House of Representatives
1 June 1976

30th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 30th Parliament
  3. 1976

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C.) took the chair at 2. IS p.m., and read prayers.

page 2697

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Social Security Payments: Indexation

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

That distress is being caused to social security recipients by the delay in adjusting pensions to the Consumer Price Index months after goods and services have risen and that many medications, formerly a pharmaceutical benefit, must now be paid for.

In addition, State Housing Authority waiting lists for low rental dwellings for pensioners become never less and funeral costs increase ever greater.

Your petitioners call on the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to:

Adjust social security payments instantly and automatically on announcement of increases in the quarterly Consumer Price Index.

Restore pharmaceutical benefits deleted from the free list.

The States Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Act 1974, eroded by inflation, be updated and increased to overcome the back-log.

The funeral benefit be updated to 60 per cent of a reasonable funeral cost. This benefit when introduced in 1943 at 200 shillings ($20.00) was seven times the pension at that time of 27 shillings ($2.70) per week or more than twice the basic wage of 97 shillings ($9.70).

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Les Johnson, Mr Garrick, Mr Graham, Mr Les McMahon and Mr Morris.

Petitions received.

Australian Heritage Commission

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

There is a growing interest and concern in all sections of Australian society for the conservation of the environment, natural and man-made.

That there are also rapidly growing pressures by powerful forces tending towards the destruction of the Australian heritage.

That it is therefore urgent to appoint the Australian Heritage Commission, which was approved by both sides of this Parliament, and to give the Commission sufficient independent staff, resources and funds.

That Technical Assistance Grants and Administrative Support Grants to community organisations are needed to partially redress the gross imbalance in technical expertise and resources suffered by community groups in pressing the community’s case against the exploiter.

That a proper balance between the Government’s program of public austerity and the need for action in conservation would be a modest increase in the budget allocations in these areas over that of 1 975-76.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Peter Johnson and Mr Sainsbury. Petitions received.

A similar petition has been lodged by Mr Carige.

Petition received.

Aurukun Community: Mining

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

Whereas the Aurukun Associates Agreement Act was passed in contravention of a 1968 agreement;

Whereas this Act conflicts seriously with Commonwealth Government Policy on Aboriginal Affairs and on Australian equity in multinational corporations working in Australia;

Your Petitioners therefore note with appreciation the statements already made on the matter by Government members but humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will also

  1. initiate a Commission of Enquiry into the whole matter
  2. insist that no mining take place on the Aurukun Aboriginal Reserve until a full environmental impact study has been made by the Commonwealth Department of the Environment, Housing and Community Development
  3. refuse to grant an export licence to the Consortium until detailed negotiations are held at Aurukun by Consortium representatives with the Aurukun people, the traditional owners of the land and advisers of their choice, and an agreement satisfactory to all has been reached.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Howard and Mr Connolly. Petitions received.

Australian Assistance Plan

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

That since the Australian Assistance Plan is making it possible for citizens to help themselves, thereby ensuring best possible use of limited Government resources, as shown by the fact that over 200 community projects have been initiated or funded through the AAP in the Outer Eastern Region.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament will take immediate steps to continue the Australian Assistance Plan as recommended in the Report tabled by the Honourable the Minister for Social Security, Senator Margaret Guilfoyle in Parliament on the 4th March, 1976 and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Baillieu.

Petition received.

Australian Assistance Plan

To the Speaker and House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that many Australians believe that the Australian Assistance Plan is essential for effective social development, and that it has been invaluable in enabling communities to identify and take action on their needs. We, your petitioners, do therefore humbly pray that the AAP be retained and be fully implemented, as recommended in the report of the Social Welfare Commission, and particularly that all regions in Australia be fully funded.

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

Petition received.

Milk Substitutes

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:

  1. That reduction of the age limit from six years to eighteen months for patients eligible to receive cows’ milk substitutes as a pharmaceutical benefit under the schedules of the National Health Act will cause serious financial hardship to many families;
  2. That children allergic to cows’ milk and other dairy products who often include asthmatics and sufferers of respiratory complaints depend on Soya Bean milk such as Isomil and Prosobee as mam source of protein;
  3. That the Government’s action is responsible for a 100 per cent increase in the cost of milk substitutes frequently involving parents in expenditure of $10 per week to sustain desirable protein intake for an affected child;
  4. That there is an urgent, humane need to restore milk substitutes to children up to six years of age to the schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that milk substitutes be restored to the schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits for children to the age of six years as soon as possible.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Garrick and Mr Les Johnson.

Petitions received.

Trade Union Ballots

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

That whereas the Democratic control of organisations registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act is essential to a sound system of industrial relations;

And whereas Democratic control can only be guaranteed by the Opportunity for all rank and file members of organisations to vote in elections for all officials and all Committees of Management and whereas some forces within the Trade

Union Movement are attempting to deny rank and file members the right to vote in all Union elections;

Your petitioners humbly pray, that the members in Parliament assembled will take steps to:

  1. Preserve Democracy in Trade Unions by guaranteeing the right of all members to participate in rank and file ballots for officials and Committees of Management.
  2. Resist the pressures from these elements in the Trade Union Movement seeking to deny members the right to vote.
  3. Ensure the widest participation in Union ballots by making voting compulsory in union elections.
  4. Resist the re-introduction of the undemocratic collegiate system of union elections, which enables control and manipulation by minority and extremist elements.

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

Petition received.

Uranium

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

That whereas uranium found in vast quantities in Australia is the raw material for the nuclear fission reaction.

And whereas presently assured reserves of uranium in Australia represent a potential production of over 540 000 kilograms of Plutonium 239 if utilized in Light Water Reactors overseas,

And whereas the Maximum Permissable Inhalation of Plutonium 239 is 0.000 000 25 gram,

And whereas Plutonium 239 is one of the most dangerous substances human society has ever created, causing mutations and cancers,

And whereas there are no methods of safely and absolutely confining Plutonium from the biosphere for the requisite quarter of a million years,

And whereas Plutonium coming in contact with the air forms an aerosol cloud of micron-sized particles, its most dangerous form,

And whereas the export of uranium may return to us an import of Plutonium particles dispersed in the global environment via the circulation of the atmosphere,

And whereas there are no sure safeguards against the military use of nuclear fission, and the nuclear proliferation represents a prime environmental threat to all forms of life on the only earth available to us,

And that it is therefore an act of self-preservation to demand a halt to all exports of uranium except for bio-medical uses,

Your petitioners humbly pray that the members, in the House assembled, will take the most urgent steps to ensure:

  1. That further mining and export of uranium from Australia except for bio-medical purposes be banned.
  2. That the Australian Atomic Energy Commission be transformed by the rewriting of its charter into an Australian Energy Commission to further the understanding of energy flows through our society and to promote national economicindependence and self-sufficiency.

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

Petition received.

Tertiary Education Allowance

To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned students and staff at Christ College respectfully showeth:

That the Commonwealth Government Tertiary Educational Allowance Scheme be raised from $30 per week to $48 per week.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Treasurer, Mr Lynch will carry out this Petition.

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

Petition received.

Metric System

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representitives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Division of Capricornia respectfully showeth:

That the plan to obliterate the traditional weights and measures of this country is causing and will cause widespread inconvenience, confusion, expense and distress.

That there is no certainty that any significant benefits or indeed any benefits at all will follow the use of the new weights and measures.

That the traditional weights and measures are eminently satisfactory.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House take steps to repeal the Metric Conversion Act and restore the traditional and familiar weights and measures.

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

Petition received.

Uranium

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

That the products of nuclear fission create risks unlike those of any other single technology and, furthermore, it is uncertain whether or not nuclear fission technology, taking all inputs into account, is a net producer of energy.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to bring about the wishes expressed in our petition that by reason of the hazards associated with the use of uranium in nuclear power plants, mining of uranium in Australia be restricted to that need for physical and biomedical research and medical diagnosis.

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

Petition received.

Woodchip Industry

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

  1. That Australia is not well-endowed with natural forest areas only amounting to 4.5 per cent of the total land area.
  2. That very little of this forested area, is reserved in national parks, most of the remainder being directly (as

State forests etc.) or indirectly (as Crown lands, over which forestry exercises timber extraction rights) under forestry control.

  1. That most of this remainder is liable to be totally destroyed by woodchip projects, due to soil erosion, nutrient loss, fire damage to young saplings in artificial forest regeneration projects.
  2. That many forms of arboreal wildlife are thus threatened with extinction.
  3. That grossly inadequate consideration has been given to the process of recycling packaged paper.
  4. That it is not in the long-term interest of the Australian people that these forests are converted into material for short-term use of excessive packaging.
  5. That it is a severe abuse of democratic rights to subsidise forestry practice with public money without adequate consultation of public interest.

We, your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that you will:

  1. Immediately cancel all current woodchip export licences.
  2. Immediately provide more funds into research for the recycling of used packaged material.
  3. Ensure that any future applications for woodchip leases be preceded by an environmental enquiry, to be conducted by a panel of environmentalists and public-spirited conservation bodies independent of the Australian Forestry Council or any State Forestry Commission.

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

Petition received.

Income Tax: Land and Water Rates

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

That the undersigned persons believe that the $300 limit on income tax deductibility in respect of personal residential land and water rates is unrealistic and is a discriminatory income tax penalty.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take steps to see that the aforesaid limitation is removed entirely or substantially increased.

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

Petition received.

Cadet Corps

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

That the three service cadet forces have great value in the development of the youth of Australia.

That the disbanding of the cadet forces will disperse accumulated expertise and interest of those involved, and in some cases negate the efforts of many people over many years.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will reconsider its decision and that the Government will reinstate the cadet forces.

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

Petition received.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

To the Speaker and the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that many Australians are concerned that Australia take a strong role of leadership at the forthcoming United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

We your petitioners do therefor humbly pray that the Australian Government instruct its delegation to the fourth session of UNCTAD

  1. to speak in support of the principle of the integrated program of commodites
  2. to take part in follow up activities after the fourth session to help bring about the integrated program
  3. to offer financial assistance for these activities
  4. to give special consideration and attention to tea, bauxite, copra and other commodities of particular importance in our trade with the third world and the Pacific Islands in particular, and to work for the inclusion of these commodities in the program.

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

Petition received.

Taxation: Home Mortgage Interest

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Commonwealth of Australia by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:

  1. That the proposal to exclude all persons from the benefit of tax deductibility for mortgage interest rates other than first home buyers in their first five years of home purchase is a repudiation of the Government’s election undertaking to maintain the scheme.
  2. That the effect of the proposal will cause hardship to many current beneficiaries of the scheme, in that existing benefits will terminate, thus putting housing loan repayments beyond reach.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

  1. a) that the Government reconsider its decision to drastically curtail the scheme;
  2. that the principles applying to the scheme as introduced by the Labor Government be maintained; and
  3. that benefits be upgraded by indexation to take account of the effects of inflation.

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

Petition received.

Television and Radio Licence Fees; Medibank and Pharmaceutical Benefits

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

That the new Government during the recent election campaign, promised lower taxation and more money in people’s pockets.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will take immediate steps to prevent the introduction of Television and Radio licence fees, the imposition of a tax levy for Medibank and the introduction of higher charges for drugs dispensed under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

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

Petition received.

Age Pensions: Means Test

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

That those who have retired and those who are about to retire, are being severely and adversely affected by inflation and Australian economic circumstances.

The continuance of the means test on pensions causes undue hardship to them.

We call on the Government to immediately abolish the mean’s test on all Aged Pensions.

To ensure a pension for all on retirement, and a guarantee that all Australian citizens will retire with dignity.

Acknowledge that a pension is a right and not a charity.

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

Petition received.

Income Tax

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Newcastle Dockyard

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

That shipbuilding and repairs play a vital role in the economic stability of the Newcastle region.

That a recent study by the Hunter Valley Research Foundation showed that 50 000 people were partially or wholly maintained by the State Dockyard.

That stability is at present in jeopardy, as a new ship order is required within the next few weeks if serious unemployment and hardship is to be avoided.

That the previous Government’s plan for the building of a graving dock in Newcastle should be continued as proper ship repair facilities are a vital factor in the maintenance of a viable shipbuilding industry.

That the Government’s election pledge to restore business and cut unemployment can be implemented in Newcastle if new orders and a graving dock are granted.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government place immediate orders with the Newcastle State Dockyard and implement the previous Government’s plan to build a graving dock in Newcastle.

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

Petition received.

page 2701

FOREIGN AID: DAIRY PRODUCTS

Notice of Motion

Mr YATES:
Holt

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

That this House believes that Australian foreign aid programs should take into account and use the surplus Australian agricultural products, and, it therefore calls upon the Government to consider appointing an interdepartmental study group in co-operation with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the food and pharmaceutical industries to examine at once the possibility of using the surplus dried milk and other agricultural dairy produce for the making of protein biscuits and compressed milk compound tablets for the relief of starvation and malnutrition in the countries taking Australian foreign aid, because it will be of direct assistance to the countries concerned, on the one hand, and direct help to the dairy industry and the taxpayer on the other.

page 2701

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2701

QUESTION

EAST TIMOR: GOVERNMENT

Mr BRYANT:
WILLS, VICTORIA

-MY question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Does the Australian Government recognise the Government of Portugal or the Government of Indonesia as the legal administering authority in East Timor and its territorial waters?

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

-The short answer is that legally Portugal is still allegedly the administering authority but, after all, it opted out of that role and there have been too few prepared to remind the world community of Portugal’s own delinquency in this regard. Portugal has a great deal to answer for in not bringing East Timor through steps to self-determination and taking other measures of humanitarian assistance and development. There is no doubt that Portugal with respect to its record as a colonial power in this part of the world particularly, if not elsewhere, has much to answer for. I think, however, that it ought also be borne in mind that when events changed in Portugal and the former regime was overthrown the former Australian Government could well have taken account of the pretty well accepted maxim that events that can occur in one part of the world can have a fairly immediate and direct effect far in excess of its normal sphere of influence. I would have thought therefore that the previous Government should have been taking steps- for example, during the former Prime Minister’s lengthy tours overseas there was no visit to Portugal- to discuss events relating to East Timor.

Mr Bryant:

– Whom do we deal with on this question? That is the point. Whom do we deal with about East Timor?

Mr PEACOCK:

-Of course the reality is that we have been dealing with both the United Nations and the Indonesian Government since the latter intervened in the dispute and that is in marked contrast to what was done by the previous Australian Government which washed its hands and dealt with virtually nobody.

page 2701

QUESTION

BUDGET OUTLAYS

Mr FALCONER:
CASEY, VICTORIA

-My question is directed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer tell the House whether Budget outlays for the current year are likely to be higher or lower than estimated at the time of the Budget last year?

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– I can make clear to the House that the Government does expect that it will be able to maintain Budget outlays at approximately the same level as was budgeted for in the Hayden Budget last year. If this is the case-I am confident that barring any unforeseen eventuality it will be the case- it will, as I recall, be the first time since 1968 that that form of management has been so applied to maintain the target for Budget outlays as at the time of the Budget itself. I think that in itself is a matter of credit to the Government. Of course this differs very markedly indeed from the situation in 1974-75 when under the former Administration total outlays at the end of the year exceeded those which were estimated in the Budget of that year by approximately $ 1 , 700m.

page 2701

QUESTION

EAST TIMOR: SELF DETERMINATION

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Does the Australian Government intend to protest to Indonesia and to the United Nations at the obvious and planned failure of the Government of Indonesia to be associated with any act of self determination for the people of East Timor, and against what in fact is the blatant denial of this right to the people of East Timor?

Mr PEACOCK:
LP

-The Government’s record is well known. Since this Government was elected -again in marked contrast to our predecessorswe have been protesting, and not merely protesting verbally but making representations both to the Indonesian Government and earlier to Portuguese authorities. We have also long held and have constantly stated, both here and in the United Nations since we came into office, our policy on Timor relating to self determination, the withdrawal of forces and the resumption of humanitarian aid. We have also said, and again in the United Nations, that observation of the process of self determination in East Timor should best be carried out by the United Nations. In the event, regrettably no indication was forthcoming from the United Nations that it would be involved in yesterday’s meeting in East Timor. We accordingly decided that it would be appropriate for us not to attend. Some form of United Nations participation and observation, I believe, is essential and we would welcome this development, in accordance with the line we have taken since being elected to Government. In particular, we are hopeful that the United Nations special representative will soon be able to visit East Timor, again in accordance with his mandate, to reassess the situation in the territory. We hope he will be able to undertake this assessment not only in the light of the outcome of yesterday’s meeting in Dili but also with a view to assessing all shades of opinion in the territory. But without that United Nations participation, this Government did not believe it could lend its presence to what took place as a further act in this tragic affair.

page 2702

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN AWARDS

Mr YATES:

-Will the Prime Minister tell us on whose initiative changes were made to the Order of Australia? When does the Prime Minister propose to make these new awards?

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

– The House will be aware that on the initiative of the former Government the imperial honours were to be discontinued and the Order of Australia was instituted. An independent committee established under statute with the Palace makes recommendations concerning the Order of Australia, and the Government is able to make a recommendation to that committee if it so wishes. The committee will, however, make its own decisions.

That is the way in which the statute for the Order of Australia is set up. There had been a view from the Council of the Order of Australia that limiting the Order to 3 levels was too restrictive. On the one hand, the lowest order was regarded as too high a level to provide an appropriate award for many people who have performed meritorious service throughout Australia and it was believed that there ought to be an Australian award to cover such people. At the same time it was believed that there ought to be an award of particular distinction from the Australian order which would be rare and limited to services of the highest possible quality for Australia. Therefore what has happened as a result of an initiative on the part of the Council of the Order of Australia and on my recommendation to Her Majesty is that the Order of Australia should be extended in the way that was announced by the Governor-General last night. There will be 5 levels of award, and that will better enable the Council of the Order of Australia to cover the needs of acknowledging the services of Australians to the nation. Honourable gentlemen will also be aware, of course, of a decision taken by the Government that imperial awards will be reinstated. Honourable gentlemen may expect decisions to be made in relation to that to follow the pattern that used to prevail before an unfortunate interregnum occurred.

page 2702

QUESTION

EAST TIMOR: UNITED NATIONS ENVOY’S MISSION

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs inform the House of what progress has been made by the United Nations envoy in continuing his mission to Timor? Following yesterday’s farcical procedure to integrate Portuguese East Timor into Indonesia, has the Minister any information to suggest that the United Nations envoy will be deliberately obstructed by Indonesia in his endeavours to continue his mission?

Mr PEACOCK:
LP

– I have no information which would lead me to conclude that Indonesia will obstruct the return of the United Nations representative to East Timor. I do have some information which indicates that Mr Winspeare Guicciardi still desires to return to the territory. Of course, had the questioner listened to the answer I gave in reply to the question asked by the honourable member for Lalor he would have heard me say that we have hopes for some form of United Nations presence to return to East Timor and specifically that Mr Winspeare Guicciardi will resume his visit to reassess the wishes of a greater number and more representative number of people within East Timor than he was able to do before. We would do all we could to assist his transport into the territory, if that were possible. It is quite clear that it would require now the co-operation of the Indonesian Government. The short answer to the latter part of the question is as I stated, that we have no indication that Indonesia seeks to obstruct, but we would wish the United Nations representative to act with some expedition in getting to Timor.

page 2703

QUESTION

POSTAL AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONS

Mr MacKENZIE:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Bearing in mind the need for restraint in public expenditure and the provisions in both the Postal Services Act and the Telecommunications Act, whereby the Government is required to make good any discrepancy between the revenue from tariffs and the operating costs, can the Minister assure the House that both Commissions have been required to abide by their operating charter which relates to the provision of efficient services at rates and charges as low as practicable?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I am very well aware of the requirements of the Postal Commission and the Telecommunications Commission under the relevant Acts. I inform the honourable member, and indeed the whole House, that the Commissions were established only last July. There has been a settling down period, and now there is a greater degree of efficiency and understanding of the requirements by the Commissions. They do have to achieve at least 50 per cent of their expenditure for capital works out of revenue. The Postal Commission, of course, is labour intensive. In the case of Telecom there is a large capital requirement and proposed expenditure next year is of the order of something more than $800m. So there will be a need for internal funding of a little more than $400m by the Telecommunications Commission.

The relationships between the Commissions and me are of a high order. The Commissions have a great understanding now of their need to take into account social requirements, and indeed cultural requirements, in their activities. I have been asked a number of questions without notice, and indeed questions on notice, which have helped us to know what is in the minds of honourable members. Because of the discussions that have occurred the Commissions are very much aware of their need to serve the Australian community in the broadest sense. I hope to be announcing a little later initiatives in relation to the marketing and the servicing of both the Commissions which I am certain will please the honourable member and every other honourable member in the House.

page 2703

QUESTION

REVIEW OF HOSPITAL AGREEMENTS WITH STATES

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Prime Minister a question without notice. Is it a fact that Mr Austin Holmes, the Director of the Priorities Review Staff in his Department and the Chairman of the Medibank investigation team appointed last January, has now been instructed to devise a new scheme for hospital arrangements with the States? When did he get these further instructions and when is he to make his report? Will his terms of reference and the names of any colleagues be announced, as was the case last January? Will the report be tabled in this case?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-Mr Austin Holmes is a valued adviser to the Government. I believe he was a valued adviser to the previous Government There are a number of tasks in which he would be involved. What will come from a number of areas in relation to discussions that will be taking place on 1 1 June with the State Health Ministers is a paper concerning precise details of matters we would want to discuss with the States. I am not quite sure which public servants are involved in preparing detailed matter in relation to that. But if that is what the honourable gentleman is referring to, there are no formal reports in relation to it.

The Commonwealth’s view would quite obviously become fully known once it is set before the 6 States, or, if not, very shortly thereafter. What we are doing is completely within the principle of supporting State hospitals to 50 per cent of approved expenditures. But as the Minister for Health has indicated on a number of occasions, there must be concern for economy as well as for efficiency and high quality health care.

I would like to pay a tribute to the way in which the Minister and his advisers have handled this matter over succeeding weeks and months. Because of necessity this was part of the package of economic proposals announced by the Treasurer and it was not possible to have prior discussions with the funds to enable them to have their schedules ready for announcement at the same time as the Treasurer’s statement, nor was it possible to have prior discussion with all sections of the Australian community that might be involved. But the Minister has moved very swiftly in these directions. It was because it was impracticable to have discussions before the

Treasurer’s statement that the starting time for the new, revised and vastly improved proposals offering health care and a choice to all Australians will be 1 October. The matters of detail can be pursued appropriately in a spirit of consultation and reasonable negotiation. Whether it be the States or the funds or anyone else, they will find that is the approach this Government adopts.

Let me say again that the Minister and his officials I believe have handled a difficult matter well and with skill. They have offered to the Government, and, through the Government’s adoption of the proposals, to the people of Australia, the possibility of maintaining universal government-sponsored health care of high standards which will at the same time avoid the quite tragic mistakes which have been made in countries like Britain and Canada.

page 2704

QUESTION

DEVONPORT AIRPORT

Mr GROOM:
BRADDON, TASMANIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Transport. Is the Minister aware of a statement prominently reported in northern Tasmanian newspapers today in which Senator Devitt, a Labor senator, predicts the closure of the Devonport Airport as a result of cuts in Government expenditure on transport? So that this irresponsible speculation by the honourable senator -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will ask his question.

Mr GROOM:

-Yes, Mr Speaker, I will proceed straight to the question. So that this comment can be effectively refuted -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is not obeying the instruction from the Chair. He will ask his question without comment or I will rule him out of order.

Mr GROOM:

-I accept your ruling, Mr Speaker. Can the Minister assure Tasmanians that he has no plans to close this vital airport?

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · LP

– I am at a loss to understand why Senator Devitt should venture to make such irresponsible statements. The facts are that this question was last looked at by my predecessor last year. I thought at that time that my predecessor had made it plain that in his view the 3 airports along the northern coast of Tasmania were a vital part of the Tasmanian economic system. I thought he said at the time that he had no intention of changing that situation. In respect of the speculation raised by Senator Devitt, let me make it quite plain that the cuts effected in the socalled mini-Budget in no way affect the operations of those airports. The honourable member for Braddon can reassure his people that the future of the airports is not affected by the cuts in the Department of Transport’s budget. Discussions have taken place and are continuing with the local government authorities to see whether the airports can be transferred under the local ownership scheme. That in no way cuts across what I have said.

page 2704

QUESTION

WAGE INDEXATION

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I preface my question, which is directed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, by referring to the decision of the Arbitration Commission last week to adopt one of the Government’s options in implementing a system of wage indexation based upon the plateau of Average Award Rates for adult males- a principle in line with the application of the Australian Council of Trade Unions in the parent case in 1 974. 1 now ask: Can we expect that from now on the Government will support that principle before the Arbitration Commission in all future hearings of the Commission in relation to wage indexation? If so, will the Minister also support the principle that hearings of these cases should be dispensed with unless there are special circumstances justifying a Full Bench hearing again and that henceforth these wage indexation principles will be applied automatically and quarterly?

Mr STREET:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · LP

-The honourable member for Hindmarsh is quite correct in saying that the decision of the Full Bench on the national wage case last week followed closely the submissions of the Australian Council of Trade Unions in 1974. Indeed, I think these were not dissimilar to propositions that the honourable member himself advanced when his Party was in government and which, had they been accepted at that time, might have had a further moderating effect on wages during the intervening period. The Government notes that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission did not accept our submission in relation to 6-monthly hearings. The hearings will be quarterly, and the principles that the Commission applied in the April 1975 decision will continue to apply- that is, the appropriateness of adjusting wages for movements in the consumer price index and, if so, to what extent, they should be adjusted, will be looked at by the Commission in the light of circumstances at the time. Equally the Government will be making its submissions to the Commission in the light of circumstances at the time.

In relation to the last point raised by the honourable member, that is, the automatic application of the CPI, the Commission, in its original decision, put forward its reasons for not accepting that proposition. The Commission was very cautious in accepting the indexation proposals. One of the danger signals it saw was an automatic application of the CPI. I note that the Commission has seen fit not to alter its principles in that respect, and from the Government’s point of view we believe that that is a proper decision. We do not agree that adjustments should be automatic; neither does the Commission itself. Therefore we shall be putting our submissions in the light of circumstances at the time and judging at the time whether the CPI has been significantly influenced in specific instances, for example, by indirect taxes, we shall be arguing for discounting on those grounds before the Commission on occasions when that may be appropriate.

page 2705

QUESTION

DAIRY INDUSTRY

Mr SIMON:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Prime Minister. When will the Government’s decision be made on the request by dairy industry leaders to underwrite the 1976-77 prices for manufactured dairy products?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– These are matters that are currently being examined by the Government and I hope that the decision can be announced very shortly.

page 2705

QUESTION

CONCORDE AIRCRAFT

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Acting Minister for the Environment, Housing, and Community Development whether the environmental impact statement on the Concorde has been exempted from the requirements under the administrative procedures of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974-75. If the Government has exempted the environmental impact statement on the Concorde from these requirements, when will the Minister make public a summary of the reasons for granting the exemption?

