. They will finish up as junior female labour process workers who will be sacked at the age of 18 years. I accept what Senator Archer says. Because of the actions of the Australian Textile Workers Union, conditions in that industry are relatively better than they are in other industries, at least on a wage basis. I come back to this lack of co-ordination. The Manpower Personnel Services office at Ryde, about 12 miles out of Sydney, seems to have access to information that textile mills, perhaps at Granville or places like that, might require certain workers.

At a hearing of Estimates Committee B about a fortnight ago I was disappointed at the number of men with little faith. I do not attack Mr Cooley, from the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs, and his officers personally. Mr Cooley is acting at the behest of the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, Mr Viner. If the Minister could have a long talk with the Honourable Clyde Cameron he would be imbued with that man’s dynamic approach. I know my South Australian colleagues on my right are saying amen to what I am suggesting. Mr President, I even detected that you almost nodded your head as well. We realise that there are tremendous problems. It is not the Opposition that has to come up with the solutions. Senator Archer happened to quote from another South Australian, representative Chris Hurford. I say to the honourable senator that perhaps we did listen to some false prophets about the golden age when tariffs are tampered with. It is not a goer. It never was.

We have obligations to overseas countries. If we are taking in people because of a manpower policy, that manpower policy has to be expanded to include job opportunities. If the Government goes haywire with this report on these three industries, as some people have suggested, it will be in a terrific jam. It would be out of order if I were to develop this theme, but in other industries already there are the beginnings of some rivalry between people born in Australia and those not born here in competition for jobs. The Honourable Barrie Unsworth M.L.C., Secretary of the Labor Council of New South Wales, his very efficient deputy and assistant secretary, Mr John McBean, and I are on the verge of having discussions between ourselves and with Ian Macphee. The situation has not got out of hand yet. When people are competing for jobs, that is when bigotry- using the word in its broad sense- is manifested, lt occurs when the competition is too acute. Rationalisation in the United Kingdom was easier; one had only to travel for a few more bus stops. It is a horse of another colour when one has to go from one State to another. I may be taking a rather pessimistic attitude, but there is no room to manoeuvre.

I support the general ideas about the new age, including a shorter working week. We must have the jobs first. It is no good putting people out to pasture thinking that it will be all right afterwards. There will always be arguments on wage scales. Every time I hear of trade union unrest in South Korea or Singapore I am delighted because it may mean, as Senator Archer suggests, some job protection here. I know all the socialists here are pleased about that, too. Perhaps some of the non-socialists are as well. I think Senator Puplick comes into that category. I do not think the Government can divorce its foreign policy from its manpower policy. It is a case of ‘steady as it goes’. In view of the eulogistic references that Senator Archer made to some of the chieftains of those unions, I hope the Government will be as sympathetic as it was during the recent upset at the Firestone company, which was resolved as a result of a formula devised by Mr Macphee. I realise that the unions cannot always be won in that way, but the less upset in the work force, the better. I wait with bated breath to see what the Government will do with this report when it is released.

Senator SCOTT:
New South WalesMinister for Special Trade Representations · NCP/NP

– I thank the Opposition and Government speakers for their support tonight of these three bounty Bills. I have noted Senator Walsh ‘s question and will seek an answer if he so desires. Senator Archer, from the Government side, contributed a thoughtful journey through the early development of Australian manufacturing industries and reflected on protectionism and the restructuring of industry. Senator Mulvihill, who also supported the legislation, confined his remarks to manpower policy and noted the problems that are related to technological change, many of the solutions to which probably ultimately lie in education. The only point that disappointed me about Senator Mulvihill ‘s contribution was that on an evening when he was supporting Government legislation he did not take the opportunity to use some of his more picturesque sporting phraseology. He did not give us the pleasure of such a contribution tonight. Once again I thank those honourable senators who have contributed to this debate. I commend the Bills to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 2006

ABORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION BILL 1980

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 2006

BOUNTY (REFINED TIN) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 1 March, on motion by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator SCOTT:
New South WalesMinister for Special Trade Representations · NCP/NP

– With the Opposition’s concurrence, I suggest that the Senate debate the Bounty (Refined Tin) Bill 1980 and the Bounty (Penicillin) Bill 1980 cognately.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I do not propose to speak to either of the two Bills at great length. They are both supported by the Opposition. The Bounty (Refined Tin) Bill provides for the payment of a bounty of $50 per tonne of refined tin and the phasing out of the pre-existing export controls between now and 1981. At present, the refiners of tin effectively have a captive supply. Producers of tin concentrate may not export the product unless the Australian demand has first been satisfied. The Bill proposes to phase out those export controls and replace them with a bounty of $50 per tonne by 1982. The estimated cost, when the scheme is fully operative, is about a quarter of a million dollars. The Government claims that the new arrangements by way of payment of a bounty ought to be more efficient than the export controls. This seems to me to be a highly credible claim. Although there is only one smelter there are a number of producers. It seems to me to be a matter of common sense that considerable problems would have been associated with exerting export discipline when a number of suppliers was involved.

I want to make only one other comment. I do not know whether the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Senator Scott) will care to respond. I am not pressing him hard for a response. One would expect that in the metal processing industries which have a fairly high energy component Australia would be competitive with most countries. If the situation that applies to metal processing in general also applies to tin, one wonders why the Australian tin industry requires any protection at all.

The second Bill, the Bounty (Penicillin) Bill, provides for the payment of a bounty of $38 and $29 per kilogram on the two grades of penicillin which are produced in Australia and imposes quantitative limits on the amount of bounty which may be paid. In the case of penicillin G the amount is $250,000; and in the case of penicillin V the amount is $650,000. The total cost over five years is expected to be $4.5m. The quantitative limits exceed the amount of bounty which would be payable on the current level of production and therefore they may not be operative; but, if production was to expand, unlikely though that seems, the limits provide a ceiling on the public commitment.

The Industries Assistance Commission report on this industry, which was produced a few years ago, recommended that there be no assistance to the Australian industry. Because it was small it was said it lacked economies of scale and was considered to be inefficient. The Government has decided to maintain a production capacity in Australia. The Opposition supports it on that matter. The final comment I make- perhaps the Minister will care to respond- relates to the provision in the legislation to pay the bounty only to penicillin produced on registered premises. Since it is not a section 96 agreement administered through the State, one wonders whether the Commonwealth has the constitutional power to pay production bounties on that sort of selective basis. If the Government has any comment to make on that question, I would appreciate it if the Minister mentioned it in his reply.

Senator ELSTOB:
South Australia

– Whilst the Opposition does not oppose this Bill I wish to make some remarks about the tin industry. Although it is rather small by world standards, the tin industry is quite significant. Australia produces only some 5 per cent of the world’s tin. Malaysia is the largest producer. Tin is produced in all States and the Northern Territory. Tasmania is by far the largest producer of tin in Australia. It produces some 60 per cent.

Senator Tate:

– There is a good work force there too.

Senator ELSTOB:

– Yes. There is a good work force throughout Australia, not only in Tasmania. I believe that the work of the Australian worker is comparable with that of any worker in the world. The $50 per tonne subsidy to melt the tin in this country will bring a better return to the miners in Australia and to the industry. As I said, it is only a small industry but it is a vital one to this country. In Australia we do not go in for long term production. I believe that by long term planning, especially in relation to our mineral reserves, we could engage much of the labour that is unemployed today. That is vital to this nation.

The subsidy of $50 per tonne will cut out after three years. In 1980 individual export permits will be granted only to miners who supply the Australian tin industry, the smelters, with not less than 75 per cent of their production. For the second year, 1981, this figure will reduce to 50 per cent and in the following year it will cut out completely. Although that is highly commendable to lift the production of tin and to give some security to the miners, I ask: What will happen after three years? As I have said before, I believe that we should go in for long term planning in all our industries. It is necessary to increase the smelting capacity in this country. The majority of tin smelting is done at Alexandria, in Sydney. There is another smelter in Western Australia. I understand that another smelter was established late last year or early this year in Greenbushes, Western Australia, which smelts the production of Greenbushes Tin N.L. This handles approximately 2,000 tonnes per day of concentrates.

For a number of years tin has been exported to Malaysia simple because our smelting processes have not been up to world standard. I do not believe this is satisfactory. This country should take care of its minerals. It is important that Australia not only mine the minerals that we have but also that the work force should be employed in the production of the mineral reserves that we have. We are very wealthy in mineral reserves and we should take every opportunity to employ our people in developing them. Tin is a vital commodity. In the war years the Australian Labor Party was instrumental in setting up the tin industry. I believe that Australia should smelt all the tin that can be produced in this country. We should be an exporter of tin plate. Instead of exporting concentrates, coal and energy they should be used to employ our people.