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for Repatriation · BASS, TASMANIA · LP

– I am advised that all the administrative procedures that had to be taken were taken. The Acting Minister last Thursday was consulted by my colleague the Minister for Transport. I can add only that although the decision has been taken on the Concorde, monitoring of its performance and its effect on the environment will continue.

page 2705

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION: FLIGHTS TO BALI

Mr COTTER:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I address my question to the Minister for Transport. It follows on from a question I asked the Minister last month. Can he inform the House when he will be in a position to announce a decision to allow direct overseas flights from Port Hedland to Bali? Is the Minister aware that approximately 40 000 people in the Pilbara region are anxiously awaiting this decision and that some already have made tentative travel plans pending the decision?

Mr NIXON:
LP

– As I explained to the honourable member when he last asked the question, this is a much more complex matter than one would assume because certain international obligations have to be followed. There have to be discussions with the Indonesian Government and with Garuda Indonesian Airways which has an arrangement with Qantas Airways Ltd. Therefore I am unable to facilitate a fast answer for him. Procedures of governments, as he will well know, are sometimes slow. He is not the only interested person although he is the only honourable member who has asked a question about it. I have had a number of representations from outside this place seeking answers to this question. I am doing my absolute best within the confines of my capacity to get an answer to the question.

page 2705

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

(Mr Stewart proceeding to address a question to the Acting Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development)

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have given the honourable member considerable latitude - (Mr Stewart continuing to ask his question)

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I have given the honourable member considerable latitude and while I was drawing his attention to the length of his question he continued to speak. I asked him to resume his seat so that he would listen. The honourable member will now ask his question; he has established the grounds for it adequately. (Mr Stewart proceeding to ask his question)

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will ask his question or I will rule him out of order. (Mr Stewart continuing to ask his question)

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is out of order. I call the honourable member for Macquarie.

Mr Stewart:

- Mr Speaker, you have ruled me out of order. On what basis?

Mr SPEAKER:

-On the basis that the question was too long. It was suggesting the answer and was arguing the issue instead of seeking information. I asked the honourable gentleman to ask his question. He deliberately refused to do so. I therefore had no alternative but to rule him out of order.

Mr Stewart:

-I did not.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The ruling has been given. The honourable member will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Macquarie.

page 2706

QUESTION

INFLUENZA VACCINE

Mr GILLARD:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Health aware that New South Wales, with 36.92 per cent of the population, is receiving only 24.3 per cent of the influenza vaccine produced at the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories whereas one State with 14.7 per cent of the population is receiving 26.9 per cent of the serum? Will the Minister advise the action he is taking to make equal allocations to the States on the basis of population?

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

-I am delighted that the honourable member for Macquarie has brought this matter to the attention of the House. I had discussions last week with the Director of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories to ascertain why there was a disparity in distribution among the various States in relation to their populations. I was informed by the Director that the Laboratories had on this occasion adopted the past practice of allocating serum to the States according to the orders that had been registered with chemists in the various States. It appears that in some States individuals are lodging orders for the vaccine at more than one chemist and, of course, this has caused a greater demand than normal in the circumstances. I do not blame the public for being somewhat panicked because of the confusion that exists in the minds of a lot of people between the 2 strains of influenza currently in the news. The first is A Swine influenza, a number of cases of which were identified at New Jersey in the United States of America some months ago. There was considerable media coverage of this incident and a considerable amount of publicity was given to it. Since then no further cases have been identified. Medical authorities in Australia have informed me that there is no possibility of A Swine influenza reaching Australia during this winter.

The A Victoria influenza strain is not nearly as virulent or dangerous to people. I ask people in Australia not to be panicked by the confusion that has been created about the 2 strains of influenza. I have asked CSL to examine ways and means of trying in future to arrive at a more equitable distribution of vaccines. I also say, once again, that CSL has done a tremendous job.

It has worked 7 days a week since it began manufacture, and by the end of June it will have produced 2 million doses of the vaccine. It is to be commended for what it has done. I think Australia was the first country in the world to produce the vaccine. The honourable member for Macquarie may rest assured that we are doing what we can to see that there is an equitable distribution of the vaccine to all parts of Australia.

page 2706

QUESTION

CONCORDE AIRCRAFT

Dr CASS:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Acting Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development I ask: In view of his answer to the question from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and in accordance with the administrative procedures of the Environment Protection Act, when was the final environmental impact statement prepared by the proponent, which I take it was British Airways? When were the 5 copies of the final statement provided to the Department? Were copies made available to the Department or to authorities of Australia, to any State or authority of a State, to any local government authority or any other person or body which made written comments on the proposed action? I ask the question because I made written comments. I have not received a copy of the final impact statement. Where is the final environmental impact statement available to the public for sale?

Mr NIXON:
LP

– In fairness to the Acting Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, I think that I, as Minister responsible for the decision ultimately to allow Concorde to come to Australia, should answer the question asked by the honourable member for Maribyrnong. My decision to grant Concorde permission to fly into Australia was taken after we had received a letter from the British High Commission. If it is of interest to the Parliament, I will read the letter. It states:

Dear Minister,

The Department of the Environment -

That is the British Departmenthave asked that the proponents now proceed with the preparation of the final Environmental Impact Statement. Having studied the submissions received as a result of the procedure for public comments, we do not anticipate that any other than minor editorial changes to the EIS are required, and that subject to these editorial changes, the Draft -

That is the one that has been tabled already- will become the final EIS.

Our intention is to prepare an addendum to the EIS which will be our reply to the comments received as a result of the public circulation of the draft EIS earlier this year.

Yours sincerely,

In the light of that information it seemed pointless for me to postpone a decision any longer.

page 2707

QUESTION

POSTAL AND TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES

Mr CORBETT:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

-Can the Minister for Post and Telecommunications advise the percentage increase in costs of operating the Australian Postal Commission and the Australian Telecommunications Commission by comparison with the cost of operating the Postmaster-General’s Department? If he cannot do so, when will the operating costs of these commissions become available? Are the Postal and Telecommunications Commissions required to keep as close as possible to a balanced budget in their operations? If so, has this resulted in a restriction of mail services, particularly in rural areas? Is there any indication that this policy may require a further increase in postal charges?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Comparative figures were provided by the Australian Postal Commission and the Australian Telecommunications Commission during the 1975-76 Budget discussions. Expenditure by the Postal Commission increased from $423m to $5 12.5m, an increase of 21.2 per cent. Revenue of the Postal Commission increased from $360m to $5 12.8m, an increase of 42.4 per cent. That is not a bad achievement. The honourable member for Maranoa, who has had a long association with this problem, will know, of course, that in the old Postmaster-General’s Department days those commissions were treated as one large enterprise. In 1974-75 the deficit in the postal area was $63m. The expenditure of the Telecommunications Commission was $980m, and has increased to $ 1,331m, an increase of 35.8 per cent. Revenue has gone from $ 1,080m to $l,484m, an increase of 37.4 percent. In the telecommunications area the surplus for 1974-75 was $ 100m. That is the answer to the first part of the honourable member’s question.

I turn now to the second part of the question. As I have already indicated, under the Act the Commissions are to meet all operating costs and to provide 50 per cent of capital from internal sources. In the case of the Postal Commission, which is highly labour intensive, this will not be large but in the case of the Telecommunications Commission, as the honourable member well knows, the requirement will be substantial. In answer to some of the detail in the question let me say that the movement of mail in many areas is dependent upon carriage by private mail contractors. The decline in rural activity and the greater use of private vehicles have affected the price at which mail contractors in some areas have tendered for the service of carriage of mails. Where the Commission believes that tenders were excessive it has reluctantly reduced the service in some areas from 5 times a week to 3 times a week. A blanket approach cannot be taken because in some rural areas there has been an improvement in the service provided.

As I indicated earlier, a number of new marketing initiatives will be announced very shortly. I am certain that they will please the honourable member, as they will please all honourable members. I want to say this: We have been very conscious of the probing questions and the interest shown particularly by honourable members who represent rural seats. In response to that and in response to the Commission’s work and my own interest I believe that we will make decisions shortly which will be pleasing to everyone. As to the last part of the question, the honourable member will know that I cannot possibly react to it until after the Budget discussions.

page 2707

QUESTION

REVIEW OF MEDICAL PRACTICE

Mr CONNOR:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Has the Minister for Health noted the decision yesterday of the Federal Assembly of the Australian Medical Association to set up a peer group committee within 3 to 4 years to check Medibank fee abuses? Has he considered the alternative of the powers under sections 34, 35 and 36 of the New South Wales Medical Practitioners Act under which the Medical Practitioners Charges Committee can review patients’ accounts promptly at their request on the basis of such criteria as the type of service and the requisite professional standard of competence? If not, will he do so and request the cooperation of other States in introducing counterpart legislation in substitution for the delays inherent in a non statutory peer group?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

– At the conference which I had yesterday with the federal body of the Australian Medical Association I found that the Assembly was agreeable to entering into discussions with me and my Department to establish guidelines for a peer review of good medical practice and procedure in Australia. I am not aware of the sections of the Act to which the honourable member has referred. I think they would apply principally to the manner in which doctors charge for their services. The peer review committee needs to be understood in the context in which it is talked about. I notice that the honourable member for Maribyrnong nods in agreement. He understands what a peer review is. Under the Health Insurance Act any doctor who flagrantly abuses the system can be brought to trial. A number of inquiries are being conducted at the present time and in the very near future prosecutions will be launched against a small number of doctors as a consequence of investigations that have taken place which indicate the possibility of abuse under the Health Insurance Act. I am sure that the peer review will have a much longer-term benefit for standards of health care in Australia.

Mr Connor:

– A long-delayed result, too.

Mr HUNT:

– It cannot be done quickly. Those who understand the problem know that it cannot be done quickly. The fact is that the AMA is agreeing to enter into discussions on this matter and is prepared to sit down and look at the guidelines to ensure that the standards of professional medical practice in Australia reach a much higher level than they have probably reached in the past. We are hopeful that the medical profession will achieve this within a 3 -year period to obviate any necessity to introduce legislation laying down guidelines for medical practice in Australia.

The other matter of the sheer flagrant abuse of the charging of patients or the abuse of Medibank falls into a different category. There is provision under the Health Insurance Act to take action against doctors where sufficient evidence indicates that there should be a prosecution.

page 2708

QUESTION

NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY: JAPAN

Mr CADMAN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the recent decision by the Japanese Government to ratify the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty? If so, has the decision implications for Australia and the Pacific area? WU1 he take this opportunity to applaud the decision?

Mr PEACOCK:
LP

-The Government has, in fact, applauded the decision by the Japanese Diet to ratify the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty under the terms of which non-nuclear weapon states undertake not to receive, manufacture or acquire by any means nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices and agree to place all civil nuclear facilities under international atomic energy agency safeguards. As I recall, this brings the number of countries which have ratified the Treaty to ninety-eight and Japan’s inclusion in this number is a most significant step. The Japanese Government, like the Australian Government, has been actively participating in international efforts to bring nuclear proliferation under effective control. We believe that the decision by Japan to ratify the Treaty will in itself help to strengthen the international non-proliferation regime. We strongly urge all countries not yet parties to the Treaty to follow Japan’s example. As I said at the outset of the answer, we warmly applaud the decision taken by the Diet.

page 2708

CAPITAL FUND FOR ABORIGINAL ENTERPRISES

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the final report on the Commonwealth Capital Fund for Aboriginal Enterprises together with financial statements for the period 1 July 1974 to 27 November 1974.

page 2708

ABORIGINAL LOANS COMMISSION

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– Pursuant to section 36 of the Aboriginal Loans Commission Act 1974 I present the first report on the activities of the Aboriginal Loans Commission, together with financial statements, since its inception on 28 November 1974 to 30 June 1975.

page 2708

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation on the ground that I have been misrepresented by a newspaper.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member may proceed.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The lead story in the Sunday Mail of 30 May 1976 headed ‘Kerr Trip Row’ is pure invention. It claims there is a row in the Australian Labor Party over the cost of a recent trip overseas by the GovernorGeneral and implies that I am promoting the criticism. I am quoted to the effect that Mr Whitlam made a deal with the GovernorGeneral on overseas trips before his appointment and also I am said to be claiming to know this. I am also said to claim that Sir John Kerr had agreed to rubber-stamp Mr Whitlam ‘s decision in exchange for overseas trips. All of this is pure invention by the writer so far as it touches me. The writer phoned me, it is true. I told him that I had no knowledge of the matter except what I had read in one of the books about the events of 1 1 November. I could confirm only one thing- that there had been no decision in the Cabinet about overseas trips or the GovernorGeneral’s attitude to his office. There is no row that I know of in the Labor Party over the Governor-General’s trip. What is more, I said nothing at all to the writer suggesting that there was. As a matter of fact, I did not even know that Senator McLaren had raised the matter until I was questioned by the writer. I have no knowledge whatsoever of any transaction or agreement between the Governor-General and the Leader of the Opposition. The journalist concerned intruded upon my privacy by telephoning me at the weekend. He sought me out on an issue with which I was not concerned and of which I had no knowledge, general or special, and imputed to me views which I do not hold and which I have not expressed to him or anyone else. I have lodged a complaint with the Federal Secretary of the Australian Journalists Association that the conduct of the journalist was improper and warranting the discipline of the Ethics Committee of that organisation.

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– (Oxley)- Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr HAYDEN:

-Yes. On Friday 28 May a number of newspapers printed an article attributing certain comments to me generally as a direct quote. In all cases the attribution was inaccurate. My attention was first drawn to this incident from an article in the Brisbane Telegraph of the night of that date which referred to incidents in the House the evening before. The article has a photograph of me and other members of the Parliament, yourself included, Mr Speaker, and I shall talk to you about that later. Attributed to me in a heading above the photograph are the words: ‘Liar’ says Hayden.

The article goes on to claim that I had made such a statement in the Parliament. The Sun NewsPictorial, the Mercury, the Townsville Daily Bulletin, the Newcastle Morning Herald and the Adelaide Advertiser of that date carry the same story and I believe other newspapers also carried it, but this is the full range which the Parliamentary Library resources can provide for me. I understand that the Queensland Times at Ipswich also reported something similar. The articles report me stating in quote marks, referring to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser):

Your have been lying ever since you took office.

Mr Speaker, my recollection of the incident of the night before is very clear. I, with a great deal of determination, avoided using that sort of word.

Government supporters- Ha, ha.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Wait a minute. Any of you can suffer from this. The parliamentary record of 27 May states:

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– Your version would be very strange.

Mr Hayden:

– Your version would be as dishonest as you have been ever since you have taken office.

That is vastly different from the way in which the newspapers reported the comments, especially as the newspapers attributed as a direct quote, in quotation marks, the comments I quoted from them a few seconds ago. I checked with the Hansard staff and they advised me that they ran back the tape to check and found that I did not use the words which have been attributed to me by the newspapers.

I must make two quick observations. I contacted the Brisbane Telegraph. I was rather surprised at the almost sententious response that I experienced from that newspaper- an attitude that because other newspapers had reported similarly there did not seem to be any justification for that newspaper to seek to make any correction in the statement it had attributed to me. Secondly, I must also place on record, Mr Speaker, a fair deal of experience I have noted over the past couple of years, and more especially in the past several months, for some newspapers to ignore completely accuracy in reporting what honourable members have said and to attribute comments which are literally incorrect in every conceivable detail. I can only leave it to the sense of professionalism on the part of the journalists to try to rectify that. With one or two exceptions when I was a Minister, and there was clear evidence of a complete fabrication, I have not -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I cannot allow the honourable gentleman to discuss the matter any more broadly than where he was directly misreported himself.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I claim to have been misrepresented by those newspapers and by others which I have not been able to obtain, but I have heard about their reports. I believe that the Australian also carried a similar article. I hope that there is enough sense of ethical responsibility on the part of the newspapers concerned on their own initiatives to include a correction in the next edition of their newspapers.

page 2709

HOURS OF MEETING

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until 1 1 a.m. tomorrow.

I do not wish to delay the House by talking to this motion. Its purpose is obvious. It seems necessary that we achieve a few additional hours of sitting, and I suggest that this might be one way by which that objective might be accommodated.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2710

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1975-76.

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1975-76.

page 2710

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

-As Chairman, I present the 1 60th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr CONNOLLY:

-I seek leave to make a statement, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr CONNOLLY:

-Honourable members will recall that on 20 May 1976 I tabled the 158th report relating to expenditure from the Advance to the Treasurer for the financial year 1974-75 and the 159th report which contained Treasury minutes on two previous reports of the Committee. The 160th report which I am tabling today relates to expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for 1974-75 and covers the remaining items included in the previous Committee’s annual examination of the expenditure results of departments in that year.

In examining expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund the Committee seeks to ascertain whether or not the principles relating to the formulation of estimates have been adopted by the departments under examination. These principles, which are included in Treasury Direction 16/9, have also been set out in chapter 1 of the 160th report. In recent years the Committee has paid particular attention to the estimates and related expenditure of departments. As a poor standard of estimating has wide ramifications, the Committee has concerned itself not only with excess expenditure charged to the Advance to the Treasurer but also with the over provision of funds. The Committee has made it clear that such over provisions are undesirable, misleading and could be unfair to other departments whose financial needs might not have been satisfied. At the same time, the Committee has emphasised that it does not regard the total expenditure of available funds under a particular appropriation item as an objective to be sought without regard to other important considerations. Indeed undue emphasis on the need to match expenditure and available funds can give rise to unnecessary and uneconomic expenditure and can result in the distortion of administrative practices. In this regard the Committee has, on previous occasions, criticised departments that have accelerated payments in order to prevent an appropriation from lapsing.

As this and previous reports relating to expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund show, frequently there are explanations for expenditure variations from the estimates which are acceptable to the Committee. These variations usually arise from unforeseeable circumstances and certain other factors which are beyond the control of the departments concerned. In this report, however, the committee has also found it necessary to refer to 10 cases of unsatisfactory estimating and administrative performances that have resulted in shortfalls in expenditure. Attention has been drawn to these inadequacies where they have arisen. The Committee again found it necessary to comment adversely on the quality of written submissions and the inadequacy of briefing of some witnesses. As the Public Accounts Committee is a committee of the Parliament, it is essential that all departments present evidence of a high quality. In this context the Committee notes that the Treasury recently issued a circular directing the attention of all departments to the Committee’s requirements. I commend the report to honourable members.

page 2710

TARIFF PROPOSALS

Mr HOWARD:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Bennelong · LP

– I move:

Customs TariffProposals No. 13 ( 1976).

The Customs TariffProposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Customs Tariff 1966-1974. Customs TariffProposals No. 13 (1976) give effect to the Government’s decisions on recommendations made by the Industries Assistance Commission in its reports on Other Electronic Equipment; and Superphosphate Production. The Proposals also contain a change in the rates of duty applying to viscose high tenacity yarn and viscose tyre cord fabric. This change is consistent with the suggestion made by the Industries Assistance Commission in its report of 25 June 1974 on Tyre Cord and Tyre Cord Fabric that the duties on viscose yarn and fabric be reduced to the same level as that applying to other competitive yarns and fabric should production of viscose in Australia cease. The new duties operate from tomorrow. A comprehensive summary of the changes is now being circulated to honourable members. I commend the Proposals to the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-The question is: ‘That the motion be agreed to’.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

In moving the adjournment of the debate I point out that I will be speaking on the validation of the proposed changes later in the week when the Bill comes before the House for debate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2711

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 May, on motion by Mr Street:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) for providing copies of the consolidated Conciliation and Arbitration Act for the benefit of honourable members in a debate such as this. It is absolutely essential that an Act such as the Conciliation and Arbitration Act be consolidated, because otherwise it is virtually impossible for a person to understand what is provided in the existing law. I make the comment that the Minister would be well advised to consider arranging for the Act to be consolidated, if possible, by feeding the provisions of the Act into a data bank for computerised printing of consolidations to include all future amendments. That can be done technically quite easily. The Conciliation and Arbitration Act is among the 5 Acts of this Parliament which are most used in the community and which ought to be the easiest of all to follow.

The Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1976 does 3 main things: It introduces the principle that union elections shall be held by secret postal voting; that legal representation shall be given to the Minister by right in all proceedings in which the Minister is involved; and that the Minister shall have the right of reference and the right of appeal against all matters coming before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, even matters in which the Minister or the Government is not a party.

Mr Street:

– But he has to seek reference.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I realise that. The reason the Government has inserted that provision, if I may say so, is that it was well aware of the High Court decision in the case of Whybrow and Co. in 1910 when it was held that persons or organisations not parties to a particular dispute have no right of audience at all. The Government seeks to overcome that finding of the High Court by wording the Act in such a way that there is no right inherent in the Act but there is a right of application in the Act. The Government has tried to overcome the decision in the Whybrow case by giving the Commission power to grant leave to a person who is not a party in a dispute to be heard in proceedings relating to that dispute. I believe that the very first time the Commission grants the Minister leave to intervene the Australian Council of Trade Unions might very well lodge an action in the High Court to challenge the validity of the Commission so acting. So the Government is escaping a legal challenge on the grounds that the Parliament will be doing something invalid, and it is seeking to obtain the same invalid act by allowing the Commission to do that which the High Court will not allow the Parliament to do by legislation. It is no use wasting any further time on this because I can see that the Minister is going to interject again; only the High Court will determine it in the final analysis.

I agree that the Minister ought to be given the right of appeal in the Flight Crew Officers Industrial Tribunal, but that is an entirely different matter from having a right to intervene in proceedings in which the Minister is not a party, because the Australian Government is almost invariably a party to proceedings before the Flight Officers Tribunal. That is the Tribunal that deals with Qantas Airways Ltd and TransAustralia Airlines. So the Minister’s right to appeal the decisions of the Tribunal should be the same as in every other case that comes before the Commission in which the Government is a party. But the Minister’s right to appeal against consent awards and industrial agreements is something that our side of the Parliament will strongly oppose and will always oppose.

I invite the Minister to consider the consequences of the Government’s proposal. Remembering that the Conciliation and Arbitration Act is an Act designed to carry out that placitum of the Constitution that gives Parliament the power to make laws in respect of the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the borders of one State- that the prime objective of the Act is the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes- the Government is now writing into the Act a provision that is actually going to cause industrial disputation. What happens when there is a consent award or industrial agreement is this. The parties to the dispute meet and confer, sometimes at the instigation of the Commission. They then reach an agreement and the strike is settled or is prevented if it is a pending dispute. An agreement is sometimes made in the terms of the settlement arrangements. Sometimes, if the matter is covered by an award and it may be thought more appropriate to proceed by way of an award variation, the award is varied by consent as a means of settling the dispute. That dispute would not have been settled except for the agreement or the consent award. Yet, the Government thinks it will achieve something by giving the Minister the right to seek leave to intervene or to appeal decisions that were taken in order to prevent or settle a dispute.

It is obvious, surely, that if the Government does that the dispute that was originally settled by the agreement or the consent award will flare up again and it will force the employers to suffer another long drawn out strike or it will force unions to stay away from the Commission. There is no obligation upon unions to go to the Commission to get their industrial agreements certified. There is no obligation for unions to go to the Commission for a variation of the award by consent. They will simply demand, and get, overaward payments by way of unregistered agreements. Most of the unions have enough industrial muscle to enforce their agreements without the benefits of certification or ratification by the Commission. All that the Government will succeed in doing is to force the unions outside the ambit of the Arbitration Commission’s purview and weaken the status of the Commission. We do not want that. We ought to be thinking of ways to strengthen the position, standing, status and prestige of the Commission, not doing things that will have the effect of reducing its status and authority.

Last week we had handed down to us the decision of the Arbitration Commission in favour of plateau indexation. It would seem to me that the logical thing for the Arbitration Commission to do- it is something which the Government ought to be asking it to do- is to provide that the plateau indexation that has been adopted by the Commission be now applied quarterly and automatically in accordance with the full effects of the consumer price index including its reflection of indirect taxation. Whether there is an increase or a reduction in indirect taxation, it will be reflected in the consumer price index. I fear that the Government is contemplating a very big increase in indirect taxation in the next Budget, otherwise it would not be so hell bent on preparing the ground now for removing the effect of indirect taxation from the CPI. The Government ought to be supporting what we are now putting forward if it is proposing to reduce indirect taxes.

The Government will remember that on the occasion of Medibank being introduced as a non-contributing benefit, there was a very sharp reduction in the CPI for that particular quarter.

Dr Klugman:

– Three per cent.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Nearly 3 per cent. The 0.8 per cent left over was insufficient to justify, according to the Commission, an increase in wage indexation for that quarter. Let me add in passing that I think that was a wrong decision. It does not matter by what amount the CPI increases; the increase, whether large or small, should be reflected in the increased wage flowing from the application of wage indexation. Unless indexation is made automatic on a quarterly basis we will not get the full benefits of wage indexation. The full potential of wage indexation as a means of preventing and settling industrial disputes is going to be castrated, if I can use an odd term, by the effects of not having automatic adjustment. I believe that the portion of the total wage which is subjected to indexation- that is, the amount that represents the average award rate for adult males- ought not to be affected again as a result of price movements. There ought not to be double counting in respect of that portion of the total wage that has already benefited by quarterly adjustments as a result of wage indexation. The Australian Council of Trade Unions has never asked that the portion of the total wage that is affected by wage indexation should be increased as a consequence of any price movement. Indeed, it has made its position perfectly clear- that it would do everything within its power to prevent double counting in respect of that portion of the wage that is affected by wage indexation. But the portion of the total wage that is not affected by wage indexationthat is, the portion above average award rates, ought to be open to negotiation according to work value, changed circumstances or any other factors that are relevant in the settlement of an industrial dispute. I believe for that reason that the guidelines ought to be relaxed so that unions can negotiate settlements over and above the average award rates where there is a case for the correction of an anomaly based upon any such grounds, and the Minister ought to face up to the fact that this is something that has to be done.

I have never disputed the fact that the Government and the Minister should have the right to appear before national wage cases in the public interest on matters like the minimum wage for females, standard hours, annual leave, the amount of productivity increase that ought to be awarded in national wage cases and wage indexation, to mention the main items of interest because in all of these cases the Government can claim that as the biggest employer in Australia, employing more than 300 000 people, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations as the portfolio is now called, does have a direct interest in the same way as any other employer. He ought to be heard and the Arbitration Commission ought not lightly to pass away from submissions made by the government of the day. But at the same time the Commission ought to reject utterly and out of hand any attempt by the Minister of the day, speaking on behalf of the government, to ask the Commission to act as the arm of economic management. How on earth can an organisation or a body that relies upon a constitution that places the emphasis on its role of prevention and settlement of industrial disputes be expected to manage the economy when it has control over only one single factor that goes to the control of inflation and the other things that economists seek to control? How could we expect the Arbitration Commission, with no power to control profits, no power to control interest rates, no power over fiscal policy, no power over monetary policy, to be able to act as the manager of the economy? It cannot be done.