The only complaint 1 have with this Bill is that it does not go far enough in the long term. There is no long term project to ensure that we build the tin industry up. That, I think, is the worst point of this Bill. As I have said, we do not oppose it. It is a step in the right direction but I do not think enough planning has gone into this industry. Australians should reap the benefit from all the minerals that we produce in this nation. Instead of exporting our coal and energy- we export the great majority of the gas from the North West Shelf- we should be looking to higher production and exporting finished commodities. This is another illustration of lack of planning.

Over three years we will give approximately $500,000 under this legislation. If a Government gives $500,000 to an industry that industry should return something to this nation. The employment of the people of this nation should be the responsibility of that industry if it receives that large amount of money. The plant at Alexandria is half owned by Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd, which also produces tin plate in this country. As I have said, I am opposed to exporting any of the concentrates. We should be willing to refine the lot. If the smelting operation in this country is not efficient enough to smelt the low grade ores and if we are prepared to give that $500,000, we should see that the companies produce better plant to smelt all the minerals. We support this Bill. We hope that in the future the Government will look to increasing the wealth of this nation.

Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales

– I wish to address my remarks to the second of the Bills which we are debating cognately this evening, namely the Bounty (Penicillin) Bill 1980. 1 think it is often not realised that in 1928 one of the great revolutions of all time occurred with the discovery of the potential of penicillin in a quite casual way in the United Kingdom by Alexander Fleming. One of the famous stories of medical research, indeed of research in general, is the accidental discovery of the properties of penicillin and the way in which it came to be developed. That discovery in 1928 marked a revolution in the history of the medical treatment of mankind. As is so typical of many great discoveries it waited for another ten years until Florey and Chain in 1 938 started the commercial development and the more detailed scientific explanation of the properties of penicillin.

In many ways penicillin is the first of the wonder drugs. The sort of disease bacteria sensitive to penicillin range from infections of the throat, pneumonia, spinal meningitis, gas gangrene and diphtheria to most of the venereal diseases. Treatment of these diseases, particularly those that reached epidemic proportions, indicates the importance of penicillin not only in medical science but also in the development of national health programs. It is important in the sort of strategies that governments adopt from national health and defence points of view when they are considering recommendations which are made to them by the Industries Assistance Commission, and when they go out of their way to overturn the decisions that the IAC has put to them. The production of bulk antibiotics and of penicillin in particular, is something that has been occurring in this country for a prolonged period. The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, as I understand, commenced production of penicillin in 1943.

Debate interrupted.

page 2008

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

-Order! It being 1 1 p.m., in conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 2008

BOUNTY (REFINED TIN) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales

– I was saying that the production of penicillin in Australia commenced in 1943 with work which was undertaken at the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories plant in Victoria. There are, as honourable senators would know from the provisions of the Bill, two types of penicillin which are produced and which are the subject of the provision of bounty in this legislation; they are penicillin G and penicillin V, and they are in fact different types of penicillin. One is produced essentially as the result of a normal growth within a culture, and the second is produced essentially by the chemical manipulation of the moulds within which the penicillin is developed. Both of the penicillins are in fact used for substantially different purposes.

At the time of the Industries Assistance Commission’s latest investigation of the production of penicillin, not only was the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories involved in the production of penicillin but Glaxco Australia Pty Ltd, at its plant at Port Fair)’ in Victoria, had also commenced production of both penicillin G and penicillin V in 1955. It was also a producer of bulk streptomycin. Since that time, the situation has developed in which Glaxco is no longer in the business of producing penicillin. The other important producer, and one which is directly affected by the provisions of this legislation, is Abbott Laboratories Pty Ltd, which started the production of only one of the types of penicillin, namely penicillin V, at its plant at Kurnell in New South Wales in 1 964.