In every case in which I appeared in 1973, 1974 and 1975, 1 instructed counsel representing me to make the position abundantly clear, to the Commission, that the Government did not expect the Commission to act as the manager of the country’s economy. We, as a government, told the Commission that its job was to settle and to prevent industrial disputes and it was the job of the Government to manage the economy. I am well aware of the fact that whatever decision is taken by the Commission does have some effect on the economy. But no one has yet been able to point to a single instance where the Arbitration Commission has taken a decision that could be said to be the prime cause of any economic problems for the government of the day. It has never happened. The Commission acts with a great deal of responsibility.

I think one of the most sensible things that has ever been done by a government occurred when I was Minister for Labour and decided to appoint Professor Isaacs to the Arbitration Commission. It is true that as well as the settling of industrial disputes, the economic factor of the decisions of the Arbitration Commission has some relevance. It is no use expecting people who are learned only in the law to be able to understand all of the economic factors. It was for this reason that I appointed Professor Isaacs as a deputy president of the Commission. Before any other appointments are made I suggest to the Minister that he look around for somebody else like Professor Isaacs, who has a very good working knowledge of industrial relations as well as of economics. Better still, the Minister should try to get a person who is qualified as a labour economist. There are not many labour economists in Australia, but we ought to have a labour economist on the Commission because things are moving so rapidly now that if we stick to outmoded principles we shall never be able to get answers to the sensitive and very complex questions that have to be resolved in’ the industrial relations field.

The Government has not got the power to enforce that part of the amending Bill which seeks to require the Commission to have regard not only to the general economic consequences of its decisions, but also to the effect of its decisions on employment and inflation. How can the Government enforce this? It cannot get an order for mandamus against the Commission from the High Court to do so that section of the Act, because to carry it out the court would need to be able to exercise arbitral powers. The Boilermakers case has made it clear that any body exercising purely judicial powers has no authority to exercise arbitral powers as well. Yet the question of whether a decision is adversely affecting the economy or is likely to affect inflation or unemployment is essentially one for arbitral decision; it is not a judicial matter. People trained or even learned in the law are not able to make decisions on matters affecting unemployment and inflation. These are economic questions. All that the Commission has to do in order to comply with the section of the Act that is now proposed, is simply to begin each decision with the preamble: ‘We have had full regard to the economic consequences of the decision that we are about to announce. We have taken into account the effects of the decision on unemployment and inflation and accordingly we have decided to increase all wages by $500 a week and to reduce the standard hours to 20 hours a week’. If the Commission were to do that, there is nothing at all that anybody could do about it. To whom could the Government appeal? It could not appeal to the High Court, because the High Court is not competent and, by its own decision in the boilermakers case the High Court would not be permitted to adjudicate on whether the decision to increase wages by $500 a week and to reduce the standard hours to 20 hours a week was in fact, and in law, a matter that contravened the Act.

I believe that there is a lot to be said for the case put forward by my colleague the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), the Opposition spokesman on industrial relations. He said that we should not be asking the Arbitration Commission to stop employers from negotiating awards outside the guidelines; we should allow employers to give whatever they like providing they are not permitted to pass on the increases to the general public by way of price increases. Therefore the answer to this problem is not in placing these obligations upon the Commission but in strengthening the power of the Prices Justification Tribunal so that it can say to employers who flout the guidelines: ‘Look, you have flouted the guidelines. You carry the burden of the increase yourself.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr G.O’H. Giles)

AYES: 80

NOES: 30

Majority……. 50

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 and 2-byleave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 3.

Section 4 of the Principal Act is amended-

Mr STREET:
Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations · Corangamite · LP

– I move:

The proposed definition in the amendment defines what is meant by postal ballot in clauses 12 (a) and 13 of the Bill. Clause 12 (a) proposes that a new paragraph be inserted in section 133(1) to require an association applying for registration to provide by its rules that every election for an office of a kind referred to in paragraphs (a), (aa), (b) and (c) of the definition of office in section 4(1) shall be by postal ballot. The specified officers are those with policy or management functions. Clause 13 provides that elections for the specified offices in organisations, that is employer or employee associations registered under the Acts, shall be by secret postal ballot. In relation to associations applying for registration, the effect of the amendment, taken in conjunction with section 133 ( 1 ) (d) (i) is that after the amendment becomes operative the association will not be registered unless its rules provide for postal ballots which comply with the definition and which will ensure the secrecy of the ballot.

In relation to registered organisations, every election for an office specified in sub-section ( 1 ) of proposed section 133 AA must be by postal ballot which complies with the definition. If an organisation’s rules do not provide for postal ballot or provide for a postal ballot which does not comply with the definition, regulations may be made under proposed section 133 AA (2) which will prescribe conditions which must be complied with to ensure both the secrecy of the ballot and that the postal ballot accords with the definition.

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-The amendment moved by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) to clause 3 is quite important. It opens up a rather remarkable factor in this whole debate. It is an incredible irony that this Bill could have come before the House in the way that it did because without the amendment just moved by the Minister it contained a massive loophole. The Bill would have totally failed to bring about that which this Government has been telling the country since the last election campaign that it was going to introduce. All honourable members will recall that during the last election campaign the Government said time and time again that it proposed to legislate, upon regaining the Government benches, to provide that all union members would have a postal vote, or the ability to have a postal vote, in union elections. It said that union members would get a ballot paper sent to them. In fact that proposition was not covered by the Bill put before the House. It now has been covered by the amendment.

I make the point that in the original Bill clause 3 defined ‘direct voting system’ as an election of a kind referred to in section 133 (1) (a) of the Act. In summary section 133(1) (a) provides that the rules of the association or organisation shall provide for the election of the holder of each office within the association or organisation at an election at which all financial members are eligible to vote. That means that it is not a collegiate system. It has to be a vote of all members eligible to vote. Clause 13 of the Bill provides that there will be a new section 133 (AA). Subsection (1) of this proposed new section is in these terms:

Every election by a direct voting system . . . shall be by secret postal ballot.

The Bill says that for the election of officeholders the rules must provide that all financial members are eligible to vote and that the vote shall be by secret postal ballot. Nowhere does it say what a secret postal ballot will be. For instance, it leaves open the possibility that there could be a secret postal ballot in the way absentee voting is now required in the rules of all registered organisations. As the Bill reads without the amendment put up by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, a union could have rules which provide that members may simply write to the returning officer, requesting a vote. That would be a secret postal ballot but it would not mean that all the members eligible to vote would receive a ballot paper. When the Government put this Bill before the House it left out an item which was crucial to what it had been telling the country six or eight months ago it would do. This is a remarkable fact, given the tremendous fanfare of publicity that this particular item has been given. It was a key part of the policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). When he delivered his policy speech it was a key item of this Government’s proposals. When it put this Bill before the House the Government left out that key item. This has now been corrected by the Minister’s amendment.

Mr CHIPP:
Hotham

– I will speak briefly on this clause. I will be mildly critical of the Government, which I do not like to be publicly, but I think this matter is so important that the words have to be said. I do not know that there is any more complex or complicated piece of legislation on the statute book than the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. To understand the ramifications of it, or any amendments to it, one has to get among the trade union movement, trade union members, members of employer organisations to see the implications of every amendment to this Act. Although one might have the greatest legal mind in Australia, although one might be an experienced politician, although one might think he knows all about industrial relations, it is not until one gets to the trade unionists, to whom this Act is a Bible under which they operate from day to day, that one understands the implications of any amendments to it.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– They are the practitioners.

Mr CHIPP:

-I am indebted to the honourable member for Hindmarsh. They are practitioners. These are men who owe their positions in the trade union movement to their knowledge of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I find it incredible that an omission such as that which the amendment rectifies should have occurred in a Bill like this. As I understand it- I am sure I will part company with my friend the honourable member for Hindmarsh now- that trade union which the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) rightly points to as running rather peculiar elections, the Australian Metal Workers Union, would have been laughing to eternity at the Bill before this amendment was proposed. That union already had postal ballots and this Bill would not have affected it at all. It puzzles me how a Minister who is probably the busiest and the hardest-working Minister in the Cabinet could receive an amending Bill from his Department with this obvious omission. To err is human. I am not saying that the Department, which is extremely efficient, is infallible or should be infallible. All I am doing at this stage is making a plea to the Minister to organise a panel of trusted trade unionists- there are many- and trusted members of employer organisations with whom he can consult on a confidential basis on future amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, so that omissions like this will not be repeated. I believe that this is done in other areas of endeavour by the Government. I am not persuaded that it cannot be done in this field.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-In supporting the amendment I just say that it is indeed a pity that honourable members who would have liked to have spoken in the second reading debate on this BUI were not afforded the opportunity. Regrettably, therefore, instead of a short speech covering the whole of the BUI there will probably be a number of brief speeches covering individual clauses. That is a matter which I should take up in another place and I will do so. I query 2 matters of drafting. I draw attention to the fact that the words ‘prepaid post’ are used in relation to sending out the ballot paper, and in relation to sending back the ballot paper the words are ‘facilities are to be provided for the return of the completed ballot paper by post’. If those two sets of words mean the same, I ask the Minister to indicate why the difference occurs. Secondly, I ask for some general information in relation to the cost of the proposed secret postal ballots. I support, and have supported consistently, the Government’s policy in relation to court controlled ballots but I accept as a via media, as a reasonable compromise for a 2-year period, that we should defer the objective of court controlled ballots in all cases and that we should give this very workable compromise a trial period. I draw attention to this fact because it is impossible to discuss this amendment without having some consideration to clause 1 3 of the Bill. The power under clause 13(3) to exempt will undoubtedly apply to such unions as the Waterside Workers Federation. It would be totally ridiculous to expect that union to undergo a secret postal ballot when it is able, by the present process, without fear and intimidation to conduct elections at which it gets a polling rate in excess of 95 per cent.

It seems to me that the cost of the secret postal ballots will eventually become prohibitive on the trade unions and that, in essence, we will reach the situation where the unions themselves will ask for the Commonwealth to take over the cost by providing a court controlled ballot system in practically every case.

Mr Willis:

– It is already happening.

Mr HODGMAN:

-Yes. The honourable member for Gellibrand says it is already happening. I hope he Will accept as a fact of life that it is desirable, if possible, that unions be permitted to make a decision in respect to their form of balloting rather than be coerced. I compliment the Minister- I adopt what the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) said about the Minister’s work, and in fact I respectfully suggest that he is considerably over-worked- that instead of taking a stock whip to the unions he has said that we will have a trial period of 2 years. This is to the disappointment of some of the more extreme supporters of the Government Parties. I shudder to think what the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Brown) might say if he rises to his feet but I know he will say it well. I am not so far to the right of Genghis Khan that I regard this as a bad move. On the contrary, I think it is a good move because it shows a spirit of compromise. From this compromise and others I believe may well emerge a social compact, if I may use that phrase which is not viewed very favourably in this country, of co-operation at a tripartite level between government, employers and unions. If that element of compromise produces that result I believe we have done a good day’s work.

The cost of postage is one of the most contentious issues in the community at the moment. I believe that the cost of secret ballot by post in some of the larger unions would be probably $150,000 to $200,000 per election. I think the point should be made, and made with force, at this time, so that nobody can come along later and say: ‘You did not tell us this was likely to happen’. I believe that the cost of secret postal ballots will become prohibitive for unions and that eventually, rather than by coercion, by cooperation we will have reached a position in which the unions will have asked the Court to take control of their elections.

Another comment I make in respect of the amendment- I hope I am not straying too far from it- is this: On the face of it, the provisions of this amendment, read in conjunction with clause 13, have the legal effect, unless some other legislation is introduced, of abolishing the collegiate system of voting. I say quite frankly and openly that whilst this matter has caused me considerable trouble, I believe that unions which possess at present the collegiate system of voting should be given the right and the protection of this Government to continue their system of collegiate voting. I put as a natural extension of the federalist philosophy which I adopt the argument that, in my opinion at any rate, if the collegiate system is taken away the smaller States can say goodbye to any chance of having an effective role to play in the election of federal office bearers of their unions. I contend, with respect, that where the collegiate system has been utilised by many unions in this countrywhether honourable members opposite agree with it or not- it would be wrong for this Government to legislate in any way, shape or form, to take it away. I know the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) is far more experienced in trade union matters than 1 am. I know the dedication with which he pursued a course which would lead eventually to the abolition of the collegiate system of voting. I merely remind the Committee that the legislation introduced by the honourable member will become effective and the collegiate system of voting will go out unless the Government brings in, in the meantime, some form of legislation which will permit a continuation of the collegiate system. We should not be left under any misapprehensions that unless legislation is introduced in the Budget Session, with the passing of this Bill we will in essence be ensuring the demise of the collegiate system of voting.

Mr Chairman, I hope you will accept that these remarks are made in conjunction with the matter of secret postal ballots because they relate very keenly to that matter. I take heart from the fact that the Minister dealt with this matter in his second reading speech. I would have dealt with the matter if the second reading debate continued. The Minister said:

The Government accepts in principle a form of collegiate voting, but the system adopted must be consistent with its policy of fullest participation by members. As I have indicated, the issue is a very complex one, and the Government believes that further detailed consideration is necessary, so that it can properly examine the large numbers of representations which it has received.

I point out with respect that that is all very well, but if the Government genuinely wishes to preserve the right of the collegiate system of voting for many hundreds of thousands of trade unionists in this country we must introduce the legislation into this Parliament in the Budget Session. Unless we do so, the effect of the legislation introduced by the honourable member for Hindmarsh will be that as of 1 October this year the collegiate system will be illegal in this country. The honourable member believes that that is in the interests of the industrial structure of Australia. With the greatest of respect, I take a contrary view. I am sure he will not object to my saying that unless we bring in legislation- unless everybody in this chamber is quite clear that legislation must be introduced to keep alive the collegiate system of voting- it will die. I believe Australia would be poorer in that event.

I support the amendment. I congratulate the Minister on the way in which he is conducting his portfolio. I do not believe anybody in Australia would like to be in his shoes at present. I suggest that if we can debate in a calm and rational manner these issues upon which we are divided in conscience, but upon which I believe from a spirit of co-operation we could achieve the best result, the Minister will be remembered by those who serve in the industrial field with the same affection and admiration as some of his predecessors, including the late Harold Holt and the honourable member for Hindmarsh.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I begin by referring to something which the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) said in his concluding remarks. He said that nobody in Australia would like to be in the shoes of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street). Well, let me inform the honourable gentleman that there is nothing I would like more than to be in the Minister’s shoes. It took a lot of getting me out of them. I would like to get back into them again, and if I were there I would not be doing some of the things that are now proposed.

I was impressed by some of the remarks of the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp). He is correct when he says that the Conciliation and Arbitration Act is the most sensitive piece of legislation on the statute book. It is the most complex Act with which we in this Parliament ever have to deal. When one touches a small subsection or alters a word in that complex, sensitive Act, one never knows what the chain reaction might be, what the side effects in some other part of the Act might be, or what effect it will have upon industrial relations. The honourable member for Hotham did not put the following proposal to the Minister, but I will. There is enormous merit in supporting the setting up of a select committee of members from both sides of this Parliament, from both Houses of the Parliament, to prepare a Green Paper on questions such as the collegiate system. I know I am departing from the clause, but I must add this example. One other matter that ought to be dealt with in the Green Paper is the power of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to deregister. That power should reside in a full bench of at least 3 Presidential members of the Commission and not left, as is now the case, to the Australian Industrial Court. There are certain circumstances in which the Commission can deregister now, but all applications for deregistration of unions ought to be a matter for the Commission. But it is a power which should be exercised only by a full bench of 3 Presidential members of the Commission. It knows the facts of the case better than the Court knows them. That is one thing with which a Green Paper could deal. There is a whole range of matters relating to conciliation and arbitration which have never really been studied in depth or in a bipartisan way. We ought to do it, and do it quickly, and not always be calling in the fire brigade after the fire has broken out. We should take the action needed to see that no fire breaks out.

I know my friend from Hotham would not ever want to be unfair about this matter, but I thought he was a bit unfair when he blamed the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations for the sloppy drafting of the legislation. He did not describe it as such, but I interpreted his remarks as such. It is. not the Department’s job to draft the legislation. The drafting of legislation is a matter for the Parliamentary Counsel. When I sought to have some outside person draft a piece of legislation on one occasion, my experience was that the Parliamentary Counsel took very strong exception. He said: ‘We are the ones who know most about drafting things. We do not want some other style of drafting grafted on to the kind of statutes with which we deal in this Parliament. ‘ Even if it were the Department’s responsibility to draft this Bill, which it is not, I think one would have to take into account the way in which the Government has shilly-shallied over what it intends to put to the Parliament. I can assure the Minister- I would say this with my hand on the dispatch box, in fact- that this is not something which Mr McMahon, the legal adviser sitting in the ministerial advisers’ benches, told me when I spoke to him a moment ago. We were talking about the cold weather and how nasty the weather in Melbourne always is, rather than about this Bill. We have not discussed it.

The Government has shilly-shallied, put things in and taken things out in a way that is rather unbecoming even for a government. We cannot blame the Department, for the fact that the Government has acted in this way. But having done so, it is inevitable that someone will overlook an ordinary interpretation amendment such as this one.

The collegiate system of voting was talked about. It is ironic that the Government which now sits on the Treasury benches was elected to government because it told the Australian people, and in particular the 5 250 000 employees in the work force: ‘If you vote for us we will hand control of the unions back to the members. We will give you participatory democracy’. The very first speeches that we heard in the Parliament about the question of participatory democracy within the trade union movement from the Government were a condemnation of the Australian Labor Party’s federal policy of ‘participatory democracy’. The Labor Party’s platform goes on to outlaw the collegiate system on the basis that it conflicts with and violates the principle of participatory democracy. The Labor Party’s federal platform does not outlaw the collegiate system entirely. It says that unions that did not already have the collegiate system in any form as of 1973 would never be allowed to introduce it. That was fair enough. I do not think the Government and the Opposition are at loggerheads over that. I have never heard the Government say that those unions which do not have the collegiate system will, by the legislation it proposes, be permitted to have it.

Where we differ is that under the Labor Party’s platform and under the Labor Party’s legislation those unions which had the collegiate system as at that date were to be given 3 years in which to bring their rules into line with the legislation. The legislation did not require unions which had the collegiate system as at that date to abolish the collegiate system in respect of all positions. The legislation makes it clear that unions that had the collegiate system then had the right to continue the collegiate system ad infinitum except that those federal positions within the union that were full time jobs and the holder of which was a member of the management committee of the organisation, had to go to the rank and file for election. But the election of all the other federal positions which were elected by the collegiate system as at that time- the positions of Federal President, Federal Vice-President, Federal Trustees and Federal Returning Officerand which were not full time positions could continue to be filled by the collegiate system of election. That is still in the legislation and that will continue. The unions do not have to alter their rules in respect of the part-time positions. It is only the full time positions of the Executive kind within a union that are subject to the alteration that has to be made by November. There is no doubt that the only unions of which I know that are pressing for the abolition of right of the rank and file to have a direct voice in the election of their full time federal positions are the Federated Clerks Unions of Australia, the Shop Assistants -

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The Miscellaneous Workers Union.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-No. The Miscellaneous Workers Union has altered its rules. All the office holders, including the federal secretaryship, of the Miscellaneous Workers Union are subject to the will of the rank and file. It was a collegiate system but Mr Gietzelt altered his union’s rules to comply with the provisions of the Labor Party’s Act. So it is not true to say that that union is not controlled by its members. It is a funny thing that the extremes in the trade union movement- the extreme Right and the extreme Left- are the ones who are doing most about taking from the rank and file the right to elect their full time officers. I find it very hard to reconcile the conflicting views of anybody who is elected to Parliament, as honourable members opposite have been elected, on the promise of introducing or strengthening the principle of participatory democracy to give the rank and file the right to control their own union officials, and who then defends the collegiate system.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-I was most interested a moment ago to hear the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) compare the position in the trade unions with the election of members of Parliament. He will be familiar with the fact that there are 2 Houses of Parliament. The House of Representatives, our House, is elected from relatively small areas. Therefore in those areas the individual can be known. We consider ourselves in a way closer’ to the people than are members of the Senate, which is elected on the electorate of the whole State and which therefore can really only be a party House. We have the position where the rank and file, as it were, can express themselves only in what my honourable friends on the other side are in the habit of describing as the House of the people.

Here we have the position where the whole electorate is divided into segments and votes in its small segments. The system as we have it in the Senate, where the electorate votes as a whole State, is so big that nothing personal can be known and only the party affiliations can come through. In a sense my honourable friends on the other side of the chamber are quite right when they refer to us, rather than the Senate, as the House of the people. The Senate, of course, is elected by the same electors exactly but does not represent the rank and file in the same sense as we, the House of the people, represent the rank and file.

This can be true also not simply for a State but also for a very big union. We have come to the position now where many of the unions have become monstrously big. They are spread over the whole of Australia. They have tens or even hundreds of thousands of members. In that kind of electorate which is so disseminated one cannot really have a rank and file election. It is very nice to talk about the rank and file, grass roots democracy and things like that but we have the same kind of situation as we have in the election of the Senate, something which my honourable friends on the other side are so keen on condemning as not really being the House of the people at all. Yet they want to say that, whether unions want it or not, willy-nilly they should not, in their view, have the opportunity of dividing up their electorate as we divide up the electorates of Australia into separate electorates when we elect members of this, the House of the people. So I am very much attracted by the simile which my friend the honourable member for Hindmarsh introduced.

I think the position is this: Unless the Government allows at least the possibility of the collegiate system, it may be removing from the rank and file the real power to express themselves. What the Opposition is calling grass roots democracy is really a kind of phony, mass hysteria or mass organisation. My honourable friend will know that there has been in Australia a quite illegitimate link between the trade unions and the political party of the Australian Labor Party in this Parliament. That is something which I think is really offensive to every sense of political freedom. Why should a man’s job in a union be tied up at all with the support of one side or another in this Parliament? The whole thing is really rather offensive. Yet if the collegiate system is barred altogether what will happen in point of fact is that the massive machine- the steamroller- will roll out the grass roots all right. The roller does go over the grass roots and perhaps like the cloves under the harrow the grass roots know about it sometimes. I think we have to be a little bit flexible and reasonable about this. If a union wants to have its elections in another form-if that really be the desire of members of the union and if they really want to express themselves in being able to have their elections in smaller packets like we have the elections to this House of Representatives as opposed to Senate elections- surely we should give them the opportunity.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I want to say only a few words. First of all, I believe that the whole question of the collegiate system has been mainly overlooked. It cannot possibly be said that there is a democratic system of control of unions when there is a little circle of friends- a cosy little club- which meet together as a council, which for the. purposes of modern day industrial jargon we call a college, and who under the rules of a union are permitted to elect from among their own number someone to be the president, the secretary and the vicepresident. It could mean that only those members of a union who are members of the college have the right to nominate for the position of federal president, secretary, vice-president, etc.

This Bill has nothing to do with the collegiate system. I am pleased that the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), who led for the Opposition in this debate, nods in agreement with me. I am told there is to be a Bill introduced later on- I hope it never comes on- dealing with the collegiate system. I suggest now that I have explained the collegiate system that you, Mr Chairman, rule all further references to the matter completely out of order otherwise we will never finish the discussion on this Bill at all. That cuts out the honourable member for Denison from saying what he intended to say.

Mr Hodgman:

– You are wrong, you know.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-There is just one small matter that I want to mention -

Mr Chipp:

– It cuts me out too. I was going to support you.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I suggest that some of the speeches in the Committee have been a little irrelevant. I suggest at this moment the interjections and the replies are even more irrelevant. Perhaps it might be a good idea if we proceed in Committee with one speaker at a time.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-For the benefit of the new members might I explain that when they are debating in Committee it is absolutely essential to stick strictly to the subject matter of the clause under discussion. A Committee debate is not the same as a second reading debate. A member is entitled to speak twice in Committee if no one else rises.

I want to allude to a matter that is relevant. It relates to the amendment that has been circulated. The honourable member for Denison, who I understand is the best lawyer Tasmania has- whatever that might mean- has said that he is not sure whether the amendment guarantees that the return of the ballot paper is covered by pre-paid post. He drew attention to the fact that the amendment provides that the ballot paper is sent out as pre-paid post but according to his capacity to interpret the English language it is not clear that the return envelope is pre-paid. If the honourable member for Denison looks at the provisions he will see that this is covered. They provide for the return of the completed ballot paper by post by the voter ‘without expense to him’. I would like the Minister to confirm that as a ministerial directive to the administrators of the proposal just in case there are some who have the same loose and rather weird way of interpreting the statute as displayed by the honourable member for Denison and who may think that they are carrying out the requirements of the law by compelling the voter to return the ballot paper at his own expense. The Minister might make it clear that that is not the intention of the legislation and that in fact the ballot paper is returned at the expense of the Electoral Office.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I thank the honourable member for Hindmarsh for his comments and for his assistance to the newer members who are in the chamber at the moment.. I would also remind the Committee that it is some of the older members, not perhaps by years but by experience in this place, such as the honourable member for Hindmarsh, who transgress the Standing Orders on many occasions. I would suggest that members of the Committee listen to the words of advice given by the honourable member for Hindmarsh but perhaps not the speeches that he makes in Committee.

Mr CHIPP:
Hotham

-After those few words from you, Mr Lucock, I rise with some diffidence because when the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) and I first spoke on this I thought we were impeccable in keeping within the Standing Orders. It was only those good friends of mine- both are good friendswho followed me who transgressed. The fact that you have shown tolerance in respect of this, Mr Chairman, is wise because the Bill which we are debating today is unreal insofar as parts of it will come into operation following royal assent but they are only relatively smaller parts of the Bill. The gutsy parts of the Bill, if I may use that expression, are not going to come into operation until after proclamation which we understand might be 2 years away. That is why this is an unreal Bill. The important thing about this Bill is not what is in it, but what is not in it. That is why I think you have displayed wisdom, Mr Chairman, in allowing the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) to talk about the collegiate system, which I did not do.

I ask for your indulgence for about 2 minutes, Mr Chairman, to allow me to make my comments about this system, and I will respect your courtesy. I think it is a great pity that we are not appointing a joint select committee of the Houses to inquire into the implications of the collegiate system. As Chairman of the Government Members Industrial Relations Committee and in conjunction with the members of the Committee I have heard evidence over the last 8 weeks or more on the pros and cons of this question. We have saturated ourselves with information about the good things a collegiate system can do and the evil things it can do. I rate myself as having only a modicum of intelligence but I confess to you, Mr Chairman, that I am utterly confusedmore confused than when I began to look into this matter- and I think I can speak for the other members of my Committee. What makes me worried about this is the pressure coming from extremists to abolish the legislation that the honourable member for Hindmarsh brought in during his term of office- pressure from both ends. Extremists always bother me, and that is why I am very suspicious about why pressure and lobbying is going on.

If I had to make a decision at this moment I would say that I could be persuaded that a collegiate system up to State branch level- a onetier collegiate system- would be acceptable, but I would leave myself open to be persuaded that even that would be wrong. I am totally persuaded that the several tiered collegiate system, which some unions of the extreme right and also of the extreme left are operating and manipulating for the purposes of particular individuals, is very bad and’ it has to go. I do not know whether the proper course of action is to leave untouched the amending legislation introduced by the honourable member for Hindmarsh when -he was Minister and which will become law, I think, about mid-November. If that proposal is not going to be allowed to operate I think the legislation has to be amended. I am sorry that the Government has not acceded to the request that a joint select committee of both Houses should be appointed forthwith to report to this House by the end of August, to make sure it does its work, on all the implications of, I think, section 133 that the honourable member for Hindmarsh introduced. If such a committee were set up I would be better informed; the House would be better informed. I conclude as I began my first speech on this clause: The Conciliation and Arbitration Act is the most complicated, complex and sensitive on the statute book. God knows what we will do if we simply abolish the amendment that the former Minister brought in. I express my disappointment that the Government has not acceded to the request for the establishment of a joint select committee.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

– I wish to raise 2 matters before this clause is disposed of. Firstly, I made a mistake when I said that the collegiate system would expire on 1 October. That is not correct. The date is mid-November, as I understand it. Secondly, while I am flattered by the glowing tributes paid to me by the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) I never at any stage suggested that any unionist would have to pay the cost of sending back his ballot paper. I invited the Minister to explain why the word ‘prepaid’ is used in relation to sending the ballot paper out but, instead of using exactly the same word in respect of sending it back, the draftsman has chosen to use different words, namely, that ‘facilities are to be provided for the return of the completed ballot paper by post by the voter without expense to im’. I am sure the honourable member did not want to convey that I was suggesting that the unionists of Australia, under this proposed amendment, would have to pay to send their ballot papers back. I have never suggested that. I just asked why, if one word or set of words was used in relation to one process, a different set of words was used in relation to another.

I take the view, with respect to the honourable member for Hindmarsh, that it is not irrelevant in this debate on this clause, and in particular on this amendment, to express a view in relation to the continuation or otherwise of the collegiate system. I pointed out- the honourable member for Hindmarsh has not contradicted me- that if this Bill goes through and no further legislation on this subject is introduced into this Parliament, as of the middle of November this year the collegiate system of voting for the election of full time union office bearers in Australia will expire. That is the very reason why this may be the only opportunity for those of us who are concerned about the continuation of the collegiate system to speak on the matter. I certainly hope that it is not. I shall certainly have something to say about it if it turns out at a later date that this was our last chance because the Minister has clearly indicated that discussions are continuing and that representations from all concerned parties are being received. I think it is appropriate to quote again verbatim what the Minister said because these words, I think, are vital. He said:

The Government accepts in principle a form of collegiate voting, but the system adopted must be consistent with its policy of fullest participation by members.

The honourable member for Hindmarsh had the, with respect, audacity to say that it was Australian Labor Party policy to impose certain conditions in respect to the collegiate system of voting which the Labor Party in fact quite willingly lives with itself. The honourable member for Hindmarsh was elected a Minister of the Crown by the collegiate system of voting. Regrettably he was removed from that position not by an exercise of the collegiate system of voting. In my opinion, the collegiate system of voting is not negatory of participatory democracy. The two largest political parties in the world at this very moment are preparing for a collegiate system of voting at the Democratic Convention and at the Republican Convention. Even after the people of America cast their votes, the formal election of the President of the United States, the highest elected position in the world, will be decided by a college.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Order! I remind the honourable member for Dension that I have said that this clause covers the voting system and certain matters related to it. I think that a passing reference to the collegiate system has been justified. I think perhaps that not only the honourable member for Denison but also other honourable members have gone rather wider than that. I think if we take a trip round the world in discussing many other systems of voting we will interrupt the Prime Minister and his statement at 8 o’clock. I suggest that the Committee might come back to the point and the clause that are under discussion at this moment.

Mr HODGMAN:

-I did not intend to go round the world. I did not intend to refer to the election of the Pope or anything else where colleges are involved. I shall conclude on these remarks: If for any reason- I say this conscious of the implications of the words I am about to utter- a Bill does not come into this Parliament in the Budget session to retain the right of the use of the collegiate system of election of full time office bearers of those unions which desire to continue to use this system to elect their full time office bearers, I believe the Government would be breaking faith with the vast majority of Australians who put it into power on 1 3 December.

Mr STREET:
Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations · Corangamite · LP

– A number of interesting comments have been made by various honourable members in debating this clause, some rather closer to the clause than others, perhaps.

Mr Kelly:

– Even.

Mr STREET:

– Even closer to the clause, as my friend suggests. The honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) made a suggestion that it might be appropriate to have a panel of unionists and employers experienced in industrial relations to look at draft legislation. I see a couple of practical difficulties in this suggestion which has a lot of attraction in it, of course, as a means of trying to get the bugs out of legislation before it reaches the Parliament. One difficulty is deciding on the method of selection of whom should be asked to give advice on such things. The second, of course, is the propriety in certain circumstances of people outside the Parliament having access to draft legislation. Those are 2 practical problems that I see.

The honourable member also made a suggestion, as did the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron), that a select committee be established to look into various aspects of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The Government will not act on that suggestion at present, but as in all things our minds remain open in that area. The honourable member for

Hotham also referred to the fact that the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union has provision for a postal ballot. I know that he is well aware of what sort of postal ballot it is but it might be appropriate to explain that the postal ballot to which the honourable member was referring is in fact an absent vote for which a member can make application to vote postal, which is very different from the proposition we are putting forward in this legislation because, firstly, the member bears the cost himself, and secondly, he has to apply for the ballot paper.

In his last contribution to this debate the honourable member also made the remark that the proclamation of this legislation could be 2 years away. I can assure the honourable member that that is not intended. We have said that we do not propose to proclaim the legislation in case valid points relating to it are brought up by the employers or union members at forthcoming talks we will be starting next week upon various aspects of the economy, wages policy and so on. They having been the legislation, we will remain willing to take on board suggestions at that time. There is certainly no intention not to proclaim the legislation ad infinitum.

The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) brought up the question of the different wording in relation to prepaid post for sending out ballot papers and the completed ballot paper being sent back by post by the voter without expense to him. The reason for the difference is to give somewhat wider discretion to union officers in handling the return of ballot papers. In fact they will be able to stick stamps on envelopes and send them out with the ballot papers, but if they believe it suits their purpose better they will be able to make arrangements with the postal authorities to have a prepaid form of reply. That option is open to them. Its purpose was purely to give them a choice.

The honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) referred to the fact that ballots were already being conducted by the Commonwealth Electoral Office under section 170 of the Act. That, of course, is true, but last year only 29 unions out of a total of some 150 registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act availed themselves of that opportunity to have their elections conducted at no cost to them. We hope that that number and percentage improves as time goes by. The honourable member for Hindmarsh raised a number of interesting points, including the technicalities of machinery for the deregistering of organisations. I will be interested to have a look in some detail at what he said in that respect.

All speakers, I think, devoted some time in the debate on this clause to the question of the collegiate system of voting. I would ask your indulgence, Mr Chairman, because this particular issue was dealt with at some length and in some detail by the honourable member who spoke, to be permitted to reply to them now. As several speakers mentioned- I think the honourable member for Denison did so particularly- I said in my second reading speech to this Bill:

The Government accepts in principle a form of collegiate voting, but the system adopted must be consistent with its policy of fullest participation by members.

It is clear that the honourable member for Denison has some misgivings about what is proposed. Therefore I would like to make it quite clear to him that I indicated then, and I reiterate now, that the issue is a very complex one in respect of which we believe further detailed consideration is necessary. That consideration is proceeding as a matter of urgency. As the honourable member for Denison pointed out, as the Act now stands organisations which provide for collegiate voting are required to move to direct elections for full time officers by 13 November this year. I wish in inform honourable members that organisations need not move to give effect to that requirement by that date unless, of course, they wish to do so. It is the Government’s intention to have enacted before that date legislation to give effect to the outcome of its current examination of this issue which I mentioned a moment ago. If the Government is not in a position to have amending legislation introduced before that date- that is, before 1 3 November-it will extend the time for requirement for such period as may be necessary to have the amendment passed. Of course, before any legislation is introduced it will be necessary for the Government, in accordance with the undertakings it has given already, to discuss its proposals with the peak employer and employee councils.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 4 and 5- by leave- taken together.

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-These 2 clauses are quite important provisions in the Bill. Clause 4 amends the Act so that the Minister has the right to seek a reference of a matter to a full bench. At present the Minister- the Commonwealth Government- has the right to appear in reference proceedings before a full Bench, but they do not have the right to seek the reference in the first place. Similarly, clause 5 amends the appeal procedures so that the Minister has the right to seek an appeal on an award decision by a single commissioner or by decision of a commissioner to certify an agreement or to make a consent award. As the legislation stands at present the Minister has the right to intervene in appeal proceedings before a full Bench but not to seek the appeal in the first place.

These are quite important matters and they are opposed by the Opposition. In our view, they indicate an intention by the Government to become much more prominent and interventionist in the dispute settling procedures, an intention by the Government to force parties to toe the line more than it feels otherwise might occur, and also in a sense to force the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission into tighter procedures than it feels may otherwise operate. We oppose these procedures quite strongly. Firstly, I make the point that in our view they conflict with the objective of section 2 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which sets out the chief objectives of the Act. Section 2 reads:

The chief objectives of this Act are-

to promote goodwill in industry.

Frankly, we do not see that objective being enhanced by a provision which allows the Commonwealth Government to prevent being certified an agreement entered into by the parties by seeking a review by a full Bench of the decision by a commissioner to certify the agreement. It certainly does not help the second objective of the Act either, which is as follows:

  1. to encourage . . . conciliation with a view to amicable agreement, thereby preventing and settling industrial disputes;

That is certainly not encouraging amicable agreement when the Government is interfering in agreements that the parties may reach. That is what is proposed here. It is a most important provision. When the parties do come together and they reach agreement as to the conditions of an award the Commonwealth Government can say: No, we do not like this agreement. We do not think you people should be making such an agreement. We want it referred to a full Bench and we want it discussed there whether the certification should take place or whether the consent award should be allowed’. It is a most important provision and, in our view, it is conflicting with those basic objectives of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

Secondly, we see it as having an effect on the position of commissioners in the dispute settling procedures. Their standing will be diminished substantially by these provisions. A commissioner will always feel that the Commonwealth Government, rather than either of the parties, might attempt to upset any decision he might make. The parties might be quite happy with the decision that he makes, but the Commonwealth Government can try to have that decision upset. That will certainly mean that he will feel that his position is being eroded. He would feel that even more so through the reference procedures, because in that case he would not even get a chance to deal with a matter in the first place. Before he could deal with the matter the Commonwealth Government can say: ‘No, you should not be dealing with this matter. It is regarded as a matter of some importance and it should be referred to a full Bench’. Admittedly it is up to the President of the Commission to decide whether or not the matter does go before a full Bench. But that pressure will always be there from the Commonwealth Government if the provision is there, and in a sense that pressure is on the President of the Commission too. If the Government is seeking reference or review, there is certainly some pressure on him to grant it if the Government thinks it is such an important matter.

Thirdly, I think we must also view these provisions in the context of the Government’s wages policy. The Government, as everyone knows- it is not hiding its light under a bushel in this regard -is quite deliberately and openly seeking a policy of reducing real wages. It said so at great length before the Arbitration Commission and it said so in this Parliament. These procedures are designed to assist that process of reducing the real level of wages. It is doing that through the procedures of the indexation hearings, the national wage case. Through the latest decision there has now been a reduction in real wages of those on wage levels over $ 125 a week. Attempts by the parties to reach agreement with employers to pay the difference, which I am certain will occur to some degree, would be offset by provisions such as this. The Government is quite clearly seeking to tighten up to ensure that the indexation guidelines can be more tightly adhered to.

In a sense we find that not objectionable- at least in regard to the agreement procedures- if the indexation guidelines are fairly equitable. But when the plateau is set so low- the Government would have it much lower; it would have the plateau at the level of the minimum wage- it becomes a different situation entirely. I think also it raises the whole matter of whether, in trying to prevent a wage explosion and in trying to keep some check on the level of increases in wages, it is better done through the arbitration procedures or through price control procedures. That is a matter to which I alluded in my speech in the second reading debate. So too did the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron).

It is quite clear in our minds that it is much much better to adopt the procedures of using price control rather than intervening in all the various industrial disputes if you want amicable industrial relations. If you set a context through the price control procedures in which you say: ‘Well, wage increases of a certain kind within the guidelines are all right and can be taken into account in price control procedures and can be passed on, all other things being equal, but increases in wages or conditions outside those guidelines would not be acceptable for passing on of a price increase’, that seems to us to be a reasonable format in which to establish price control procedures and put some lid on the possibility of a wage explosion. But the Government is not just content to have that happen, and that is happening to a certain extent now because the Prices Justification Tribunal does have a procedure at the moment where it is sticking to the guidelines and saying that wage increases outside the guidelines should not be passed on. As I understand it it is not passing them on.

But now the Government is going to come in and say on top of that happening, that if the parties wish to reach agreement to increase wages beyond that which is corning through indexation, that increase should not apply. Why not? We cannot see why that should not happen. If the parties want it, what damage is done? If the wage increases are not passed on as price increases, if the employer is prepared to pay the increases, what is the damage to the economy? We cannot see that there is any damage to the economy in this respect. But there is no doubt that there is damage to industrial relations if both parties want to do something and the Government says: ‘No, you cannot do it’. If the wage increases will not be damaging to the price level of the rest of the community through higher prices, why should those increases not be granted? As I have said, the Government’s stand on this matter certainly has a damaging effect on industrial relations and we strongly oppose this provision for that reason.

Mr STREET:
Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations · Corangamite · LP

– The honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) in debating this clause mentioned at one state that he thought the indexation plateau which had been set by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission last week was so low that it introduced some inequities into the wage system. I remind the honourable member that the Commission’s action in setting the plateau at average award rates in fact followed the Australian Council of Trade Unions submission of 1974. It is a lot of humbug for the ACTU to come out now and say that the Government’s proposal is inequitable when it is what it put foward 2 years ago. The plateau is also in accord with what the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) has been proposing for some time. As I understand it, originally the honourable member proposed as a plateau the minimum wage and then moved to average weekly earnings.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– But not such strict guidelines.

Mr STREET:

– I remind the honourable member that in the latest decision handed down there has been greater flexibility given in dealing with anomalies that exist in very difficult cases such as the wool dispute which involved storemen and packers and disputes of that nature.

What I would like to explain is that whilst the Bill gives the Minister the right to initiate appeals in terms of review proceedings under proposed new section 36A and the right to seek a reference of an industrial dispute, he will be in the same position as any other party as regards substantiating his case for review or reference. There is no difference in this respect between the proposals of the Labor Government and the proposals in the Bill. I am talking about the reported proposals of the previous Labor Government last year which I understand were not actually put through because, despite their economic good sense, the Labor Caucus threw them out. The proposals as they were published at that time were first of all to give the Minister the right of appeal; secondly to give the Minister the right to seek a reference- in fact the Labor Government went much further, I understand, and proposed to give the Minister the right to intervene in any proceedings- thirdly, to give the President the right to refer any matter to a full bench on his own motion, require single members of the Commission in certifying an agreement or in making an award by consent or arbitration to observe decisions and principles laid down by a full bench, and make the failure by a member of the Commission to comply with a decision or principle laid down by a full bench the ground of appeal, including by the Minister.

Mr Kelly:

-Who wants that?

Mr STREET:

-That is what the Labor Party was proposing last year. That is exactly what is said.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– What did you say we proposed?

Mr STREET:

– I do not think I can go through it again. What I was setting forward for the benefit of the honourable member for Hindmarsh was that the proposals as published by the Labor Government last year in relation to powers of reference and appeal by Ministers went a great deal further in fact than the legislation which we have just introduced.

Mr Kelly:

-Did the Labor Caucus knock it out?

Mr STREET:

-Yes, I understand that it knocked it out, as is not unusual in those circumstances. The purpose of these amendments is to enable the Minister in the public interest to assist the Commission to ensure that decisions are in accordance with full bench principles. It is particularly important that principles governing wage indexation are preserved for the benefit of employees and employers generally.

The fact is that this Government is going to be vigilant in the public interest. It is not going to abdicate its responsibility as did the previous Government. Just because a settlement has been reached by the parties, it does not automatically mean that that settlement is in the public interest. Nobody but the Government can act to protect the public interest in these circumstances. We will act when we consider it is our duty to do so.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

– I would like to refer to a couple of points made by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street). The proposals now being put forward by the Government as part of its amendments were never discussed at Labor Party Caucus level. The matter to which the Minister referred was just a suggestion put forward in the Labor Party. Prior to the last election a Labor Party committee suggested that the then Government would entertain the idea of adding the annual rental value of a home to the taxable income of a home owner. This was not Labor Party policy, nor is the matter referred to by the Minister in this case. It is not Labor Party policy because what is envisaged in the amendments is impossible. The Government will not improve industrial relations by trying to act as Big Brother. The conservative political forces in Australia have come a long way in that they now recognise the existence of trade unions. But now the Government is trying to endeavour to see that it participates in all the negotiations that might go on between parties.

It has been said time and time again inside and outside the House by those people who represent the various forces in the industrial movement, both employee and employer, that they will be able to settle differences far better without the intervention of government. What the Government is doing by the amendments, of course, is telling the parties that they are wasting their time if they happen to reach a conclusion in their negotiations which contravenes the thinking of the government. Having in mind the performance of this Government since 13 December, we do not know week by week what the Government is thinking. If one was to talk about the guidelines of indexation, for instance, we have seen the Government shuffle around on so many occasions in this field. How on earth could any employee organisation or employer organisation know what the Government’s policy is to be in 3 months time when the next case happens to be on?

What the Government is asking in my opinion is impossible and has been exposed time and time again. It has never been Labor Party policy. The matter raised by the Minister was a suggestion made to the industrial committee of the Labor Party. This suggestion was rejected unanimously and it never reached Caucus level. It is something that we find quite foreign to our thinking. We happen to be a lot closer to the area of industrial relations than honourable members on the other side of the House. From our experiences in industrial relations we are telling the Government that it will find its intervention not wanted by the parties of either side which play a role in industrial relations. The Government is going to try to intervene in the conclusions which have been reached between the parties on the way in which their industries ought to be run. We say to the Government: ‘In 12 months’ time, after you have been intervening in hundreds and hundreds of cases, you will be admitting to Australia that it just does not work’.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I support my friend, the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) in what he said. A point that he might very well have added is that not only is the Government proposing to permit intervention by the Minister in any case that might be before the Commission, but it is going to allow him, as of right, to be represented by counsel or by solicitors.

Mr Hodgman:

– Well, you were.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-We were, in the national wage case. It has always been traditional that in national wage cases parties are permitted to be represented by counsel. State governments are represented by counsel and the Federal Government has always been represented by counsel, although I am bound to say that I believe that the Commonwealth might do a lot better if it were to have one or two of its very senior officers who are skilled in the art of advocacy and who are also knowledgeable in industrial matters to be the ones always to represent the Commonwealth in proceedings rather than having $600 or $700 a day Queen’s Counsels appearing for it. But that is another question. It is not just that the Minister is to be given the right to intervene in cases that do not concern the Government as a party to the disputes, but that he is to be given the right to intervene with counsel and solicitors.

I have had a lot of experience in industrial relations. Before I came into this Parliament I was a court advocate for some considerable time, and a very successful one if I may be permitted to say so without appearing self-effacing over it. I practised in every industrial jurisdiction in South Australia- the Commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator, the Wages Boards, the State Industrial Court and the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. My experience has always been that if you want to gum up proceedings in conciliation and arbitration, if you want to make an unholy mess of a dispute that is already messy enough, then employ some barrister or solicitor to come into the proceedings. Give him $500 or $600 a day and say to him: ‘Right, there you are. Go for the lick of your life. Drag it out as long as you like, because you are going to get paid a handsome fee for as long as you do’. I remember the famous meatworkers’ case in which one of the parties was represented by a barrister who decided that before he could possibly understand what the industry was all about he would have to spend nearly a year travelling all over Australia looking at the various slaughter houses. Then he got the brainwave that it would not be a bad idea to go into the butcher shops as well. When the brief looked like running out he decided that he would do the supermarkets also. So the thing was strung out for a year.

Mr Baillieu:

-Lawyers will break you.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Lawyers solicitors and barristers.

Mr Baillieu:

– There are too many in the Parliament too.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I agree with the honourable member; there are too many in Par.liament too. Solicitors and barristers ought to be banned from proceedings except by special leave. When there is some matter of special significance that may have some undertones of legal argument in it, aU right. But in ordinary proceedings- the kind of proceedings we are now talking about- to allow the Minister to intervene is bad enough, but to allow him to intervene by use of a solicitor or a barrister only compounds the felony.

Mr STREET:
Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations · Corangamite · LP

– I feel I have to reply to my colleague the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron). I just remind him that the Minister has always had the right to intervene in the public interest in matters before a full bench under section 3 1, that is, the section relating to standard hours of work and wage claims based on national economic grounds, long service leave and things of that nature and also under section 34 dealing with references and section 35 dealing with appeals. The Minister has always been represented in these sorts of proceedings by counsel, except on very odd occasions when he has been represented by an officer of the Aus.tralian Government service. This has also been the position where he has appeared by leave in proceedings before individual members of the Commission. The amendments concerning representation do no more than recognise the existing position and extend it to cases where the Minister is entitled to ask for a reference or a view. I just make this final further point: It is envisaged that the Minister will selectively exercise his right to initiate a reference or a view in the public interest.

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

– I should like to bring out one point in relation to clauses -4 and 5 which I did not mention before. It relates to the standing of the commissioners. I think that quite clearly what the Government is trying to do by clauses 4 and 5 is to make sure that the commissioners abide by the guidelines coming down from indexation cases. I think that really there is only one substantial case to which we can point where a commissioner made an award which was blatantly outside the guidelines. It was the one case in the year, and that was Commissioner Clarkson ‘s ruling on the General Motors-Holden Pry Ltd case. I think it pays to look at what happened in relation to that case. Later on when a full bench decided that that decision of Commissioner Clarkson was outside the guidelines it said so publicly. I think we can say that it publicly reprimanded Commissioner Clarkson for making that decision. I think that there is a lesson to be learned there and that is that the Commission is not made up of fools; it is made up of intelligent people who are capable of working out what the guidelines are and of conducting their own self-regulatory procedures.

The history of the period of indexation over the last year shows substantially that the commissioners have conducted self-regulatory procedures and that they have abided by the guidelines in almost every case except the one I have mentioned. I should be interested if the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) could bring up any others which would justify the kind of legislation which is now before us in the form of clauses 4 and 5. The whole history of that period is one of compliance by the commissioners with the guidelines laid down by the Full Bench and does not require the kind of legislation which is now being put up by the Government. On the matter of the proposals which were supposedly to be put forward by. the Labor Government last year, the point has been made by my colleagues on this side of the chamber that they were never proposed by the Labor Government. They were merely matters which were discussed within the Labor Party whilst in government. Never at any stage were they put forward nor was there ever ‘ any proposal that they be put forward by the Cabinet or whatever.

Finally I make the point that if this legislation does go through the effect of it in relation to agreements particularly will be that the parties will .be forced outside the Commission. The parties will tend to go outside the Commission. If they are not allowed to get agreements certified within the Commission they will probably just make the agreements anyway. Something which I think is certain to happen is that there will be pressure from trade unions, particularly in the context of an indexation system which is reducing real wages, to have those real wages restored. I am sure that many employers will feel that they would prefer to pay rather than face the industrial disputation which would occur with continual reductions in real wages if that happens in the future under the indexation system. In that context people will move outside the Commission. By preventing them from getting their agreements certified within, they will go outside the system and all control will be lost. For those reasons we strongly oppose clauses 4 and S.

Question put:

That the clauses be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 81

NOES: 30

Majority……. 51

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clauses agreed to. Clause 6.

Section 39 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (2 ) and substituting the following sub-section: ‘(2) In proceedings before the Commission under section 31, 34, 35 or 36a, the Commission shall take into consideration the public interest and for that purpose shall have regard to the state of the national economy and the likely effects on that economy of any award that might be made in the proceedings or to which the proceedings relate, with special reference to likely effects on the level of employment and on inflation.’.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Mr Chairman -

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

-Order! The Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Staley) and the Minister for the Northern Territory (Mr Adermann) are standing adjacent to the honourable member for Lilley. Whilst they might be helping him morally I do not think their presence there is of any help so far as his speech and the broadcast are concerned. I suggest that the Committee come to order and that we continue the debate. If Ministers want to have conversations I suggest that they go to a committee room or to some other room outside the chamber. In case some honourable members may not have heard, the question is: ‘That clause 6 be agreed to ‘.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr Chairman, we are very satisfied with the way in which you are upholding the dignity of this chamber. We are always delighted to know that its dignity is upheld in relation to the Executive. I refer to why clause 6 has been included in this Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill. I will quote from the words of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) because they explain the intention of what is proposed. The Minister said that the Government’s amendment proposes to make the nexus between inflation and employment a principal point of consideration in the matters on which the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission will adjudicate in so far as they affect the economy. I suggest that the amendment proposed by the Government does make for considerable problems. At page 4 of his second reading speech the Minister said:

It does, however, recognise- as recent experience has highlighted-the nature of the nexus between the rate of increase in labour costs, especially wages, unemployment and inflation. I do not need to stress the importance of this in the overall interests of the Australian community.

On that basis these words are added to the section which was added to the Act in 1972: . . . any awards . . . might be made with special reference to likely effects on the level of employment and on inflation.