Senator Chipp:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. I was told by the Government Whip less than half an hour ago that the adjournment debate would proceed at 1 1 p.m. I, as the leader of a small party in this place, was not paid the courtesy by any person of being told that the motion for the adjournment was to be negatived. I was denied three minutes of the Senate’s time today to pay tribute to an officer, and yet honourable senators apparently have to listen for another 25 minutes to speeches, fascinating though they might be, on the subject of penicillin. There are some courtesies that should be paid in this place. I understand that the Australian Labor Party was informed about two seconds before 1 1 p.m. that the motion for the adjournment was to be negatived. If this place is to work with the co-operation of the Opposition- the Leader of the Government in the Senate is seeking the co-operation of people on this side of the House to get the business through- with great respect, more courtesies need to be paid to people on this side of the House, especially if this sort of situation is to be repeated.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no point of order.

Senator Scott:

– Speaking on the point of order, it was a late decision. I had the feeling that the debate was almost concluded. The two senators whose names are on the list in front of me have spoken. I understood at that stage that Senator Puplick was the last speaker, and I understand now that there is one more. I apologise for any inconvenience that may have occurred, but I felt that the Senate was in the process of winding up the debate.

Senator Robertson:

– That is not quite so, Mr President. We were not going to debate these Bills cognately. We have two more speakers on the list. I conveyed that information to Senator Scott when he came over to speak to me. Senator Melzer and Senator Douglas McClelland are also listed to speak. They are not on the list which you have, Mr President, because we were not going to debate these Bills cognately.

Senator Scott:

– At the beginning of the debate I asked Senator Walsh for permission to take them cognately, and that was agreed to.

Senator Robertson:

– I suggest that, since we have this new information in front of us, the Government may care to put the adjournment motion again.

Senator PUPLICK:

– I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2009

ADJOURNMENT

Use of VIP Aircraft- Lebanese Immigrants

Motion (by Senator Scott) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I wish to raise one matter in the Senate tonight. It will not take me very long to do so. It is well known that for many years now I have given very close surveillance to the manifest which is tabled by the Department of Defence in the Senate. I refer to the manifest showing details of conveyance of the Governor-General, Ministers of State and others by Royal Australian Air Force aircraft. I have pursued the questions about this manifest very thoroughly over the years and I have made some very caustic comments in the Parliament about what I believe has been the misuse of VIP aircraft. Today I received a letter from a former Governor-General pointing out that in one instance I was not quite correct. I accept the contents of the former Governor-General’s letter. I am sorry that I have probably misled the Parliament. I will have to do some more research on this question. Until I do that, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the letter which I received from the former Governor-General. I have shown that letter to Senator Scott and he has agreed to its incorporation. If that is done, that is all I have to say at this stage.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

RIGHT HONOURABLE SIR PAUL HASLUCK

Allendale Square 77 St George ‘s Terrace

Perth, Western Australia 6000 28 April 1980

Dear Senator McLaren,

In my retirement I receive the proof copies of Hansard so as to keep in touch with the authentic record of parliamentary proceedings. Today I noticed that on Monday, 2 1 April, in the proceedings of Estimates Committee A, at page 279, you said thatGovernor-General Hasluck used V.I.P. aircraft to fly to and from Perth for dental treatment’. You should have said that there was a newspaper story to that effect. The story was explicitly denied at the time. There was not a word of truth in it.

Yours sincerely, PAUL HASLUCK

Senator G. T. McLaren Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600

Senator SIBRAA:
New South Wales

– I raise very briefly an immigration matter in the adjournment debate this evening. It concerns Mr and Mrs Peter Frangie who are citizens of Lebanon and who are in Australia at the moment on a visitors visa. Mr Frangie is 6 1 years of age and his wife is 55. They wish to become Australian citizens. They realise that they have to return to Lebanon to commence the appropriate procedures. They already have one son in Australia. Peter Frangie is a man of vast business experience and considerable wealth, and no doubt he would be self-supporting in Australia. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Macphee) has written to him to explain that three of his children must be resident in Australia for him to be eligible for sponsorship but that he can apply as an independent applicant, which he is going to do. He already has one son here, as I said earlier.

The important point is that Peter Frangie is a cousin of the former President of Lebanon, Mr Suleiman Frangie. He is in constant danger because of the political, social and economic disorders which are ravaging Lebanon today. He has already lost one son- shot- and another son has been wounded in the civil war. But the Minister has written to him and said that he is not a political refugee. This is at a time when this Government is talking about accepting political refugees from Cuba and when we have this scandalous case of political asylum being given to the East German dancer, Miss Heidi Giersch, the first person to receive political asylum since the Petrovs. I ask the Government: Why was Miss Giersch not granted refugee status? It was probably because it is an election year and because the Government was able to get headlines by giving her political asylum. Why could she not have been given refugee status, as was the Russian girl who left the cruise ship some time last year?

If we look at these cases we realise that it seems to be Government policy that if a person is young, attractive and female and looks good in a red bikini she will get political asylum or refugee status virtually immediately. But a person such as Peter Frangie, who comes from a war torn country- Lebanon- where members of his family have been killed, who himself has been threatened in a civil war and who already has family in this country, is discriminated against.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for National Development and Energy · LP

– I know nothing of the circumstances of the gentleman whom Senator Sibraa has mentioned. If he wishes to direct any submission on that gentleman to me I will take the matter up. I can comment only on his final remarks. Of course, the evidence is totally against Senator Sibraa. Thousands of quite simple people have sought asylum in this country, have sought refugee status, and received it. If that has not happened so far, in this case, let us examine it on its merits. In fact, this country has let in thousands of people without any song and dance and without there being any attempt to make political capital from it.

I think Senator Sibraa said it is scandalous that the East Berlin girl has been given the status she has. I only remind him that I read to the Senate the advice I received from the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Defence as proffered. I think the words used were that this was one of the strongest cases that would merit such a status being granted. I do not know whether the inference is that the advice of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Defence is scandalous advice. The fact of the matter is that the Government’s decision on the dancer is completely in line with departmental advice. I say that advisedly so that we put the whole matter in perspective. However, as Senator Sibraa has raised the matter, if he would be good enough to give me any details he has, I will certainly take the matter up.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2010

PAPERS

The following papers were presented, pursuant to statutes:

Australian Bureau of Statistics Act- Proposal No. I of 1980- New topic to be included in the population survey, May 1980.

Judiciary Act- Rule of the High Court- Statutory Rules 1980 No. 88.

Public Service Act- Appointment- Department of Aboriginal Affairs-S. K. Stack.

Senate adjourned at 11.12 p.m.

page 2011

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Overseas Ownership of Oil Companies (Question No. 2517)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 6 March 1 980:

  1. 1 ) What are the names of the major oil companies operating in Australia whose parent companies are overseas.
  2. Do any of the overseas companies have shares listed on the Australian stock exchanges; if so: (a) what are the companies: and (b) what proportion of the issued capital is listed.
  3. Do any of the overseas oil companies propose to ‘naturalise’ their Australian operations; if so, what are the names of the companies and what are the expected dates of the naturalisation’.
  4. Have any of the overseas oil companies sought the approval of the Foreign Investment Review Board for the acquisition of shares, rights or other securities of Australian owned companies or the assets or real estate of Australian companies; if so, have all the applications been approved or have some been approved and some rejected or have modifications been sought.
  5. How many applications by foreign oil companies for the acquisition of shares in, or assets of, Australian companies or projects have resulted in a loss of control by the Australian interests and what is the total value of such applications.
  6. Do any of the applications approved require that the company or project in which the overseas oil companies have gained an interest, be ‘naturalised’; if so: (a) what is the value of each such project; and (b) by what date are they to be ‘naturalised’.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Acting Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) On the basis of information available to me, the Australian subsidiaries of the major foreign oil companies are:

Amoco Minerals Company Australia

Arco Australia Ltd

California Asiatic Oil Company

Caltex Oil Australia Pty Ltd

Esso Exploration and Production Australia Incorporated

Getty Oil Development Company Ltd

Mobil Oil Australia Ltd

The Shell Company of Australia Ltd

Texaco Overseas Petroleum Company

Total Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd.

  1. None of these companies has shares listed on the Australian stock exchanges.
  2. The Foreign Investment Review Board has not been advised of any proposals by these companies to ‘naturalise’ their Australian operations.
  3. In the period from 1 July 1978 to 31 December 1979, 50 proposals for business acquisitions by these companies were examined by the Foreign Investment Review Board. Of these proposals, 6 were approved by the Government without conditions, 43 were approved subject to conditions and one was rejected. In one case, the level of Australian participation in the proposed acquisition was modified, after consultations with the parties to the proposal. Most of the 50 proposals were in the mineral sector and involved acquisitions of rights to participate in the exploration of mining leases.
  4. Of the 49 proposals that were approved, 2 1 proposals, involving total expected investments of$51m, would result in a loss of control over the businesses concerned by Australians. As already mentioned above in the reply to part (4) of the question, most of these involved acquisitions of rights to participate in the exploration of mining leases; when such projects reach the development stage, parties would be required to seek further foreign investment approval on the basis of the guidelines for new mineral projects.
  5. No. It is not the Government’s policy to require any foreign company to naturalise.