That is the sense of what the Minister was saying. In other words, he was saying simply that in these days of inflation it has now become a truism that one man’s wages is another man’s job. Therefore, the Government is attempting to import these 2 principles into the determinations of the Commission in respect of monetary matters. I believe that these principles are insufficient for a number of reasons. Immediately one decides that a determination or an award is to be altered because of the effect it might have on unemployment and the effect of that unemployment on the economy, one forgets that there is a 2-way stream of events. There is the effect of an award on the economy but there is also the effect of an economy on inflation itself. There can be occasions- in fact there are many occasionswhen, in a severely deflationary situation, or in a situation of a significant credit squeeze, the major effect on employment is a general economic one and not the giving or the determination of an award. There is a 2-way effect. As the clause stands now, all those matters are considered insofar as they affect the economy but the economy also affects them. I think that section 39 is fairly inadequate and that clause 6 is inadequate as it stands at present, and it is for that reason that I suggest to the Minister that the word ‘inflation’ be omitted and the following words substituted in its place: ‘prices having regard to the state of the national economy at that time’. That proposition is designed to take account of the aggregate effect of the economy on employment so that it is separated from any determination of an award which itself can affect employment. I can think of many situations since 1945 in which the principal effect on employment and unemployment in the economy has been severely deflationary. The honourable member for Ballaarat (Mr Short) who is nodding his head would immediately recognise this. As the clause stands at the moment, those aggregate economic effects would be ignored in any determination.

I am also sensitive about this for another reason. This clause brings in a sense of history. It is very much like the old iron law of wages, the old wage fund idea that there was so much money in an economy to pay for wages and, of course, the lower the wages were, the higher the employment would be; the higher the wages were, the higher the unemployment would be. This clause gets very close to that situation. I believe that when the Minister looks at this clause he should pay particular deference to what I am saying. I can think of another situation in which the major effect on employment would not be the determination of an award but would, in fact, be the reallocation of resources in an economy. There are industries, as there have been in the past, which because of competition and other factors are declining in their capacity to offer employment or the conditions for employment. It would be wrong under those circumstances to suspend a determination of an award for the reason that it might cause unemployment when the unemployment was being caused by a totality of other effects which concern the economy as a whole. For those reasons the clause as it stands now is, I believe, very close to the old 19th century wage fund idea which did not even allow -

Mr Young:

– To which countries does the theory that the lower the wages the higher the unemployment apply now?

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The tragedy is that these matters have to be considered because of the dreadful mess your Party made of the economy. Normally honourable members opposite forget that wage indexation is a short term measure brought about by the economic mess for which the honourable member for Port Adelaide and his colleagues were responsible. They forget that they provided the context and the sub-strata for this kind of consideration. We are trying to alter, with justice, the situation they developed and imposed upon the people. They forget these things all the time. The same applies to the Budget deficit. We can talk about it as much as we like, but the tragedy is that such a large deficit was necessary under the government supported by honourable members opposite. It was a direct reflection of their inadequacy to bring about their ideals in government.

Let me summarise my suggestion to the Minister. I hope that he will agree that it be considered, and considered carefully. In 1972, when the present section 39 was added to the Act, I was rather nervous about imposing the obligation it stated. I felt that, stated in general terms, it could be taken into account. My concern relates to the addition of the precise words such as those in the last part of the clause. It states that in the settlement of disputes the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission shall consider- these are the precise words- ‘the likely effects on that economy of any award that might be made in the proceedings or to which the proceedings relate, with special reference to likely effect on the level of employment and on inflation’. My proposal is to take out the word ‘inflation’ because it is a general term, not a fundamental word, and substitute the words ‘prices having regard to the state of the national cconomy at that time’. I believe the reasoning is clear. I believe that what I suggest is also correct total economics and it takes account of the fact that in the determination of any award there is a local effect in relation to the dispute itself, but there is also an aggregate effect related to the economic growth of the community, related to deflationary effects that may occur in the economy and related to a possible credit squeeze in the economy. In looking at the determination of an award and its effect on inflation, those other matters ought to be considered also. Neither the Act as it is, nor clause 6, take account of those factors. I would hope that the Minister, in considering a review of section 39 of the Act, takes into account what I have said. I believe it makes sense. I also believe that the words of the Act and the words proposed to be now inserted get too close to the old 19th century iron law of wages- the old wage fund idea which went out of any serious consideration once governments undertook the obligation for maintaining economic stability and full employment. I move:

Mr STREET:
Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations · Corangamite · LP

– I have carefully noted the wording of the amendment moved by the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns). I would have to say that the Government is not convinced that his wording will achieve the objectives better than the wording which is in the Bill. However, as I foreshadowed earlier in this debate, amendments to the Act will be introduced during the Budget session. I undertake to have the honourable member’s suggested amendment carefully considered in relation to proposals that the Government will be bringing forward at that time.

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-The Act as it stands requires the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in Full Bench proceedings to have regard to the state of the national economy and the likely effects on that economy of any award it might make. Those are fairly substantial prerequisites for the Commission- it must have regard to the state of the economy and the effect on the economy of its decisions. What this clause adds is that it must consider the effect of its decisions on employment and inflation. We regard this as absolutely unnecessary. Indeed, it is an insult to the Commission and an attempt to intimidate the Commission. We have to look at the context in which these provisions were introduced. The same would also apply to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns). The fact is that this amendment was introduced, naturally, after the February decision of the Commission which rejected the Government’s arguments at that time that instead of granting the 6.4 per cent which was sought, it should grant only 3.2 per cent or thereabouts. In rejecting the Government’s submissions at that time, the Commission said that it rejected the assertions of the Commonwealth Government. Those assertions related to the effects on the economy of passing on the 6.4 per cent. The Government expressed its displeasure at that time with the Commission, and made no bones about it. I think the result of that displeasure is clause 6 of the Bill.

In our view, this clause is an insult to the Commission. We believe that the Commission already has regard to the state of the economy, particularly to employment and inflation which are major factors. In the national wage decisions over the years there are references to the state of the economy and the effects that decisions might have on the state of the economy. The Commission has always paid substantial regard to the state of the economy in making its decisions. Where the Liberal-National Country Party Government falls down is that it looks only at the immediate effects of any decision. It wants the Commission to ignore entirely the industrial effects which might flow from any decision which the Commission might make. Those industrial effects have economic implications. For instance, if in February of this year the increase had been only 3.2 per cent instead of 6.4 per cent there may have been substantial industrial disputation, as a result of which there may have been substantial wage increases. Therefore the system of indexation would have broken down. There would have been much more industrial disruption. There may also have been higher wage increases than those that came as a result of indexation. That is the kind of consideration which the Commission must take into account and which it took into account when making its decision in February this year.

In making its decision this time the Commission paid more regard to the submissions of the Commonwealth Government and decided not to award the full percentage increase but to five the full 3 per cent only up to those earning 125 a week. It said it was drawing a plateau at that level because of the effect of its decision on the economy. What more proof could one have that the Commission takes into account the effect of its decisions on the economy? At page 29 of the decision it talks about the matters which are contained in this amendment. At page 29 of the roneoed copy of the national wage decision it states:

The information before us on the slow and halting economic recovery since we began indexation a year ago, on the slow rate at which inflation has declined, especially in relation to our main trading partners, and on the projection of future price movement under full indexation, seems to us to confirm the existence of exceptional and compelling economic circumstances. Thus there are strong grounds for departing on this occasion from full CPI adjustment but the departure can be and should be confined.

In other parts of the decision it talks about unemployment. These matters are quite clearly foremost in the thoughts of the Commission, but it does not follow automatically that because it is concerned about inflation and unemployment it therefore only has regard to the economic effect of its decision and disregards totally the effect of not making a certain decision. In other words, if it makes a decision now to give no increase in wages, as it said, that would probably have the best economic effect. There would be no increase, no inflation push and no unemployment effect. It must also have regard to the industrial realities. That is what it did. That is what it is obliged to do under the Act. It is there to prevent and settle industrial disputes. The Government is trying to force it to become an economic arm of the Government rather than a dispute settling body. It has to be a dispute settling body, paying regard to the economic consequences of its decision and the state of the economy, which is what it does. Any attempt to push it into a sole economic arm of the Government will have enormous consequences in the industrial relations area. These are matters which the Government must bear in mind.

In the national wage case the Commonwealth Government was quite culpable for refusing to debate these issues at all. All it put to the Commission was economic material relating to the adverse effects of a wage increase other than what it was advocating, which was 3 per cent with a plateau of a certain level. It did not respond to the many invitations from the Full Bench to comment on the industrial relations effects of the Commission adopting what the Commonwealth Government wanted it to do. In other words, the Commission was saying: ‘Tell us what you think the industrial rel. ‘ ons effects would be of our adopting what you say, 3 per cent on the minimum wage up to a certain amount, and that amount for everyone above that plateau’. The Government would not discuss it. That is a tremendously important matter which the Commission had to bear in mind. It is a matter on which it had to balance out the effects of indexation and the effects of industrial relations against the economic consequences of its decision in making the decision that it finally made.

My personal opinion- I think it is the opinion of the Australian Labor Party generally- is that the plateau was drawn too low. Nevertheless, we realise that the Commission had to balance out the matters before it. We would say that if it had to reduce full indexation it should have fixed the plateau somewhere near average weekly earnings. If it had done so the majority of wage earners would not have had their real wages reduced. The decision, which has been made on economic grounds, means a reduction in real wages for about 60 per cent of workers in this country. This is something which, if it goes on, will have very substantial industrial repercussions. The industrial repercussions have effects on employment and inflation. These are matters which the Commission already bears in mind. They are discussed at great length. Anyone who knows anything about the hearings of the Commission would know that employment and inflation are matters which are discussed at great length before that body. They are taken into account by the Commission. We say that it is an insult to the Commission to say that is does not pay full regard to those matters. That is implied in this clause. It is also an insult to intimidate the Commission to make it pay even more regard to the Government’s arguments than it has to this point. We oppose the clause.

Mr STREET:
Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations · Corangamite · LP

– The honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) alleged that the addition of ‘employment’ and ‘inflation’ to section 39 (2) is unnecessary and an insult to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. He further alleged that the Government saw the Commission solely as an economic arm of government. Of course that is a whole lot of nonsense. We spelt out in great detail, in more detail I think than any government has yet been prepared to spell out, in the national wage case submission which we put to the Commission the balance which it was necessary to achieve between economic factors and the realities of industrial relations, to use the honourable member’s own words. The honourable member is arguing that inflation and employment are not sufficiently important to be taken into account specifically by the Commission. The honourable member and his Party may believe that employment and inflation are not sufficiently important, but the Government believes that they are of crucial importance. We make no apology for stressing that importance.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I want to say something about the mechanics of the clause that we now have before us. The Government is telling the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission that it must take into account the effect of its decision upon the economy generally and upon inflation and the employment situation. Yet the Government steadfastly refuses to allow the Commission to examine the Treasury officials who prepare the Government’s case on the effects of the unions’ claims on the economy. When the Australian Council of Trade Unions sought to have Treasury officials put into the witness box to be cross-examined by the unions and to be questioned by members of the Bench on the accuracy of the statements that they were making in relation to the economy, the Bench felt that it was unable to accede to the request. It did not want to be put in the position of making a decision that would require a public servant, without the authority of his Minister, to go into the witness box and be examined. Since the national wage case submissions generally, insofar as they relate to economic matters, are prepared by Treasury and not by the Department of Labor, which knows most about the industrial relations aspect of arbitration proceedings, it is only proper that if the Government believes what the Treasury puts up to the Department of Labor in times of national wage hearings, then the Government ought to make the Treasury officials who put up the submissions to it go into the witness box, and be examined and tested by the Bench and by the parties appearing before the Commission.

Time and again when I was Minister I had submissions prepared by the Treasury to be read out in the national wage case and, had I acceded to the Treasury request, I would have defeated the very submissions that I was putting from and industrial relations point of view. I was asking that the minimum wage for adult males be extended to adult females; I was asking that wage indexation on the minimum wage be introduced and later on the average weekly earnings; I was asking for an increase in the minimum wage; and Treasury was opposing the concept of extending the adult male minimum wage to adult females. It opposed the concept of wage indexation even upon the minimum wage and opposed it also in respect of average weekly earnings.

But the Treasury officials apparently were not prepared to go into the witness box and have their theories tested by the Bench and by the people appearing before the Commission. So I made no bones about the matter. I rejected out of hand some of the submissions that were sent to my Department by the Treasury people to be put to the Arbitration Commission. I remember on one occasion, talking with the counsel appearing for me and asking: ‘How are you going?’ He said: ‘We are still held up’. I asked: ‘Why are you held up?’ He said: ‘Well, the Treasury does not like so and so.’ I said: ‘To hell with the Treasury; you are representing me, not the Treasury. What is the argument? I will adjudicate on it at once. Tell me all about it. ‘ He told me and I fixed it up in about a minute. I said: ‘Tell the Treasurer s representative that this thing has now been settled and that the Minister intervening in the case has decided so and so.’

The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) ought to take the same view. He ought to tell Treasury: ‘We will be glad to have your point of view but I am going to have your viewpoint tested by my own economists and by the people in my own Department because my Department is all about labour relations. We are not here to act as the arm of economic management of government. We are here to prevent industrial disputes and to settle them when they occur.’ I want the Minister to reply to me on this matter. I ask him to give an assurance to honourable members that in future when the Treasury imposes its nonsense- economic nonsense as well as industrial relations nonsense- upon the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations the Minister will say to the Treasury: ‘If you want me to put this forward you must go into the witness box and be examined on it.’ If the Treasury officials are not prepared to be examined and tested on the economic theories they put forward in industrial relations proceedings we ought not to allow those submissions by Treasury even to see the light of day.

The plain fact of the matter is that the Treasury knows absolutely nothing about industrial relations. The Foreign Affairs Department would know more about industrial relations than Treasury knows, and I could not find more telling example of airy-fairy thinking than to quote the Foreign Affairs Department in relation to everyday life. I say to the Minister that this matter upon which we have stumbled is important. If he is going to insist that the Arbitration Commission pay regard to the economic consequences of its decisions, he ought to be prepared to instruct his economic advisers to go into the witness box and allow their theories to be tested by the Bench and by the parties appearing before it.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I want to speak very briefly to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns). It seems to me that we would lose nothing by accepting it and we would gain something. I will be very brief and say that we are so much concerned, and rightly concerned, at the present moment with the problems of inflation that we sometimes forget that in the future we may face the problems of deflation. Therefore I think it is a good thing to substitute the word ‘prices’ for ‘inflation’ because prices can go up and can go down, and we would be covering either contingency if we did so. I will not go further than to say that I think the honourable member for Lilley has brought forward some sound common sense. I do not see why at the present moment the Government should have to wait for the Budget session to accept his amendment. It should accept it now.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-The amendment moved by the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) on behalf of the Government is obviously designed to be part of the Government’s new package to reduce real wages so that in 12 months time average weekly earnings will buy 10 per cent or 15 per cent less in commodities than they will today. That is the theory the Government is putting forward for overcoming the inflation problem that we now have in Australia and that is the reason why it has been unable to reach any firm decision on the question of indexation since honourable members opposite were placed in office by the Governor-General. The Government is trying to have wage and salary earners carry all the burden of inflation. It puts forward the proposition that the lower the wages, the higher the employment. When the honourable member for Lilley was speaking I asked him to give us a case in point to show where people have said: ‘We will reduce our wages.’ Or is he suggesting that in Australia if we reduced wages tomorrow by 10 per cent all of a sudden 100 000 or 200 000 people would be placed back in employment? As my friend the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) said, we should look at the Swedish experience where they have low unemployment and high wages, and at the experience in the underdeveloped countries where they have low wages and very high unemployment.

The other feature of inflation which has taken place in most countries of the Western world over the last 3 or 4 years and on which the honourable member failed to pass any comment is the savings of wages that have been paid. It is still to be explained in most countries why at a time of high inflation people are saving so much of their earnings. This has been the Japanese ex- perience as well as the Australian experience, he Opposition will not accept the views that the honourable member put forward that we must be part of some conspiracy to go out and convince the wage and salary earners of this country that all of a sudden their real wages must be reduced. Undoubtedly that is the purpose of the amendment and of the Government’s intervention in the last two indexation or consumer price index cases. Obviously the Government does not really know what it is doing except that it has been convinced, as the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) said, not by the industrial relations strategy that ought to be guiding it but by the strategy given to it by Treasury.

Treasury says that the way to unlock the inflation rate in Australia- it was Treasury’s theory previously that the acceptance of full indexation, not at a plateau rate, would lock in the inflation rate- is now to reduce real wages. That is what the Government is embarking upon and that is why it is saying that the wage and salary earners of Australia must carry the complete burden. If wages are lowered it does not mean there will be higher employment. People must go out and purchase with the wages that they are paid. People will not produce goods which they cannot sell. There is a double-edged problem with the sort of inflation rate and unemployment rate which we now have in Australia. We certainly will not be a part of that futile conspiracy which says that the wage and salary earners should carry all the burden.

Mr STREET:
Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations · Corangamite · LP

– Very briefly in response to the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron), he seems to be under some misapprehension about how the Government prepares its case which it submits to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I cannot speak for what happened when he was in office. Some very curious things happened in those days, but under this Government the case presented reflects the collective view of the Government. Unlike the present Opposition we support collective Cabinet responsibility. I think it would be inappropriate for public servants to be put in the witness box. The Government’s case is just that; it is the Government’s case. It is not that of individual people or of individual departments. It is a Government view. What is important is not one public servant’s opinion or even several public servant’s opinions, but the case submitted by the Government and it is then up to the Commission to make an assessment of the evidence presented to it.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I want to refute the statement made by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street). I know how things operate. There is no difference in a relationship between Treasury and the present Government and the relationship that existed between Treasury and the former Government or governments. Always in national wage cases the Treasury has told the government of the day what it believes the government ought to say in proceedings before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The fact that the present Government has not enough faith in the present Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to allow him to make a judgment on what is right and wrong- although the previous Government had such implicit faith in me, on the other hand, as to allow me personally to decide what ought to be done in industrial relations- does not affect the assertions that I made earlier, namely, that all of the Liberal Government submissions have always been duplicates of the ones received from the Department of the Treasury. In fact, my own departmental officer said: ‘We do not understand what you are doing, Minister. This has never been done before. We have never had a Minister challenge submissions put by Treasury’. I said: ‘You have got one now. You are under new management. From now on when you are talking about industrial relations you are going to give prime consideration to questions of industrial relations and not be bothered about the nonsense- the utter nonsense- that Treasury throws at you. You are dealing with a Minister who puts industrial relations ahead of economic factors, a Minister who believes that it is more important to settle or prevent industrial disputes than to be worrying about the airy-fairy ideas of the economists working in Treasury who are no different from any other economists.’ If 100 economists are asked to give a solution to some problem there will usually be 100 different solutions.

Progress reported.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 8 p.m.

page 2734

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA AND THE WORLD SITUATION

Ministerial Statement

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– by leave- Tonight I am going to talk about Australia’s place in the world and about the inter-relationship of domestic policy and foreign policy. The purpose of this statement is to outline some of the basic guidelines for the Government’s approach in its dealings with other countries. The first requirement for an effective Australian role in the world is a realistic assessment of the state of the world in which Australia must act. That assessment must, as far as possible, be free of self-deception, selfdelusion. We must be prepared to face the world as it is, and not as we would like it to be. Only in that way can we avoid becoming involved in the pursuit of policies whose assumptions are so remote from reality that their failure is inevitable. Only in that way can we hope to perceive accurately possible problems for Australia and seek to overcome them. Only in that way can we effectively advance our objectives of peace and security. To point to possible problems and dangers is not to be gloomy or pessimistic. It is an essential step in the development of realistic and appropriate policies. It is an essential step in enabling us to avoid problems and dangers which may arise.

First of all, I will discuss the Government’s general approach to Australia’s foreign relations. Australia’s basic interest is in survival as a free and democratic country, a country that can work effectively towards a world in which all people can live in self-respect. We want to help diminish the dangers of war and conflict, to help others -as well as ourselves- to live in peace and prosperity, and to work towards an international environment that is favourable to these ends. There is a yearning in the world for peace and security. These must be the constant objectives of our policy. We will also seek to further our own deeply held values of democracy, freedom and respect for the individual at every opportunity. In our relations with other countries, the ideology of regimes is not irrelevant but it cannot be the guiding principle of our policy. While common values and attitudes may serve to make cooperation easier, their absence need not preclude such co-operation if there are parallel interests Whatever the basis of a regime, whatever the organisation of its domestic government, the chief determinant of our relations will be that country’s approach to foreign relations, how it meshes with ours and, of necessity, the extent of the interests we share. We should strive to deal with other countries, and look to the development of co-operative relations with those countries with whom we have some common interests, regardless of ideology. A relationship founded in common interests is ultimately the only relationship that can be depended upon.

In recent years, abroad as at home, lack of realism has inhibited Australia from the constructive role open to us. A government does a great disservice if it encourages acceptance by the people of an unrealistic view of the state of the world in which they live. At home, the costs of a lack of realism have become very apparent in the economic dislocation Australia has suffered. Abroad, unrealistic notions that an age of peace and stability had arrived encouraged a neglect of power realities- a neglect that did not serve our interests. It is time to move towards realism abroad, as we are at home. Australia in common with other medium and smaller countries is now facing a more difficult task in developing foreign policy in a deeply disturbing world environment. The evidence for concern is apparent to anyone who can take a realistic and dispassionate view of the world. The aspects of the international situation that give rise to concern are: Firstly, the continued readiness of some states to pursue their interests by the use of force- by the growing influence on the international scene of countries opposed to the freedom and respect for the individual person on which our own democratic system is based. Goodwill between nations would be enormously advanced if all nations could treat those within their boundaries equally and justly, and if nations could refrain from forcing their own form of government on others. Unfortunately, it would be unrealistic to expect that they will do so. Indeed, the practice, the doctrine, of non-interference places a heavy responsibility on states.

We have come far beyond the point where anyone can pretend that the denial of rights to minorities, or of basic rights to majorities, is not a matter of international concern. It is a tragedy, nevertheless, that great powers have sought to use problems arising from such situations not to achieve actively a just solution but to achieve the dominance of one ideology over another. A second aspect of the world situation giving rise to concern is the state of relations between the superpowers. Despite the hopes placed in detente, it has not stabalised relations between the great powers. Indeed a renewed arms race now looms as a real prospect. I shall comment more on that in a moment. Thirdly, there has been a spate of criticism, often ill-founded, of the United States which has reinforced domestic disputes within that country. Disagreement between Congress and Executive has impaired the capacity of America- the only power that can provide a balance to the Soviet Union- to act with full effect abroad. Let me not be misunderstood. This is no plea for any power to be a policeman for the world, nor to do what small powers should do for themselves. A country without the fortitude to defend itself does not deserve help. But having said that I want to draw attention to the undoubted fact that there are many things that only the world’s greatest free power can do. If she leaves them undone, they remain undone.

Fourthly, the internal economic and political problems of many countries have led to uncertainty in their external relations. Fifthly, there is a serious problem of double standards in international life. Countries demand from others standards they do not observe themselves, while too often judgments are based not on the nature of an action but on the identity of the actor. Sixthly, problems of energy and raw material supplies have faced the international community with a novel set of problems which, if unwisely handled, could add a new set of disputes to the catalogue of dangers confronting mankind. Finally, the appalling widespread problems of poverty, hunger and disease are not only an affront to human dignity, but constantly threaten discord and conflict between nations. By no measure can the developed nations of the world claim that they have acted with adequate foresight to redress the balance. The developed countries have pursued a policy of tied loans and tied aid but they have completely failed to open their markets to the developing countries to permit terms of trade that will provide proper returns for their products to the developing countries. The developed countries are regrettably more interested in trade between themselves than they are in facilitating the progress of nations poorer than themselves. They can take no pride in their actions in this area. These factors show that a nation does not have to face a threat of imminent invasion before it has grounds for concern at the international situation. From our own point of view the primary concern is an international environment which could progressively limit the capacities of Australia, her friends, and allies, to advance their interests and ideals, which reduces options, which almost imperceptibly weakens the capacity to pursue our interests and advance the cause of human dignity. Whether or not such an unfavourable external situation occurs is ultimately, of course, not in Australia’s control. But it is not totally beyond the influence of our policies.

A successful Australian external policy must be flexible, alert and undogmatic. We must recognise that Australia, a middle power, lives in a world where power in a broad sense remains the major factor in international politics. In international politics power includes not only military strengths. Economic resources, industrial capacity, population, domestic stability and diplomacy all contribute to a nation’s power and influence in the world. Australia lives in a world where predominant power is controlled by the United States and the Soviet Union. It is a world whose relations also depend, however, on the actions of other major powers- China, Japan and the European powers- and within particular regions also on the distribution of power between middle and small states. The international diplomacy of the major powers- with which Australia has to deal- has to be understood principally as an effort by these powers to create a balance in the world favourable to their interests. It is in the pursuit of a more favourable balance that their policies impinge on middle powers, such as Australia, and on areas of immediate importance to Australia, such as South East Asia, the South Pacific area, and the Indian Ocean.

We have certain advantages in achieving our international objectives. One lies in the common interest between us and others in the pursuit of similar goals. We have, for example, a common interest with the Association of South East Asian Nations countries that no one power should dominate the region. It is not in China’s interests that the Soviet Union should become dominant in South East Asia, nor in Japan’s interests that the Soviet Union should become dominant in the Indian Ocean. On the other hand, it is not, presumably, in the Soviet Union’s interests that relations between China, Japan and the United States should be too close. In current international circumstances it is in the interests of many countries that South East Asia not become a region of increasing great power competition. Such a development would not merely be dangerous to our security; it would greatly restrict our freedom of action across the whole range of our foreign policy objectives.

Another advantage we have in pursuing our objectives lies in the fact that we have not only relations of convenience, common interests or even necessity with a great variety of nations. With some we also have common philosophical commitments, and friendships which we can and will strengthen. The guiding principle for Australia’s role in the world ought to be an active and enlightened realism. Although our capacities to advance our interests are limited we should be active and constructive in pursuit of a peaceful and favourable international environment. I turn now to consider relations between the superpowers and how these affect Australia’s foreign policy.

Detente

It is clear, and it has been clear for a long time, that the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have as a major policy imperative the avoidance of nuclear war. Their principal common interest lies in limiting the possibilities of nuclear confict and ending the wasteful arms race. This interest, shared by the rest of the international community, gave rise to the first Strategic Arms Limitations Talks and then the enunciation of certain ‘basic principles of relations between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R.’. The principles were signed in Moscow by President Nixon and Leonid Brezhnev in 1972. They included the declarations:

That the different ideologies and social systems of the two powers would not prevent them developing proper relations.

That both countries attached major importance to preventing situations capable of causing a dangerous exacerbation of their relations.

That efforts to obtain unilateral advantage at the expense of the other were inconsistent with these objectives.

That both powers would seek to promote conditions in which all countries would live in peace and security and would not be subject to outside interference in their internal affairs.