Export of Kangaroo Products (Question No. 2602)

Senator Chipp:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 25 March 1980:

Will the Minister ensure that an impartial, scientific study of kangaroo populations is undertaken, before any changes in the present position regarding export of kangaroo products is considered.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

No changes are contemplated in current Australian policies on the export of kangaroo skins and products.

Quotas for commercial harvesting are determined annually by the respective State wildlife authorities in consultation with the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, and exports are monitored by the Bureau of Customs.

The species of kangaroo subject to commercial harvesting are common and widespread and continual surveying of populations by the appropriate wildlife protection authorities ensures that the levels of culling are based on scientific knowledge of species numbers and biology.

Radio Australia: Response from China (Question No. 2608)

Senator Rocher:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 26 March 1980:

  1. 1) In what ways did the Australian Embassy in Peking help the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) to handle the large amount of mail from Radio Australia’s listeners in China referred to by the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications in his reply on 20 September 1979 to my question without notice on 18 September 1979 (see Senate Hansard, page 866).
  2. Did the Department of Foreign Affairs give the ABC any help in Australia with the letters from China; if so, in what ways.
  3. Has the ABC had to pay, or will it have to pay for any of this assistance.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) The Australian Embassy in Peking assisted the Australian Broadcasting Commission in obtaining a post office box in Peking to which listeners in the People’s Republic of China could address mail to Radio Australia. The Embassy has also assisted by regularly clearing the box on Radio Australia ‘s behalf and forwarding the mail by airfreight to Australia for collection by Radio Australia.
  2. No.
  3. The ABC pays the post office box rental in Peking and the cost of freighting the correspondence to Australia.

Kakadu National Park (Question No. 2638)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 2 April 1980:

Will the Kakadu National Park embrace the whole catchment of the South Alligator River; if not, why not?

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

In announcing the Commonwealth Government’s uranium decisions in August 1977, the then Minister, Mr Newman, stated that a major national park would be established embracing the full area recommended by the Ranger Inquiry. This includes the area now proclaimed as Stage 1 of Kakadu National Park together with Stage 2 which will be declared later. Stage 1 and 2 will contain a substantial portion of the South Alligator River catchment.

Part of the catchment area is within the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases and the Commonwealth and Northern Territory Governments have established a joint land resources study of these areas. A decision will be made on the future use of these areas once the study is finalised.

Road Funds (Question No. 2653)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 April 1980:

Has the Prime Minister personally studied claims by the Western Australian Government for a greater share of the funds available for roads; if so: (a) when; (b) what was the outcome of the study; and (c) who else took pan in the study.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (a), (b) and (c): The Commonwealth Government is presently giving consideration to the level of funding and arrangements that will apply to road funding in 1 980-8 1 and future years.

The Western Australian Government, like other State Governments, has made representations to the Commonwealth on this matter.

Road funding was discussed at the Premiers’ Conference in December last year where the Commonwealth Government listened with interest to the views expressed by the Premiers. These views and those of other interested bodies will be fully considered by the Commonwealth in reaching a decision.

Customs Officers at Sydney Airport (Question No. 2674)

Senator Cavanagh:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 15 April 1980:

Will the Minister, at an early date, supply an answer to Question No. 2639 placed on the Senate Notice Paper on 1 April 1980.

Senator Durack:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The answer to Question No. 2639 appeared in Senate Hansardised 16 April 1980 on page 1S42.

Customs Officers at Sydney Airport (Question No. 2683)

Senator Cavanagh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 1 7 April 1 980:

Will the Minister expedite an answer to Question No. 2674 placed on the Senate Notice Paper on 1 S April 1 980.

Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The answer to Question No. 2674 appears in Hansard dated 30 April 1980.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 30 April 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1980/19800430_senate_31_s85/>.