Every country which desires peace must wish to see these principles observed. In an important sense, these principles, far wider than the mere containment of possible superpower conflict below the nuclear level, is what the world hoped detente was all about. After all, earlier relations between the superpowers also involved a concern to avoid nuclear war, and detente was heralded as a significant advance on this. As understood by people throughout the world, detente meant not merely the search for security from nuclear war, but a genuine overall relaxation of political and military tensions. Unfortunately, the reality has not matched these aspirations.

It is clear that maintenance of a stable relationship between the superpowers depends on realistic negotiation and crisis management. Negotiation is not a substitute for, it is an essential concomitant of, a stable military balance. Negotiations will not succeed unless they are accompanied by a clear determination to maintain a balance of forces, and are free from illusions about the effectiveness of unsupported goodwill. Our interests are in a lessening of tensions between the superpowers which only realistic negotiations make possible. I now turn to consider more closely the roles of the superpowers.

The Soviet Union

The Soviet Union has an immense responsibility before mankind- to use its power and influence to strengthen the fabric of international peace and security. It has an historic opportunity to use its position to help build a stable and humane international order and to end the arms build-up. It will be judged by the great majority of mankind against these standards. The Soviet Union is unquestionably committed to the avoidance of nuclear warfare. Reasonable people can however reasonably conclude that the Soviet Union still seeks to expand its influence throughout the world in order to achieve Soviet primacy. Its actions all too often appear inconsistent with the aim of reducing world tension. The U.S.S.R’s actions during the 1973 Middle East war increased tensions to the point that the U.S.A. was led to put its armed forces on a world wide alert. The U.S.S.R. substantially assisted the North Vietnamese to take over South Vietnam. In Angola, the U.S.S.R. intervened by introducing 12 000 Cuban troops into the situation, and supplying them. In the last decade, the Soviet Union has expanded its armed forces by 1 million men. The Soviet navy has grown substantially while the size of the United States’ naval forces has declined.

The Warsaw Pact countries have a major advantage in conventional forces over North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. NATO has 70 divisions; the Warsaw Pact has 178 divisionsexcluding the 43 Soviet divisions on the SinoSoviet border. This is a discrepancy of major proportions even when allowance is made for the difference in the sizes of the respective divisions. In addition, it would appear that the superior quality of NATO equipment which served partially to offset NATO’s numerical inferiority has been eroded over the years. The build up of the Warsaw Pact far exceeds the objective requirements of defending Eastern Europe. The Warsaw powers possess the conventional capacity to move into Western Europe with such rapidity and penetration that the use of even tactical nuclear weapons against them is now questioned by some authorities. The U.S.S.R.’s nuclear armory has been elaborated to a point where there is considerable debate about the possibility of the Soviet Union gaining a strategic advantage. The Soviet leaders now have a strategic and political reach- a capacity to influence and even to intervene- well beyond the periphery of the established zones of Soviet security interest. The U.S.S.R. has demonstrated the will to exploit that capacity where the opportunity offers. Angola is not the only place affected by Soviet trained and sponsored movements. The Soviet Union is engaged in a major political offensive backed by the known presence of force, by training and by propaganda.

The fabric of negotiations with the Soviet Union- which we strongly support- has unfortunately had limited success in winning restraint in this campaign. President Ford’s abandonment of the term ‘detente’ clearly shows a recognition that the more extreme claims made for changes in the superpowers’ relationship were quite unrealistic. Stability is disturbed and tension increased if the Soviet Union makes geo-political gains through its support of wars of national liberation, by the use of surrogates. The time has come to expect a sign from the U.S.S.R. that it understands this and that it is serious about reaching global accommodation with the West. A tangible signal is required from the U.S.S.R. in the form of a restraint in its military expansion. The pace is being set by the U.S.S.R., not by the U.S. While the NATO powers’ capability remains relatively static, why is the Soviet arms build-up proceeding apace? It is reasonable to ask: Why does the Soviet Union desire a military power far greater than any needed to secure her own frontiers, or the expanded frontiers embraced by the Warsaw powers? It is for the Soviet Union to show that the conclusions so easily drawn from its actions are wrong, that its basic purpose is world peace- a world in which different nations can live and co-operate in harmony. That opportunity is open to the Soviet Union. It is up to the Soviet Union whether it pursues that path or whether it takes a different path which would lead to disturbing conclusions.

The United States

Along with many other countries concerned for their security and political independence, Australian security is greatly affected by the role of the United States. The world cannot afford any reduction of the credibility of the U.S. foreign policy. In that way would lie huge risks. The dangers of miscalculation by other powers could become substantial, not only for the United States herself but for all those countries which look to a confident exercise of American policy in the cause of peace and stability. America is the only power that can balance the might of the Soviet Union. If America does not undertake that task it will not be done. If it is not done the whole basis of peace and security is unsupported.

The Vietnam war and Watergate undermined America’s self confidence and sense of purpose. Unfortunately, a contributory cause has also been undue world criticism of the United Statesopposition by people who ought to have been her friends and who ought to have understood America’s objectives in the world. Mutual recriminations about the causes and results of foreign events, differences between President and Congress on the conduct of American foreign policy, are producing some concern about America’s capacity to act with full effect around the world.

This Government, while maintaining to the full its own independent national perspectives and sovereignty, will ensure that the ANZUS alliance with the U.S. and New Zealand does not fall into disrepair and disrepute. The interests of the United States and the interests of Australia are not necessarily identical. In our relations with the United States, as in our relations with other great powers, our first responsibility is independently to assess our own interests. The United States will unquestionably do the same.

The fact remains that of all the great powers with active interests and capabilities in the areas of critical concern to Australia, the United States is the power with which we have the closest links. Those links are based not merely on known common interests in, and commitments to, a peaceful and stable world, but on common traditions of democratic institutions and of values of respect for the individual. As long as Australia values freedom and respect for the individual, the United States is the power with which we can realistically establish close and warm friendship and with which we can most closely work to advance world peace and humane values we share. The United States can expect all proper cooperation from us in support of common objectives. Although relations between the superpowers are a fundamental determinant of the world environment, Australia has the most vital interest in relations between countries in areas of critical concern to us. We are and must be intimately involved in our own region.

South East Asia

The South East Asian region has been an area of close Australian concern and involvement for many years. Our interests are that the region should not become in the future an arena of great power conflict; that relations between states should be peaceful and co-operative; that political change in the area should not provide occasion for the assertion of a dominant role by any of the great powers; and that there should be opportunity for commercial and cultural exchange between Australia and the countries of the area. Beyond these interests we would wish, within the limits of our possibilities, to help in the region’s development needs and to be an understanding and dependable neighbour.

Internally, most of the countries of the region are vitally concerned with problems of economic development and social stability. Externally, they are adjusting to the victories of communist movements in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and the changing roles of major powers with interests in the region. This change has inevitably brought a period of uncertainty and anxiety for countries in the area. We share the concern of regional states at insurgency problems and at the continued armed insurgencies encouraged and supported from abroad. It would, in our opinion, be undesirable for mutually exclusive groupings to develop which could foster antagonism at the expense of economic and social development. We therefore have an interest in establishing as broad relations as possible with countries in the region and this, of course, means that we stand ready to explore with the new governments in Indochina the development of relations of mutual benefit. It is critical for the peaceful development of the region that there should be mutual non-interference between the states and a commitment to the peaceful resolution of differences. Australia will seek to play a constructive role in the reduction of tensions and the resolution of disputes.

Australia has long standing friendships with all ASEAN governments. We welcome the activities of ASEAN as providing a constructive basis for regional relations. We want to identify and develop further areas of practical cooperation on shared political and strategic interests. We will seek to do so through our aid programs, through involvement in regional efforts to advance economic and social development, and by the promotion of trade and other economic co-operation.

Australia has a deep interest in maintaining sound and close relations with Indonesia. The broad relationship is of great importance to both countries. Relations are such that both countries can state their views plainly. Both countries have broad interests in the stability of and the avoidance of great power conflict in South East Asia. It is against that background that we have stated our views on Timor. We support a genuine act of self-determination in Timor. The very fact that we have stated our views on Timor plainly is a mark of the underlying strength of the relationship. Despite differences, a major concern of our policy will be to continue the friendship we both value.

We would like to see the development of constructive relations between the region and countries beyond. The major powers will continue to be interested in South East Asia. The Australian Government will urge the major powers to restrain their competition in the region. Restraint will in any case be induced by the independent national interests of the countries in South East Asia. Our own role is similarly influenced by what is acceptable to these governments.

Papua New Guinea

The Government places great value on Australia’s relations with Papua New Guinea. The warmth and respect between the 2 countries provides a strong foundation for our relationship. Papua New Guinea’s needs will have the highest priority in our aid programs. We have recently announced a 5-year aid program which represents a substantial increase in Australian assistance. This program has been warmly welcomed by the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea. The Australian Government firmly supports the concept of a united Papua New Guinea. The unity of Papua New Guinea is of great importance to the stability of our part of the world.

Japan

Japan is of fundamental importance to Australia’s long term political, economic and security interests. Few countries match Japan’s economic significance in the global system and with no country do we have closer economic links than with Japan. The Australia-Japan bilateral trade flow is the seventh largest in the world. Japan’s political and economic security is largely a function of her relations with the great powers. The role that she defines for herself will be influenced by the condition of great power balance, by her relations with China and the U.S.S.R. by the credibility of America’s strategic role in the Pacific and by the qualities of her relations with countries like Australia. But Japan’s role will also be defined by the reliability with which these relations guarantee her access to critical sources of supply of raw materials and markets for her products.

Australia and Japan therefore, share an interest in a stable, great power balance in which no potentially hostile power dominates a region of critical concern to either of us. We share a respect for democratic institutions. We have mutual interests in establishing and maintaining reliable access to each other’s markets.

Since the agreement on commerce was signed in 1957 Japan has become Australia’s largest trading partner. Australia is, in turn, one of Japan’s most important suppliers. The AustraliaJapan Ministerial Committee- AJMC- was established in 1971 as a recognition of the importance of the economic ties between the 2 countries, and provides a forum for wide-ranging discussions at the highest level on matters of mutual interest. In the light of change in the composition and structure of trade between the 2 countries, since the revision of the commerce agreement in 1963, at the October 1973 meeting of the Committee it was decided that the agreement should be reviewed taking into account discussions concerning the basic treaty.

As a result of the visit of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) to Japan there is greater understanding of the importance of stability of trade both ways. Australia also understands the importance placed by Japan on access to the markets of the United States and the European community. These concerns provide a sound basis for a friendly and expanding relationship between Australia and Japan. Early in the life of the new Government the Prime Minister of Japan expressed to us the wish of the Japanese Government that a treaty of friendship and cooperation should be concluded in the near future. The Government welcomed this indication of interest and the negotiations delayed last year were continued. The negotiating officials some weeks ago agreed on a draft text of the treaty. It can be expected that the treaty will be signed by Prime Minister Miki and myself during my visit to Japan.

The Government also places importance on broadening our relationship with Japan. Earlier in this Parliament the Government introduced the Bill to establish the Australia-Japan Foundation. The Foundation will have the important role of promoting the study by the people of Australia and Japan of each other’s culture and institutions. Relations between Australia and Japan will be enhanced by the personal contacts and research which will come from the work of the foundation. Understanding between Australia and Japan can play a vital role in strengthening peace and security in the AsiaPacific region. Australia will act consistently to deepen that understanding.

China

In moving towards a world in which peace is secure a vital part must be played by the People’s Republic of China. The development of China’s foreign policy is difficult to foresee. In many respects China remains a great unknown in international affairs. This is one reason why it is desirable for as many countries of the world as possible to develop close links with China. We look forward to a continuation of good working relationships with the Chinese Government both now and in the future. A realistic view requires us to recognise that despite ideological differences there are important areas where our interests overlap.

In recent years, China’s relationships with the United States have improved due to certain mutual interests. China is clearly concerned at the Soviet role on her northern and southern frontiers. Australia and China have a like interest in seeing that Soviet power in the Pacific and South East Asia is balanced by the power of other major states or by appropriate regional arrangements. We can therefore expect Chinese support for our own views on the need for an effective American presence in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Such support has, in fact, been given.

While I was in New Zealand the Pacific Forum countries agreed to accept the movement of United States nuclear ships in the Pacific Ocean area. Such a decision, of course, reflected each country’s independent assessment of its own interests. China has acknowledged that such an arrangement is in her interests also. In other areas too, China can make a positive contribution to peace and stability. We welcome the development of commercial relationships between China and Japan and look forward to an expansion of our own trading ties with both. China’s attitude and view of the world are often far removed from our own. Chinese judgments of the West, of its systems of representative government and of the ideals of liberty and freedom of the individual seem to us mistaken. Moreover, China continues to give support to insurgencies in South-East Asia. Australia does not support interference by great powers in the domestic affairs of smaller states. We hope that China will give priority to the development of constructive relationships with a region which needs to be given every support for stable and effective government to develop and prosper. Nevertheless, constructive relations do not depend on agreement on all aspects of relations but on the development of those areas where there are common interests. My Government believes that interests of this kind provide a solid basis for working relations. We shall work to develop these, as well as improve our understanding of each other.

Indian Ocean

The Indian Ocean is of considerable political and strategic importance to Australia. It is crossed by sea and air communication routes vital to Australia. Much of the vital flow of oil to our neighbours, friends, and trading partners passes through it. The entrance to the Persian Gulf has become a major focus of international attention. The objective of a neutral zone in the Indian Ocean, while admirable, has little chance of success with the U.S.S.R. significantly increasing its permanent presence in the vital north west sector of the Ocean. It is clearly contrary to Australia’s interests for the balance in this area to move against our major ally, the United States.

It is also against our interests for both superpowers to embark on an unrestricted competition in the Indian Ocean. We seek balance and restraint. We have supported the United States development of logistic facilities at Diego Garcia so that the balance necessary to stability in the area can be maintained. It cannot be maintained without those facilities. We also strongly support the recent appeal by the United States Administration for restraint so that the balance can be maintained at a relatively low level. This analysis cannot pretend to be a complete description of Australia’s attitude to all parts of the world, but it would be unrealistic to make this speech and to refrain from mentioning 2 areas of great concern to us and to the rest of the world- the Middle East and Africa.

Middle East

In the Middle East the only future lies in negotiationin a proper and broad recognition of the rights of all groups within that troubled area; in an absolute recognition of the right of Israel to survive as a nation; and an equal recognition of the problems of the Palestinian refugees. There have been many wars in the Middle East, but no one has been the ultimate victor. There can be no ultimate victor. Compromise through negotiation is essential if there is to be any real settlement.

Africa

Even more than the Middle East, tensions and problems in Africa grow and become more difficult the longer they remain without solution. If movements towards majority rule in Rhodesia are not made within a reasonably short timeframe the result will be inevitable conflagration. There are a number of leaders in Africa who certainly do not support white minority supremacy in Rhodesia but who have no wish for armed insurgency and no wish for ultimate conflict. They realise that such a solution to the problems of Rhodesia would lead to lasting bitterness, lasting divisions, and an increased possibility of domination of the continent of Africa by external powers. National leaders of Africa have no wish to see that happen.

I have previously indicated in plain terms why we believe the policies of apartheid will not work in the longer run. The greater the success of the Bantustans, the greater will be their failure to achieve the objectives they were originally established for. The more equal men become in economic and social matters, the less they will be prepared to accept denial of basic political and human rights. However, we note with great hope the growing relationship between South Africa and some of the black nations of Africa. It offers the prospect of a broader and more sensible solution to Africa’s problems. Within the framework of the Commonwealth of Nations we will seek to play what constructive role remains open to us and to the Commonwealth to help achieve a reasonable solution to these intractable problems.

International Co-operation

In a world where increasingly complex problems transcend national boundaries, a commitment to multi-lateral co-operation, particularly in the field of economic and social development, is an indispensable part of Australian foreign policy. We support the United Nations, its Charter, and the work of its various specialised agencies. We have noted the degree to which the United Nations has come under attack. Its alleged failings have caused disillusion and even dismay. Despite the hopes held out for it, grievous problems between nations remain. It must indeed be recognised that the United Nations is still an imperfect instrument for the solution of major problems. Some disquieting features have become apparent in its deliberations. These have included the use of confrontation tactics and the curtailment of the rights of participation of some member states.

However, in our view, a number of the attacks on the United Nations have largely sprung from an unrealistic view of what the United Nations could hope to achieve. They also stem from a lack of understanding of the magnitude of the problems besetting the United Nations because of the sharp divisions throughout the world. The problems faced by the United Nations in no way diminishes the need for all nations to support the organisation and make it a more effective instrument for peace. There are in fact many areas where the United Nations has achieved a great deal in improving conditions of life around the world. Australia will make every effort to help the Organisation to expand its effectiveness. We shall be seeking opportunities to work cooperatively within the United Nations framework as in other multilateral forums. These include the Commonwealth of Nations. We believe the Commonwealth has continuing relevance as a distinctive- indeed a uniqueframework bringing together something like a quarter of the world’s population. As a means of fostering co-operation and consultation in many varied areas, it retains a lasting importance.

Economic Relations

One of Australia’s most prominent roles in the world is that of an important trading state. Indeed, with our annual trade worth some $17 billion, Australia ranks fifteenth in the world as a trading country. Despite an expanding export trade in manufactured products the bulk of our exports are raw materials and foodstuffs. Australia is a resource-rich country in a resourcetight world. We have energy and raw material resources of great importance to the world, and we are one of the few food exporting countries. Our position in world trade also implies duties and responsibilities. Countries which are rich in resources cannot neglect the needs and concerns of those countries whose principal resource is the energy and initiative of their people. This Government intends to have a reputation of responsibility and reliability in its international dealings. I believe other governments overseas, whose economies depend on Australia for energy, raw materials, or foodstuffs, will welcome this. At the same time let me emphasise that the Government will ensure that our resource producers receive fair returns for their commodities. The Government will strive to widen and secure access to overseas markets for Australian producers. The Government is concerned, in particular, to improve access to the European Economic Community.

The expanded European Economic Community is the largest source of our imports and the second largest market for our exports after Japan. Raw or processed minerals, wool and other rural products account for 87 per cent of our exports to the European Economic Community and 13 per cent are manufactured goods. Because the EEC is the world’s largest trading bloc, the trade policy decisions taken by the Community are important to Australia, especially as they frequently affect not only the development of our direct trade but also our prospects in Third countries. The decisions of the Community, especially as they affect trade in primary products, are, of course, also of great importance to the developing countries. As the second largest economic unit in the world, the Community has a major role to play in world economic development. We welcome the Community’s prosperity and progress. The Government strongly hopes that it does not develop into a narrow and inward looking grouping but will come to play the role in the world which other countries expect of it. We welcome the constructive role Great Britain will play in the European Common Market, and the more outwardlooking approach she has undertaken to encourage.

There is a great need in general for more practical recognition of the significance of international economic relations for the developing countries. More than any other single factor the developing countries need adequate access for their products to the markets of developed countries which we believe would come to be reflected in more appropriate terms of trade. International trading arrangements which provide relatively free trade for the industrial products of the developed countries while placing excessively high barriers before the products of the developing countries, offer little hope to the poorer nations in solving their problems. One of the greatest contributions which could be made by the industrial countries to the peace of the world would be international trading arrangements which provide greater opportunities for the primary products of the developing countries.

We will co-operate closely with the developing countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Further afield, the Government is ready to concert its activities with other like-minded states. In general, we must participate fully in the shaping of those world economic arrangements which will, in turn, help to determine our own economic progress. In world financial and currency arrangements, in international raw materials, and energy bodies we must stand ready to play our part. The answer to these great world economic problems lies in international co-operation. Neither an abrasive confrontation between competing nationalisms nor decisions by too narrow a club of decision-makers is likely to be effective. Australia will meet the international responsibilities I have outlined.

Domestic Conditions and Foreign Policy

Finally, I come to the crucial relationship between domestic and foreign policies. Given the reality of the world situation it is critical that

Australia, her friends and allies, must be able to bring their capacities to bear in the most effective way, if their position is not to be continually eroded in favour of regimes more effectively able to commit resources of all kinds.

The international situation I have outlined clearly requires a carefully formulated approach to defence policy. The Government has asked for much more definitive work to be done in this area, so that defence planning can be based on the most realistic foundation. Our determination to act to improve our defence capabilities is evidenced by the program announced by the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) last week.

The capacity of democratic countries to conduct effective foreign, defence, economic and social policies depends, fundamentally, on the understanding and backing of the people, on their will, and their commitment. One of the most critical conditions in securing developments in the world congenial both to our interests and to our ideals is that the democratic countries should retain their faith in systems of government based on the freedom of, and concern for, individual people.

Our capacity to act effectively in the world in the end depends on our sense of ourselves, on the strength of our commitment to ensuring that all Australians can live in freedom and dignity. It depends on our determination not to follow the paths of other states where belief in the capacity, and right, of people to seek their own goals is increasingly replaced by enforced conformity to the wishes of those who control powerful bureaucracies. We believe that Australians will wish to take a realistic view of the world, and Australia’s place in it. So long as our institutions foster a resourceful and independent-minded people and a society based on self respect, Australia need not fear the future. It is here that the Government’s domestic policies and longterm conception of Australia’s role in the world are linked.

Our ability to act with maximum effect to realise both our interests and our ideals in the world depends to a large extent on our capacity to work together at home. One of the great tests for the character and stamina of democracies is whether we can combine individual freedom with the capacity to acknowledge our responsibility to the common interest, whether we are prepared to sacrifice some of our apparent shortterm interests to the long-term interests of the whole of the Australian people. If we cannot work together as a people except under threat of a clear and present military danger to our national integrity, it is certain that we will not be able to advance effectively the national interests in the world. There are common interests which unite all Australians- interests in a region and a world which is constructively meeting the problems which face it; interests in an Australia which is competitive in world markets; interests at home in securing a return to soundly based growth in the economy. Only out of such growth can higher real wages and salaries and improved social welfare provisions be paid, without inflaton and unemployment. Without such growth we cannot meet as we might the requirements of security and aid. We will not achieve these objectives unless all sections of the Australian community are prepared to work together in the common interest.

The question which faces Australia in common with other democracies is whether we are going to meet the challenge of co-operation and mutual restraint required from all the diverse groups in our society. In achieving success in our domestic policies, the Government hopes that Australia can be an example of the vital strength of the values of freedom and democracy which are still pursued- and still far from reach-in many parts of the world. The Government believes that the days of an elite forming foreign policy in isolation are long since gone. They depended on a badly educated and apathetic public that could readily be manipulated. The people of the Western democracies are not passive, nor apathetic. The freedom and pluralism of democracies should not be regarded as a constraint on responsible foreign policy. On the contrary, free and open discussion, fairly conducted with respect for the views of others, will strengthen our foreign policy. A foreign policy that ignores the realities of the international situation is irresponsible. A foreign policy that ignores the intelligence and goodwill of the people, that does not trust its people sufficiently to explain and seek support for its actions, cannot succeed.

The contemporary international situation is a test of the capabilities of democratic leaderships and democratic peoples. It is an environment with disturbing tendencies and shifts in balance. This diffuseness and complexity is the test. In finding our way in such a world, the democracies must not lose their sense of purpose. There must be no failure of will or resolution. The first step towards an adequate response must be a realistic assessment of the world and Australia’s role in it. On the basis of such an assessment, we can work to advance our objectives of peace and humanity. The survival of democracy depends on a recognition that its values cannot be taken for granted. Let history not record that this was the time when the democracies abandoned their faith. I present the following paper:

Australia and the World Situation-Ministerial Statement, 1 June 1976.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Suspension of Standing Orders

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

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition speaking for a period not exceeding 52 minutes.

Mr E G Whitlam:
Leader of the Opposition · WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– For all its veneer of realism and lofty principle, the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on foreign affairs was one of the most regrettable and reactionary speeches we have heard in this House. It was depressing, not so much for its predictable and widely leaked contents, as for its motivation and likely consequences. It will do nothing but provoke alarm, needlessly offend one of the world’s superpowers, and set back the cause of detente and international conciliation. It displayed the same intellectual impoverishment and ideological rigidity as distinguish the Prime Minister’s views on domestic and economic matters. What was the need for such a speech? Why was it made by the Prime Minister instead of the Foreign Minister (Mr Peacock)? Was its mixture of cold war rhetoric and apocalyptic doom saying- all this rattling of antique sabres and blowing of rusty bugles -

Mr Peacock:

– When did you write this?

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Was it too much for the trendy pretensions and superficial urbanities of the Foreign Minister, who interjects.?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I remind the House that the Prime Minister was listened to in silence. In accordance with practice, the House should listen in silence to the Leader of the Opposition in reply.

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The great imponderableto use the Prime Minister’s phrase- is why he chose to make this statement on the eve of a visit overseas. If the object of his visit is to learn the facts and to seek information, why has he stated his conclusions in advance? If the object of his visit is to exert some influence for reason and goodwill in international diplomacy, why has he taken up the most partisan and dogmatic attitudes before leaving? On all the fundamental issues of peace and war, co-existence and detente, regionalism and co-operation, the Prime Minister has pre-empted the very objectives of his trip- or any future trip. He has pre-empted any useful role for Australia as an independent voice in world affairs. He has committed Australia in advance. He has closed his mind. The Prime Minister’s attitude is this: ‘Never mind about seeking facts. Here are the facts as I prefer to see them’.

One cannot imagine a more illogical and dangerous way to conduct foreign policy. It is the antithesis of rational, contemporary, pragmatic diplomacy. The Fraser Government, the most ideological in Australia’s history, is setting the clock back in foreign policy, just as it is setting it back in domestic and economic policy. Just as the Prime Minister yearns for domestic policies based on outdated dogmas of federalism and laissez-faire economics, so he hankers for a foreign policy based on outdated dogmas of military power and ideological posturing. Just as he promotes confrontation and division at home, so he relishes confrontation and division abroad. He wants the economics of the 1850s and the foreign policies of the 1950s. He sees Australian foreign policy solely in terms of threats. No Government has ever identified so many real or imagined threats to our economic well-being or military security. To judge from the statements of the Prime Minister and his deputy, Australia is the most embattled and beleaguered nation on earth. The Reds are threatening us on all sides. The Russians are in our oceans and communists encircle the north. The Americans deserve censure for pulling out of Asia and leaving us exposed. The Indonesians are threatening the whole region. The Japanese, according to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) on 29 March, want to invade us and seize our mineral resources. As soon as one threat disappears- as the threat from Indo-china disappeared a year ago- the Liberals discover another.

The Prime Minister has now discovered a threat from the Russian navy. Russian naval activity in the Indian Ocean is the idee fixe about which the whole of the Fraser Government’s foreign and defence policies revolve. This phobia about Russian ships is presumably the justification for defence expenditure of $ 12,000m over the next 5 years- for a 5.5 per cent per annum increase in real terms in the defence budget at the expense of funds for health, cities, roads, the environment, child care, education. It is the justification for the resurgence of cold-war rhetoric and communist can-kicking typified by the speech this evening. It is the justification for offending one of the most powerful nations on earth and discrediting the honest and painstaking efforts of the Western powers to improve the climate of international relations. It is an issue which has brought the hawks from their nests in numbers unseen since the early days of the Vietnam war.

The facts about the Soviet naval presence were provided to the Parliament a month ago by the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen). We must assume that the figures given by the Minister were up to date and authoritative. They show that the number of Soviet combatant vessels in the Indian Ocean last year was no greater than the year before. The total Russian fleet deployed in the area in 1975, including those on harbour and mine-clearing operations, numbered 19, compared with 26 in 1974, 24 in 1973 and 24 in 1972. There was, in other words, a slight decline in the overall numbers of Russian ships in the Indian Ocean between 1972 and last year. The myth of a sudden recent upsurge in Soviet naval strength was exploded by the United States Administration itself in a statement to Congress on 22 April, less than 6 weeks ago. The Administration then reported to Congress: . . . over the past two years the naval deployments of the United States and the Soviet Union have remained relatively stable.

The Australian Labor Party is as concerned as anyone else about military build-ups- Soviet or otherwise- in nations or waters adjacent to Australia. But if we are going to base our whole defence and foreign policy on such assertions let us at least have the evidence for them. Let us keep the facts in perspective. The Americans themselves refuse to be panicked on this issue. They see no threat to themselves or anyone else. Dr Kissinger stated on 22 March this year in a speech in Dallas:

We will not be deflected by contrived and incredible scenarios, by inflated versions of Soviet strength.

The focus of Soviet attention has always been in the northwest of the Indian Ocean in the area around Somalia and Aden. It would be absurd to base Australia’s defence efforts on developments at such a distance from us. The distance by sea from Aden to Fremantle is 4914 nautical miles. The distance from New York to Leningrad is slightly less, about 4600 nautical miles. Does the Australian Government suggest that the United States Coast Guard should base its planning entirely on local developments in the Baltic? The Prime Minister knows- as every other head of government knows- that the presence of Soviet shipping in the Indian Ocean is inevitable. The Indian Ocean is the shortest warm weather route linking the eastern and western sections of the

Soviet Union. Geography alone ensures that the Soviet Navy will remain in the Indian Ocean as long as the Soviet Union remains a maritime power.

In August 1969 the then Liberal Minister for External Affairs Mr Freeth, candidly acknowledged the realities of Soviet naval power and was vilified by his colleagues and the Australian Democratic Labor Party for his pains. On 1 1 September 1969, Mr Chaney who was a Minister for the Navy in a Liberal government, said:

Have we any right to prevent the movement of ships in that part of the world? The Indian Ocean is part of the world’s waterways. No matter how much one may dislike Russia, one has to accept the fact that she has the capacity to operate in the Indian Ocean and that no one can stop her from operating in that area if she wants.

That statement is as plain and unanswerable today as it was then. Yet the so-called build-up of Soviet forces is being used to spread needless alarm and justify a general escalation of military power in the region. It is being used to incite the Americans to build up the base at Diego Garcia. This policy has been questioned by leading Americans themselves. Mr William Colby, while Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, said in testimony to the United States Senate subcommittee on military construction in July 1 974:

If there is no substantial increase in United States nava presence in the area, we believe the Soviet increase will be gradual. . . . Should the United States make a substantial increase in its naval presence in the Indian Ocean, a Soviet build-up faster and larger than I have described would be likely.

Later in the hearings, Senator Symington put the following question to Mr Colby:

As I understand it, you expect the Soviet presence in the Indian Ocean to continue to grow regardless of what we do, but that it will grow faster if we start developing Diego Garcia. Is that a fair interpretation?

Mr Colby answered:

I think that is true. Yes, sir.

It is fatuous for the Prime Minister to imagine that alarmist statements on the Indian Ocean will improve our relations with the United States. The Americans are more realistic on this matter than we are. Uncritical support for American adventurism in the past has been of dubious value to the Americans themselves. Previous Liberal governments mistook the policies of the White House for those of the Congress and the American people. They believed that President Johnson’s bellicose view on Indochina would necessarily prevail over the calmer opinions of congressional leaders. Australia’s support-if it had any influence at all- only led the Americans deeper and deeper into the mire. The Liberals were wrong in their assessment of American opinion on Vietnam between 1968 and 1972. They are just as likely to be wrong about American opinion today, especially if we base our assumptions about American policy on campaign rhetoric in an election year. There is no country around the Indian Ocean which will give overt support to an American build-up of Diego Garcia. Australia will get no thanks and no respect in Washington for egging America on in the Indian Ocean as Australia did in Vietnam.

The most charitable explanation of the Prime Minister’s statement is that he is seeking to ingratiate himself with the Chinese. Wedded as he is to the doctrines of confrontation, to notions of monolithic ‘camps’ and ‘blocs’ in world affairs, the Prime Minister imagines that the only way Australia can please the Chinese is by insulting the Soviet Union. The Opposition yields to no one in its desire for a sensible and balanced Australian policy towards China. The achievement of such a policy, in the face of hostility and misrepresentation from the Liberals, was one of my chief personal concerns over at least a decade in public life. I have advocated friendship and understanding towards China since I entered this Parliament. Above all I have advocated that Australia recognise China’s central role in the affairs of our region and her rightful claim to a place in the world community. I am glad that the Prime Minister accepts this point of view. But I have never supposed that friendship with China required a wholehearted endorsement of China ‘s foreign policy, any more than friendship with the United States required a wholehearted support of American foreign policy.

If we look back on the Prime Minister’s statements on China we will see how sudden and remarkable his conversion to the cause of SinoAustralia friendship has been. It must be said in fairness to the Prime Minister that he has at least been consistent in one respect- he has always been a hawk about something. His difficulty was to decide which country to be hawkish about. Ten years ago China was the arch-villain, the supreme threat to our way of life. The Prime Minister publicly expressed regret that General Macarthur had not invaded China during the Korean war. In an article in the Australian International News Review in July 1 965 he wrote:

General Macarthur wanted to attack the Chinese bases beyond the Yalu River, but he was not allowed to do so. If he had, it would be very doubtful if North Vietnam would have undertaken her present policy of conquest by subversion of South Vietnam.

Such were the considered judgments of the Australian Prime Minister now seeking friendship and understanding with the most populous nation on earth. In the House on 21 October 1964 he developed a colourful theory about Chinese nuclear blackmail. He said:

What is to prevent the Chinese from sending a merchant ship with a nuclear weapon in it to some harbour? That ship would be tied up at a wharf in that harbour. Then some situation could arise and some city would be under blackmail from Chinese nuclear power. This could happen, I believe, in two or three years.

China’s alleged aggressive intentions continued to dominate the Prime Minister’s thinking for years afterwards. In 1965 he lumped China in with Indonesia as a new kind of double-barrelled Asian menace. In 1971 he was particularly alarmed about my visit to China as Leader of the Opposition. He voiced the same fears about Dr Henry Kissinger’s visit. In the House on 19 August, 1971 he accused me of being ‘the Chinese candidate for the next elections’ and ‘the candidate for the Chinese cause throughout the world’. As late as August 1973 he was still portraying China as the chief obstacle to harmony and progress in the region. He wrote in the Melbourne Herald on 2 August 1 973:

The time has come for China to give some indication that she is prepared to live in peaceful coexistence, to help in establishing a genuine peace in South-East Asia. That cannot be achieved until China calls the dogs off.

Mr Armitage:

– That was not 3 years ago.

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It was less than 3 years ago. He said tonight:

The time has come to expect a sign from the U.S.S.R. that it is serious about reaching global accommodation with the West. A tangible signal is required from the U.S.S.R. in the form of a restraint in its military expansion.

I wish the Prime Minister would decide where these signs and signals should come from. He has had them crossed for too long. What possible gain can there be for Australia in taking sides in the dispute between China and the Soviet Union? Are we to buy into every conflict in the world simply to curry favour with the forthcoming hosts of the Prime Minister? Would the Prime Minister have us take sides in the Lebanon, in Northern Ireland, in Cyprus, in the Middle East, in the cod war? By all means let us take sides if the principles are clear, if humanitarian rights are at stake, if our own interests or security are involved; but not when the facts are flimsy and disputed and more is to be lost than gained from intervention.

The Liberals have been consistently wrong and consistently humiliated on every major issue of foreign policy. They were wrong about China. They were wrong about Suez. They were wrong about Vietnam and they were wrong about the aftermath of Vietnam. What became of the promised ‘bloodbath’ and ‘massacre’ in Vietnam in the event of a Vietcong victory? Even in Cambodia there are signs of a return to order despite the tragic dislocation that followed the fall of the Lon Nol regime. The events of the past 6 years in Cambodia constitute one of the most needless man-made tragedies of our generation. The Liberal and Country parties of Australia contributed to this tragedy by their mindless support for the corrupt Lon Nol regime and their servile encouragement of American and Saigon adventurism, the net effect of which was to widen the war, to lengthen the agony of the Cambodian people and to increase the bitterness of the ultimate victors in Cambodia.

The fearmongers on the Government benches would have us believe that the shattered countries of Indochina still pose some threat to Australia. They never did; they certainly do not now. Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos deserve not hostility and fear but understanding and practical help in rebuilding the ruins we helped to create. The myth that a victorious Hanoi would sweep across non-communist Asia to our doorstep has been exploded by the very country which would be most threatened. Faced with an aggressive, imperialist neighbour, Thailand would surely have called for support from the western allies. She may even have attempted to invoke the South East Asia Collective Defence Treaty. Instead, two successive Thai governments have ordered the removal of virtually all American forces and installations from Thailand. At the official instigation of Thailand and the Philippines, SEATO has been disbanded. Thailand knows that a peaceful South East Asia can be achieved only by the nations of the region solving their problems in co-operative endeavour, free of external interference from whatever source.

The Prime Minister pours scorn on detente, a policy which has been the chief hope of the world and the supreme objective of Western statesmanship for the past S years. To rubbish detente is to forget the major accomplishments of the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks, which froze anti- ballistic missile systems in their infancy and thus avoided potentially massive expenditures and instabilities. It is to ignore the significance of the European Security Conference, including the Soviet concessions on human rights. It is to forget the Vladivostok Accord of 1974, the stabilisation of Berlin over the past 5 years, the elimination of most Soviet jamming of radio broadcasts from the west, the relaxation of restrictions on Jewish emigration from the Soviet

Union, the dramatic reduction of Russia’s strategic and military influence in the Middle East. These are undeniable examples of a decrease in international tension flowing from detente.

Detente has its limits, but the alternatives are unthinkable. Two weeks ago President Giscard d ‘Estaing summed up the attitude of enlightened Western governments to detente in these words:

The only alternative to detente is preparation for conflict . . . Detente assumes a balance of power that is unquestionable.

President Giscard told the United States Congress:

Detente is an open and sincere approach. It requires perseverance … It does not signify in the slightest degree that we are renouncing our system of values or our desire to spread our convictions and preserve our way of life.

This is the concept that the Fraser Government has cast aside. It has declared that the efforts of the Western powers, including the United States, over the past 5 years- all the efforts for peace and disarmament and reconciliation by the Western nations and the signatories to the Helsinki accords, all the progress towards detente -have been futile and dangerous.

The Prime Minister proclaims our alignment with the United States. This Government has no monopoly of goodwill or friendship with the United States. The Labor Government developed a relationship based on frankness and maturity. We welcome our basic alignment with America but we do not believe we must support every American policy around the world. The Fraser Government is not aligning Australia with the United States, as it likes to pretend, but merely with the most strident and militaristic elements in the United States. In attacking the Soviet Union the Fraser Government is antagonising one of the two mightiest powers in the world, and a major trading partner of Australia. In scorning the Third World the Fraser Government is turning its back on the aspirations and needs of a third of the world’s people, including all our neighbours, and Australia’s efforts to reach an understanding with them. The Fraser Government is undoing years of patient and constructive effort by my Government to develop a distinctive and independent voice for Australia. The Fraser Government is returning Australia to everything that was servile, insular and craven in the discredited foreign policies of past Liberal governments.

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · Kooyong · LP

– The speech to which we have just listened can stand as a definitive summary of all that is wrong in the approach of the

Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) to foreign policy. Without becoming too personal and with a tinge of regret may I say that it was as sick in its content as it was in its delivery. Instead of rising to what is a serious occasion he failedand, in terms of his own pretentiousness in this area failed pathetically- to come to terms with the central issues. How ironic it is that he accuses the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and this Government of setting the clock back. What we heard from him was an essentially backward looking speech of self-justification and selfcongratulation. In this as in so many other areas today he is obsessed with the past and cannot come to terms with the present or the future.

The Prime Minister’s speech was denigrated as being one of kicking the communist can. It seems that if one mentions communism one cannot equate it with Soviet power. It seems that the Leader of the Opposition is set on making communism undiscussable. The Leader of the Opposition concluded on the note that this Government was ‘undoing years of patient and constructive effort’ in foreign policy. What was constructive about resources diplomacy? What was constructive about Soviet sovereignty over the Baltic states? What was constructive about slashing aid and relations with Papua New Guinea? What was constructive about tacit or avowed support for Indonesian expansion in Timor? What was constructive about supplementing, putting down, covering up or ignoring security as a basic element in foreign policy? It may well be that the Opposition’s overt support of our near neighbour in her endeavours was constructive but it was basically dishonest. The policies referred to in all those questions I have posed have been over-turned by this Government.

The Leader of the Opposition should not come before the House and preen himself with a speech of constructive themes flowing throughout because his foreign policy was one of veneer which was essentially geared to impress but which lacked any substance. He criticised this Government for being backward looking, for being obsessed about threats, for kicking the communist can- in a cacophony of cliches put together this afternoon by a desperate and futile leader and ironically written before the Prime Minister’s speech was read or delivered. The speech of the Leader of the Opposition had to be amended after he read the Prime Minister’s speech because its constant theme of enlightenment and realism overrode the cliches with which the Leader of the Opposition’s speech was riddled. So much for his acute analysis.

The Leader of the Opposition prides himself on his memory and is fond of quoting other people’s past statements, but it is a very selective memory. Does he remember his own past speeches calling on Australia to provide an asylum for Vietnam refugees? Of course he does not. Does he remember that in the middle of his Government’s extravagant and irresponsible spending he found it necessary to cut aid to our closest neighbour Papua New Guinea? Of course he does not. Does he remember that despite his own fine words about contributing to peace keeping he failed to respond to a request to supply replacement United Nations peace- keeping forces in the Middle East? Of course he does not. If he did he would have to acknowledge that the record of this Government, which he characterises as insensitive, reactionary and unfeeling is in fact infinitely better than his own in each of these respects.

The Prime Minister’s speech dealt with the central issues of foreign policy today. I have mentioned that consistently throughout the speech was the theme of ‘enlightened realism’. It also dealt with central issues of power, national interest and security. The only response to this by the Leader of the Opposition is to dismiss it as being obsessed with threat. This is utterly irresponsible and degrades discussion on foreign policy. He does not deal with substance but merely with appearance. He is blind to all the warning signals and encourages others to share his blindness. Unless the central role of power is acknowledged and its implications accepted, no sense can be made of the complexity of world affairs, and it is here more than anywhere else that the Leader of the Opposition fails as he did in his own conduct of foreign policy. In his speech here tonight and in the one other speech released on foreign policy this year in Townsville a month or so ago the treatment of the 2 super powers is completely inadequate. His treatment of the Soviet Union is totally superficial. In its most recent survey the International Institute for Strategic Studies notes that in the last year ‘the overall perception of the Soviet Union in the West was perhaps the most anxious for many years’. Yet the Leader of the Opposition shares none of this anxiety. For him, to take note of what the Soviet Union is doing and to consider its implications is to ‘insult’ the Soviet Union. We should apparently restrict ourselves to silence or favourable references. This is not the Government’s view, nor, I might add, would it be the Soviet Union’s view when it feels its interests are involved.

The Prime Minister’s speech and our foreign policy statement issued last year described our policy as ‘enlightened realism’. We do not equate realism with selfishness or narrowness of vision. On the contrary, we recognise that generosity and realism often go hand in hand, and this recognition is reflected in the way in which both defence and aid have been essentially exempt from the cuts we have been forced to make in almost every other area. In this context I mention my recent visit to Nairobi for the opening week of the fourth United Nations Conference on Trade and Development- UNCTAD IV. I was struck there by the growing anxiety of developing countries that greater progress be made towards the realisation of a new international economic order endorsed again tonight in the Prime Minister’s speech. We cannot allow the frustrations and the polarisations between the developing and the developed world to occur- this is recognised in the Government’s outline tonight- neither on the grounds of humanitarian interest nor indeed on the grounds of self-interest. We are able to reconcile these.

Later this month the Prime Minister and I shall be visiting Japan and China. As the Prime Minister has stressed, each of these countries, in its different way, plays a major role in our foreign policy. In the case of Japan, the task we face is to strengthen and deepen the relationship we already have, to develop political and cultural understanding commensurate with the economic interdependence which already exists. Japan’s key role in Asian and Pacific affairs is a reminder, if one is needed, that when we speak of power we are speaking not only of military strength but also of industrial vitality, social energy and commercial enterprise. Japan is not only our major trading partner, but it is also the major trading partner of the countries of South East Asia. It has an interest in the stability and development of the region, as have the countries of the region and as we ourselves have. It is this and not merely our bilateral economic relations which provides the basis for an expanding relationship.

So far as China is concerned, we are in no way defensive about the fact that we are now approaching that country in different terms from those which prevailed a few years ago. We would be remiss if we were not. The international situation has changed. China’s position has changed in important respects. Our position has changed. Why was the Leader of the Opposition denigrated in performance by the Chinese leadership? Why was it? What went wrong? After the initial euphoria things cooled off very rapidly. In the last year of his Government,

China was hardly mentioned. I venture to say that what happened was that the Chinese discovered that they were not dealing with a serious man. Again, it comes back to a recognition of the centrality of power. While they were keeping their eyes steadily fixed on the power realities of the region, concerned about the imperative need to maintain a balance, he was concerned with other things- with ushering the Americans out, with denying the relevance of military and political factors, with posture and reputation. That is why they lost interest in him. It is only in recent months that Chinese interest in Australia has been renewed, and it has been reciprocated.

I have already spoken at length in this House this year and outside the House about the Association of South East Asian Nations, South East Asia and Timor and I will not be reiterating that tonight.

Mr Young:

– Good.

Mr PEACOCK:

-I want to turn to the tensions and conflicts which have troubled the Indian sub-continent.

Mr Young:

– I would rather hear you telling us about your role in Vietnam. Instead of being a fraud, tell us about your role in Vietnam.

Mr PEACOCK:

-You ought to say ‘good’ because each time I mention what has transpired in Timor it is a constant reminder of the hypocrisy, the deceit and the avowed evasion of truth of your Government in power. Well may you say ‘good’, but I ignore it tonight because you know that had you occupied a position that you sought in the Cabinet you would be cowering as so many previous Ministers of your Government are under the hypocrisy -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Foreign Minister will address the Chair and will not address another member directly.

Mr PEACOCK:

-Mr Speaker, I was merely referring with relevance to an interjection which came in and somewhat rebounded on the man who interjected, but I take your point. I was turning to the tensions and conflicts which have troubled the Indian sub-continent since independence and which have come to absorb so much of its energies and to cause it to assume a rather self-absorbed, closed character. I do not want to overstate it, but it has been a great loss to the international community. We now strongly welcome the indications of a positive movement in the Indian sub-continent towards the improvement of relations among the countries of South Asia. In particular, we regard the recent rapprochement between India and Pakistan as not only a major achievement in itself but also as a sign of a new phase in the affairs of the subcontinent. The India-Pakistan agreement followed the earlier rapprochement between Pakistan and Bangladesh and has itself been followed by an announcement that the President of Afghanistan and the Prime Minister of Pakistan intend to hold summit talks to attempt to resolve the border tensions which have strained relations between the 2 countries.

It was my intention tonight to deal in some detail with our attitude to southern Africa. There will be other occasions to do so. May I say succinctly that our policy towards southern Africa involves, first, supporting both the ending of white minority rule and the protection of white minority rights. Secondly, Australia is concerned that the conflicts in the region shall be resolved by political compromise without the resort to force and the shedding of blood. Thirdly, we are concerned that the process by which a settlement is advanced should not involve the installation of a major power as a dominating influence in the region. So long as Southern Africa is seen in terms of a rigid and simple polarisation between black and white it is difficult to see how such goals as I aspire to can be achieved. Yet we have heard nothing on this from the Leader of the Opposition tonight- nothing at all of the problems facing the world today. It is almost as though he is encompassed by an illiteracy which prevents him analysing with accuracy what has transpired in the world. We expect an analysis of the Government’s program as it is.

We expect a dissection of a program put forward by the Prime Minister as propounded by him tonight and not on the basis of what was thought to be propounded through newspaper reports. On each count the Leader of the Opposition failed. Neither is he viewing the world as it is; neither was he analysing the speech as it was delivered. As I said, that cacophony of cliches which was delivered by the Leader of the Opposition did him no justice. It further emphasised the pitiable performance of his party in power. It further emphasised the broken man in leading a broken party and not recognising the realities of the world today.

The Australian people will respond positively to the speech of the Prime Minister. Not only was it accurate in its assessment, but in the aspirations it called forth it was not merely realistic but forward looking. The Opposition has come up with nothing in comparison tonight. The affairs of the Middle East, Southern Africa, the Indian Ocean or our own affairs in regions closer to us were not touched upon by the Leader of the Opposition. A poor substitute to a program -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

-Apart from ignoring the more controversial and less well thought out parts of the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), which of course was most of his speech, the theme of the speech of the Foreign Minister (Mr Peacock) seemed to be enlightened realism. I racked my mind trying to work out what would be an appropriate definition for enlightened realism coming from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and I concluded it would probably be a dark hair rinse at early middle age. We now see that the foreign policy of the Fraser Government is characterised by a return to the kind of client relationship which existed with the United States of America before Prime Minister Gorton came to power; that is, at the height of the Vietnam war. It is characterised by a return to the narrow perception of Australia’s role in the world which caused many other nations to doubt whether Australia was truly independent.

In a sense both the Gorton and McMahon Governments played more positive roles than the present Government in attempting to give Australia an independent image. In the context of the debate on the Indian Ocean, for example, Mr Freeth in August 1969 warned Australians not to panic at the sight of an occasional Soviet warship in waters near Australia. In making this statement Australia seemed to be attempting to make a contribution to the growing spirit of detente; that is, the Government was making some effort to acclimatise the public to a new situation, an era of negotiation designed to reduce the tensions which existed in the world. This indeed was the spirit of the foreign policy under the Labor Administration. At that time Australia sought to establish a truly independent identity and to mould the client relationship with the United States into the kind of partnership that would win more respect from our American friends. Labor’s foreign policy was to concentrate greater attention on the causes of tension and to seek ways in which these problems might be tackled- hence Labor support for the zone of peace proposal, for international efforts to control the spreading of nuclear weapons and for greater efforts directed at tackling the problem of underdevelopment in which lie the root cause of insecurity and political instability.

In a sense the Fraser Government’s foreign policy is a return to a concept of defence before diplomacy. The Government has irresponsibly stimulated public anxiety at the possibility that Australia is about to be threatened by some outside power- in this case the Soviet Union. The Government has irresponsibly exploited statements made by American leaders for domestic electioneering purposes in support of an alarmist policy completely out of keeping with the real politik in which the highly sensitive relationship between the United States, the Soviet Union and China is based. What must be recognised is that the questioning of detente needs to be looked at in the perspective of the American presidential election campaign, and continuing efforts by the Department of Defence, particularly the navy section, to present a case for a substantial increase in expenditures. We would find that beneath the surface the American leaders are convinced that there is no alternative to detente, which simply means efforts towards the relaxation of tensions between the super powers. The alternative is a return to the cold war.

Detente is a very sensitive process in which the United States requires the support of nations like Australia. While there is an obvious need for continuing surveillance to be carried out over Australian waters and the adjacent region, to create public concern that Australia is suddenly confronted with a threat from the Soviet Union or any other power serves only as a contribution to the undermining of efforts of reasonable men in all great powers to bring about a genuine relaxation of tensions and progress towards a better relationship between those powers in a position to threaten the security of our globe. No service has been done international relations or the foreign relations of Australia by the outlandish way in which the Prime Minister has condemned detente. Even more, no positive alternative has been put forward by him. Detente is nothing more than a proposal for simmering down. Mr Kissinger, the Secretary of State for foreign relations in the United States has pointed out that it is a complex and difficult road for the progress will be uneven of necessity. But the fact is that detente represents a more positive contribution moving towards achieving harmonisation of international relations than anything that has been proposed as an alternative to this point.

No alternative has been put forward by the Prime Minister. What is particularly disturbing about a prime ministerial statement on foreign affairs is that so much of the assertion should be based on exaggeration and shaky evidence. For instance, the mention in passing of the implicit threat in the array of Warsaw Pact forces in

Europe is based, I believe, very much on a report attributed to Lord Chalfont in the London Times of some few months ago- a report which has been rejected out of hand by the West German Foreign Minister who suggested rather lightly that the only way in which such progress by the Warsaw Pact countries as an incursion into Western Europe could take place would be for the West Germans to provide traffic policemen, and by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces themselves.

The Prime Minister is on shaky ground on page 10 of his statement where he poses a number of rhetorical questions. He asked: ‘While the NATO powers’ capabilities remain comparatively static, why is the Soviet arms build-up proceeding apace? It is reasonable to ask: Why does the Soviet Union desire a military power far greater titan any needed to secure her own frontiers, or the expanded frontiers embraced by the Warsaw powers?’

Mr Henry Kissinger, in his speech to the World Affairs Council in Dallas on 22 March this year, in dealing with missile forces, stated:

Soviet missile forces today are somewhat larger in number and considerably heavier in throw-weight, while ours are superior in reliability, accuracy, diversity and sophistication. We possess far larger numbers of warheads- 8500 to their 2500- and we have several hundred more strategic bombers.

On the Soviet army deployment he said:

There is nothing new about the size of the Soviet army. During the enure post-war period, the Soviet standing army has always been larger than ours; at times it has been 3 times the size. The Soviet Union has a much greater land mass to defend, and perceives major defence problems both in Eastern Europe and on the Asian front, where nearly half of the Soviet army is now stationed.

There can be no justification for the efforts of the Prime Minister to inject emotional fears into the community by falsely representing the situation. On page 8 of his statement he makes some rather exaggerated claims about the force of the Soviet Navy. A recent publication by the Brookings Institution, The Control of Naval Armaments points out how fallacious that assertion is. It states:

According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, there are 475 000 people in the Soviet Navy. This figure includes 75 000 in the naval air arm and another 17 000 in the naval infantry. At the end of 1974 the authorised strength of the American Navy was approximately 540000. To this figure should be added roughly 190 000 people in the Marine Corps and 35 000 in the Coast Guard, since functionally equivalent units are included in the Soviet total. Thus, United States naval forces may be as much as 60 per cent larger than their Soviet conterparts

The same report points out at page 23:

There were slightly more than 500 ships in me active United States inventory in 1974 that displaced between 5 million and 6 million tons, whereas there were approximately 2000 ships in the Soviet inventory that were unlikely to displace as much as 3 million tons.

The significance of that is that the average displacement per ship in the United States Navy is between 10 000 tons and 12 000 tons, whereas in the Soviet Navy it is only about 1500 tons. The Prime Minister has indulged in gross misrepresentation and exaggeration. The facts are that on pound for pound slugging basis the American Navy is able well and truly to outgun the Soviet Navy. The Dyason House Papers state as follows: … the United States Navy, for example, will build more ship than it scraps between now and 1980; its surface fleet will be about 13 per cent larger than it is now; the submarine fleet will remain about the same size, but the remaining diesel boats will be replaced by nuclear-powered ones. By contrast the Soviet surface fleet numbers will go down about 10 per cent, and submarines by about 20 per cent to just under 200 (compared with over 450 in 1958). Of course the new ships will be more formidable than those they replace; but the Soviets will have better and fewer, the United States better and more.

Let me move on to the situation in the Indian Ocean. It is quite clear that the Government is endeavouring to drum up unnecessary fears, to trundle the cold war and the international arms escalation to our own shores. An answer given by the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) in April this year indicated, as was pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) a few moments ago, a fairly steady Soviet naval presence in the Indean Ocean- between 17 and 19 ships is scarcely a formidable armada of naval ships- over the past 4 years. But in case the Minister for Defence is not regarded as a terribly reliable or influential source of information of that sort, and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister is now trying to distort the situation, let me. quote from the evidence given by Mr Colby to the United States Senate. I shall quote from the Congressional Record of 22 March. On the Indian Ocean situation he says:

The forces the Soviets have deployed in the Indian Ocean, however, have been relatively small and inactive.

The vessles have spent 80 per cent of their time at anchor or in port visits, mostly in the northwestern portion of the ocean.

It is clear from his testimony and from the discussion in the United States Senate that the role of the Soviet fleet has been an extension of foreign policy influence and in no way has been developed as some sort of military incursion on an escalating basis. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, if there were escalation of a Soviet presence in the Indian Ocean it would cause as much alarm for the Opposition as for any other body in the community. What causes us the great alarm at the moment is the way in which the Government is reprehensibly prepared to distort, magnify and totally misrepresent the Soviet presence in the Indian Ocean in an effort to create a quite irrational fever of concern in the community and to distort the possibilities of developing detente internationally and maintaining some sort of sensible relationship in the areas near this country. The fact is that the Soviet build-ups, on the few occasions that they have occurred, have been a reaction to a build-up by Western powers. In 197 1, after the India-Pakistan war, following the deployment of the U.S.S. Enterprise which carries 60 planes with a radius of action of 700 miles each, and in 1973, following the Arab-Israeli war, responding again to the unanticipated diversion of a U.S. carrier task group force.

All indications were that Moscow was chiefly responding to deployments by the United States and other western countries, specifically Britain, rather than initiating a unilateral build up.

That is a quote from Mr Colby’s evidence, in case someone wishes to question the objectivity of it. The fact is that at any given time the naval presence of Britain and France exceeds that of the Soviet, and more often than enough the naval presence of France alone exceeds that of the Soviet Navy.

What has not been understood- and it is perplexing that this very simple fact has not been addressed by the Government- concerns the extremely difficult strategic position of the Soviet trying to operate a combat unit in the Indian Ocean and especially the difficulties of maintaining attenuated supply lines. The fleet has to come from one of three sources: From the Pacific base at Vladivostok through the Malacca or Sunda Straits, which are possibly the most indefensible routes in the world; from the Black Sea, possibly through the Suez Canal, which again is a prime target; or from the Baltic, either through the Suez or round the Cape of Good Hope, in either case presenting prime targets to any opponent. The fact of the situation is that the presence of the Soviet fleet in the Indian Ocean has been grossly distorted. I think one ought to quote the assessment of Mr Colby in that testimony to which I referred earlier. He said: … if there is some particular American increase, that the Soviets will increase that gradually to match any substantial additional American involvement. So that it would really depend on the size of the investment and the forces that we arrange to be there. If we put in a permanent establishment of some size, why they would correspondingly increase to some substantial degree.

The fact is that the Government never gave the concept of the zone of neutrality in the Indian Ocean a chance. From the day it assumed office it resorted to nervous rhetoric in an effort to destroy the undertakings in the United States of America to bring about some mutual restrictions between the United States of America and India. What this statement represents is a return to the stormy emotions and social divisiveness generated by foreign affairs and defence debates in the 1960s.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Debate (on motion by Mr Donald Cameron) adjourned.

page 2753

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received a message from the Senate intimating that it agrees with the Commonwealth Parliament’s participation in the Constitutional Convention.

page 2753

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

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

Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Amendment Bill 1976.

Stevedoring Industry Charge Amendment Bill1976.

page 2753

STATES GRANTS (AIR QUALITY MONITORING) BILL1976

Second Reading

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

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr UREN:
Reid

-Assistance to the States under this Bill- the States Grants (Air Quality Monitoring) Bill 1976- comes under the national air monitoring program instituted by the Whitlam Labor Government That program gives the Commonwealth an important role to play in the field of air pollution, not only by way of co-ordination and co-operation with the States but also as a solid supporter of monitoring and by conducting other research in its own right. Although the present Government has so far continued the national air monitoring program through this Bill, and while the then Acting Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr MacKellar) indicated his personal support for improved air quality monitoring in his second reading speech, what does the future hold for this program? The events of the last 6 months make me doubt whether the Government will give environmental matters the high priority they deserve, particularly when public health and safety is involved, let alone the protection of our national heritage.

Last week’s decision to allow the Concorde to fly to and from Australia without preparation of a final environmental impact statement is just one reason why I doubt the Government’s intentions. The way in which the Fraser Government abolished large numbers of positions in the former Department of the Environment when it was made a part of the new Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development is another. The failure of the Government to appoint commissioners to the Heritage Commission and giving it very little financial muscle, the low priority it has given to the preservation of the national estate as witnessed by the Budget measures announced 10 days ago and its failure to appropriate any money for the National Parks and Wildlife Service in the supply Bills last week are just some reasons why all Australians must doubt this Government’s integrity on environmental issues.

It should be made clear that this Bill provides for what was intended to be the first allocation of moneys to the States for the purchase of monitoring equipment. Although conservative governments governed for 23 years prior to 1972, no steps were taken by those governments in this field. It was only when the Labor Party came to power that this action was taken in co-operation with the States. The Labor Government intended to assist the States to improve air quality monitoring over a 4 year period, not just one. The Acting Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development did not indicate whether his Government intends to extend this program over the 4 year period. Perhaps the current Acting Minister will inform the House and the people whether this Government will give a long term commitment to this program.

Automatic monitoring equipment is exceedingly expensive. A single van of instruments costs up to $80,000. Apart from having mobile stations it is essential that a series of other monitoring stations be established in each city for a satisfactory overall picture to be obtained. In view of these requirements a single grant of $33,333 from the federal Government to each State will not be particularly helpful unless the States receive further money, or unless increased funds are made available in the future. This is why the Government should state unequivocally its intention both to continue and to increase funding under this program in the future.

Air pollution affects public health and it is the responsibility of governments to rectify the current situation and to prevent it from happening again in the future. We have let the car dominate our cities and our everyday existence. It was not planned to happen this way, but it happened and that is a fact of life. It happened because we have ignored the consequences of the motor car and the unplanned development of industry in our cities. The quality of air, the level of noise, the safety of people and the environment are threatened. Our cities today are a mess for these and other reasons. The problems of our cities are complex. To lessen the effect caused by man’s impact on the environment we must face up to the need for complex solutions. Simple solutions are achieved only by ignoring the interconnections of all areas of human endeavour and the environment. There is no simple solution to improving the quality of our air. This is a complex problem, a problem which needs not only research into the type of pollutants in the air of our cities- research that will enable us to rectify the results of the past- but also research that will lead to better situated urban development in the future.

I wonder whether Sydney would have been developed in the way it has been if the data now available had been known when that city region was first being developed. Existing data shows that the Sydney basin is the most seriously affected region in Australia in terms of photochemical smog. There is a simple reason for this- a reason not linked just to the amount of industry and the size of the city but a reason which is based on the nature of the Sydney basin itself. There is a broad and shallow stream of extremely stable air which flows eastwards from the Blue Mountains on most nights, particularly in the months of autumn and winter. This stream of air accumulates the air pollutants emitted near the ground level as it moves through and carries it back over the densely populated suburbs to the sea. It sweeps down from the industrial areas, particularly those surrounding the suburban areas of Parramatta, parts of which I represented for years and parts of which I still represent. I am speaking of areas such as Parramatta, Clyde, Camellia, Granville, Rydalmere and Silverwater. These pollutants sweep down over probably one of the most beautiful valleys in the whole of this nation- the Parramatta Valley- and they finish up over the central business district of Sydney. These pollutants create a photo-chemical smog over the city. The pollutants of greatest concern in these circumstances are sulphur dioxide and smoke. In fact, one factory alone in the Camellia area- the Shell oil refinery at Clyde- was emitting 35 tons of sulphur dioxide every day and 2 tons of alumina. The pollutants from this area sweep down through the Parramatta valley and over the central business district of Sydney.

The air pollution problem of Sydney, particularly the western half, has been caused by the intensity of emissions from stationary and mobile sources compounded by topographical, meteorological and climatic characteristics of the area. The high frequency and persistence of low level temperature inversions maximise the impact of air pollution from ground level sources in that area. If the movement of air in the region due to these naturally occurring characteristics had been known before the city was developed perhaps the development of the industrial estates and the intensity of population in the western regions of Sydney would not have occurred. This is just one example; undoubtedly there are others throughput the country. Canberra itself is one example where data dealing with the movement of air could have, if it had been available, alleviated many of the problems caused by air pollution in our urban centres today.

I feel that the air quality monitoring program is only a beginning. There is much more than the Federal and State governments can do about air pollution than just monitoring. We should not become self-congratulatory about this assistance because monitoring only demonstrates the problem; it does not reduce it. The Government should not fall into the trap of believing that it is doing something about pollution merely because it is measuring it. Positive steps must be taken to alleviate air pollution both by realistic legislation and by encouraging industry and town planners to take a more responsible attitude in the future.

I have already spoken of the great potential for modelling studies as part of the national air quality monitoring program- modelling studies that are essential for small growing cities and new cities so that the same mistakes in capital city planning will not be repeated elsewhere. Modelling studies need to be done on Canberra. Canberra is a city which faces the likelihood of continuous growth and relatively poor public transport. Canberra could become the Los Angeles of tomorrow with its frequent stable inversion layers and infrequent winds. Yet Canberra receives no grant from this Bill. I might say that if the Federal Treasury has its way the motor car will be relied on more and more by the people of Canberra. Public transport will be starved of funds and to a certain extent this city could become a type of Los Angeles because of the over-use of the motor car. Obviously this cannot happen because of the nature of this Bill, but by the. same token, this Government could and should be conducting modelling studies in the Australian Capital Territory and the surrounding region now.

One obvious area where industry could take positive steps in conjunction with the Government is the motor vehicle industry. An obvious avenue is to go for prevention rather than cure in the case of motor vehicle exhausts. Pollution caused by motor vehicle emissions is the main cause of the fast worsening photo-chemical smogs in our major cities. Admittedly we will shortly have new rules governing the level of exhaust emission from motor vehicles in this country; but this is the cure, it is not the prevention. Australian motor vehicle manufacturers and the Government, through its motor vehicle policy, now have a golden opportunity to introduce the philosophy of prevention. This approach is particularly relevant at a time when a number of motor vehicle manufacturers are considering building a 4-cylinder engine in Australia.

Pollution has been documented in California and elsewhere since the 1940s, yet the major United States car manufacturers have persisted with their huge, inefficient, old-fashioned engines. In the face of increasingly stringent exhaust legislation, which those same companies tried to oppose vigorously, they have attached expensive, clumsy, shortlived and self-polluting gadgetries like catalytic converters to their ancient engines. They did not try to change the engine design itself. In the short term the same United States-owned manufacturers in Australia will use the same techniques to control vehicle exhaust pollution. They will do so in the long term as well unless the Government is very careful about the future of 4-cylinder engine manufacture in this country. If the Government makes the right choice then the majority of our future 4- cylinder engines will be Japanese, not American, in origin. Some Japanese makers, notably Honda and Mazda, have made great strides in improving engines from the inside. These companies, as well as several European manufacturers, have recognised their responsibilities to the community as manufacturers. They have taken positive steps to develop technology for the needs of the people.

The Federal Government is now in a position to encourage this type of technology in this country by ensuring that nothing but the best new engines available are produced in Australia. If the Government takes the right decision with regard to motor manufacturing in this country and if it continues to support the spirit of this legislation, in the future air pollution in this country can be brought back to a satisfactory level. It is for these reasons that the Opposition supports the Bill which, I say again, is a proposal which was first put forward by a Labor government seeking the co-operation of the States. I commend this Bill to the House because it reflects a spirit of co-operation in which the Australian Government and the State governments will be working together in the interests of the people.

Mr SIMON:
McMillan

-In the terms of this Bill we are concerned with air quality monitoring- the measurement and observation of pollution and of contaminants in the outdoor atmosphere. The twin problems facing humanity today are population and pollution. One hundred years ago nobody could have foreseen the pattern of environmental crisis which was to develop in our society as we became industrialised. In Australia today we see the manifestation of that crisis in many areas. For example, the Australian Advisory Committee on the Environment, in its report on the environmental effects of supersonic transport aircraft, added a proviso to the recommendation that the Government should not prohibit the operations of Concorde in terms of the necessity to have continuous and extensive monitoring of the stratosphere. Another example is the yet to be resolved problem of the storage of radioactive material and other waste products, some of which remain toxic for thousands of years, generated by use of uranium and nuclear power as an energy source.

The most powerful agent of change is man. Have we, in Australia yet grasped the enormity of the consequences which flow from our development and so-called progress? There are people in our community, including members of all political parties and indeed members of the Australian Conservation Council, who are genuinely concerned with the environmental impact of our actions. In Australia, economic and physical factors have tended to dominate urban planning almost to the exclusion of other factors such as environmental, cultural and social aspects. Situations continue to arise where environmental considerations conflict with economic and physical goals. It is generally agreed that, in the past, environmental and, to a lesser extent, social aspects have received inadequate attention in urban planning. One of the primary requirements for a healthy life is unpolluted air. All governments now seek to preserve or enhance air or water quality. The Bill that is now before the House will assist in that process.

The impact of air pollution is an important part of the perception of quality of life. It is a fact that in the past very little attention has been given to avoidance of air pollution impact in planning Australian cities. There is an urgent need to learn more about the quantity and character of air pollution in our urban centres so that appropriate planning and design arrangements can be made for expanding existing cities, developing new growth areas and consolidating existing regional centres. To date, government has only been concerned about pollution when it exists rather than before the problem arises. We clean up after we have fouled up. As a result of this general lack of planning, all levels of government have been forced to introduce legislation and emission controls to counteract the serious pollution problems which now exist in our larger cities.

We need to develop strategies for the eduction of urban air pollution through urban planning and traffic management initiatives. Such initiatives are increasingly important instruments in the reduction of air pollution in urban areas, particularly since emission controls are becoming increasingly costly to implement and administer. All State and local governments and planning instrumentalities need to take maximum account of meteorological factors and potential for air pollution in siting urban areas and industrial complexes. The Commonwealth Government has direct responsibility with regard to defence, industry, growth centres, housing, transport infrastructure and offices, to name a few.

We should respect the fragility of certain water and atmospheric environments and should ensure a thorough environmental appraisal before taking firm decisions on policies and strategies for industrial location. In the case of Sydney especially, with respect to further growth to the west towards the Blue Mountains, there is growing concern that this planning must take note of meteorological conditions and experience of air pollution, otherwise the areas could become a huge smog basin in the future. Aside from location decisions, there is a need to place much greater emphasis on transport planning which is tailored to the reduction in the use of private vehicles by organising work, recreation and living areas so that public transport becomes more attractive than the car. We can go further and so plan our urban environment to encourage pedestrian movement and the use of nonmotorised nonmotorised transport. The increasing cost of transport and the exhaustion of fossil fuels should force us to consider the alternative systems and strategies which can satisfy transport needs in the future. The unfortunate byproduct of present systems is the widespread pollution of larger cities by photo-chemical smog and in the congested areas by carbon monoxide. Both of these pollutants occur at concentrations significantly greater than those recognised as acceptable by the World Health Organisation. I must re-emphasise that measures to control these hazards are costly and contentious. In support of air quality monitoring I should add that we will not be able to decide rationally on the degree of control which can be economically justified unless we have good documentation of the pollution concentrates and trends

In the longer term we must consider the need for alternative liquid fuels to supplement or replace oil in transport applications. There are good prospects for producing an oil substitute from the brown and black coal deposits with which this country is well provided. Experience overseas has shown that such processes are expensive in any case and pose great problems in control of pollution of air and water. If the oil refineries of today are to be supplemented in future by solid to liquid fuel conversion plants we must ensure a widespread understanding of the conditions under which such plants can be acceptable to urban and rural communities. The problems of urbanisation in the Hunter or Latrobe Valleys adjacent to the major fuel resources of this country will be, in part, those of maintaining acceptable levels of air pollution. If these problems are to be foreseen and dealt with at the appropriate time the various State authorities must have the facilities to focus their attention beyond the existing urban air pollution problems which at present consume all their resources for monitoring and analysis. This requirement demands support from the Commonwealth.

To establish appropriate procedures, standards, design and planning practices for the reduction of urban air pollution and its impact it is important not only to extend and intensify the measurement of the key parameters of air pollution but also to improve the understanding of precisely how each pollutant affects human beings, what the effects of their interactions are, at what levels their presence becomes harmful and how much damage from pollution is considered acceptable. The Commonwealth Government has become directly involved in the global environment monitoring system of the United Nations to develop a means of monitoring trends in global air pollution. As a result of the Governing Council of the United Nations Environmental Program in 1973, a baseline air pollution monitoring station is being developed by the Commonwealth in southern Tasmania. This will be one of only ten or twelve similar key stations to be built by other participating countries around the globe. It will be capable of measuring minute changes in certain atmospheric components with extremely high precision and sensitivity.

In addition to participating in the United Nations program the Commonwealth Government is continuing to co-ordinate monitoring being carried out throughout Australian capital cities to study photochemical smog problems as a result of Australian initiatives in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development during recent years. Under the national air monitoring program of this Government we are introducing 3 modern and highly automated mobile monitoring units which will take part in joint projects with State governments to develop comparative air pollution monitoring technologies. This will greatly enhance the quality of the information urgently required by air pollution control authorities not only in Australia but also in the other OECD countries participating in international photochemical air pollution studies at the present time.

Over the last few years the Environment Committee of OECD has pioneered an international effort on policies for the control of the rapidly developing problem of photochemical oxident air pollution. These harmful oxidants are not themselves emitted from pollution sources but are formed by reactions between substances in the atmosphere. In common with a few other cities in OECD countries the problems of photochemical air pollution developed surprisingly quickly in Sydney in the early 1970s, followed by its occurrence to varying degrees in other major Australian cities. The early prominence of this type of pollution in Australian urban areas stimulated the Commonwealth and State governments to take a lead role in the OECD program. The benefits derived from information exchanges between affected countries and the conclusions developed have been invaluable to Australia in formulating and implementing control strategies.

Australia will continue to support the ongoing work of the OECD on evaluation of policy options for control of photochemical air pollution. The funds appropriated by the Commonwealth pursuant to this Bill to purchase mobile monitoring units will provide equipment to measure the major photochemical pollutants. These units will generate data comparable between different urban and regional areas, thereby maximising the resources upon which future policy conclusions can be based. In my view air pollution in our major cities is a problem that requires a multi-policy approach for its complete solution. This must involve co-operation by all governments.

The Australian Environment Council has recognised this need for co-operation in preparing the national air monitoring program in which agreement has been reached for participation by all State governments. This truly is a remarkable achievement. More importantly, the program recognises our most important need in dealing with the air pollution problem- the absolute necessity to find out more about the problem through a co-ordinated monitoring venture. I stress that such knowledge is a pre-requisite to sound decision-making by government, particularly on locational questions for future urban and industrial settlement. Planning to avoid pollution problems now is the only long term solution to higher pollution control costs later. In this debate we are considering one of the major environmental problems of this century- pollution. It may be appropriate to conclude my remarks by referring to one of the objectives of the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements, the Habitat Conference being held in Vancouver at the present time. I quote:

To increase public awareness of some of the gigantic and universal problems with which man is confronted, of the solutions which are available to many of these problems and of the consequences which the absence of decisive and rapid solutions may have for the future of mankind.

This Bill demonstrates this Government’s awareness and I commend it to the House.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

– I want to make only a few brief remarks because clearly no one is in disagreement about this Bill. I am pleased to see it brought forward because it represents an initiative started while I was Minister for the Environment in the last Labor Government. Most of the technical arguments have been put and I simply want to make the point that this Bill is only the beginning.

I seize upon a remark made by the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Simon). He mentioned that the major problems are population and pollution. I beg to differ. I think the problem is population. One could say, in a way, that there is no such thing as pollution. What we call pollution is simply the end product of a particular process which if there is not too high a concentration simply becomes the beginning of the next process of the cycle. What creates the problem is population demands or the demands of our growing populations in ever-increasing concentrations. This creates, in the end product of its metabolism, if you like, the things we see as pollution because they cannot be dissipated or absorbed by the environment. The importance about air pollution is not that it is the most important facet of this problem but that it is probably the most easily recognised by most people. I refer to the oppressive atmosphere in cities. No one quite knows what it is about until he or she gets out into the fresh air of the country. Then people recognise that air pollution is the problem in cities. This is the reason, clearly; why we all seize upon it.

We have not led the way. The States have been doing this in their own particular ways. The virtue of this legislation is, hopefully, to bring about a co-ordinated approach and compatibility of data so that we can make meaningful comparisons, one with the other, and therefore decide areas of priority and so on. I conclude, because I think there is no point in continuing the debate, by trying to emphasise that this is only the beginning. In this sort of area it is not a question of States rights or the new federalism. Pollution of this type does not recognise city boundaries or State boundaries. The sort of demands that we will have in order to cure the sort of pollution we are now concerned with extends to every other facet of human activity. If we are to cope with it we need not only a national program but also an international program. As the honourable member for McMillan pointed out, we are involved in this international project- an international pollution monitoring program. In fact when we were in Government we were contemplating the establishment of an air monitoring station, probably in Tasmania, for the collection of world data in an area where, hopefully, there is minimal or no pollution. I hope that this Government pursues what we initiated.

In conclusion, we all support this legislation. We need to recognise that it is important because it is in this area where most people first see pollution. It occurs in cities where most people live. It is not because it is the most important but because it is most easily observed by people. If we succeed in getting data to show what we are doing to our environment then hopefully it will be easier to proceed to the next steps and deal with other aspects of what we like to call pollution but which really is an abuse of the basic biological life cycle. That is what we need to understand if we are going to survive for much longer on this planet.

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for Repatriation · Bass · LP

– I welcome the support that the Opposition has given to the Bill. I welcome the contribution made by the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Simon). I am prompted to comment on one aspect of the debate, namely, a curious characteristic of the Australian Labor Party as manifested by the speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Uren). It is a characteristic that appeared in his speech very vividly. It seems to me that members of the Australian Labor Party claim that they are the only ones who have an option on a social conscience; that they are the only ones who would make a contribution to the welfare of our community and the way we live in Australia. For heaven’s sake, they should look at some of the initiatives the Government has taken already in the short time it has been in office. For example, the family allowances should be enough for people to see through these false claims by members of the Opposition. The Bill we are putting through tonight shows our concern for one aspect of the way of life in Australian cities and throughout the rest of the country. All the Government has to say on this matter was said’ in the second reading speech of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar), who at the time was Acting Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development.

I would seize on one comment by the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass). Responsibilities in these matters lie principally in the States and it is our intention to strengthen the co-operation that already exists between the States and the Commonwealth. We will seek to co-ordinate the activities of the States so that the effect of this Bill will be that we have a better measurement of the pollution that affects the countryside.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2758

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION AMENDMENT BILL

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I will take only a few moments of the Committee’s time at this stage of the evening to respond to the very severe and unjust misrepresentation of my amendment by the honourable member for Port

Adelaide (Mr Young). Quite obviously he did not understand the amendment. I move to respond to him because he suggested that our proposition was that greater employment could be secured if wages were reduced. In his own words, he thought that we said that by this amendment a reduction in wages would enable employment to be increased. It was precisely against that proposition that the amendment was moved. Unfortunately the honourable member for Port Adelaide has not been able to get his mind out of 19th century experience. Obviously he does not understand the amendment, he does not understand the import of the clause and he does not understand the circumstances against which the amendment is directed.

I am delighted that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) is willing to consider the substance of the amendment and to consider the nature of this clause and the argument proposed in support of my amendment when an amendment to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act is to be introduced into this chamber later this year. I want to deal for a few moments with what the honourable member for Port Adelaide said. We have never claimed that the way to increase employment is to reduce wages.

Mr Baillieu:

– We never said that.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Of course not. He tried to transfer the argument to one concerning indexation and said that the Government was against wage indexation. I remind him that wage indexation, to which the Opposition is so firmly committed and which I have supported, is a short term measure but an inadequate long term wages policy. Over the 23 years that the Liberal and Country Parties were in government prior to December 1972 wages increased by more than the consumer price index. Wages increased to reflect productivity and increases in the export price index as well as the consumer price index. It ought to be realised that the new wages policy to which the honourable member for Port Adelaide, misunderstanding what was proposed by the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron), is committed is one which at the most would only seek to maintain living standards. That is the highest aim towards which his policy is directed. We regard indexation as a short term wages measure which, when the economy gets into a position of some equilibrium we will abandon in favour of a scheme which increases real household income and increases the value of real wages. Really long term policies on indexation do not come to that position. Honourable members opposite ought to realise that, and Australia ought to be grateful that over the 23 years the Liberal and Country Parties were in government previously increases in wages and household income were greater than would have been obtained by a policy of wage indexation. The honourable member for Port Adelaide tried to shove some of his own superstitions on us. He ought to discard his superstitions into a dustbin of his own hopes. The honourable member for Port Adelaide aspires to the leadership of his own Party, but he does not have the mental capacity or the perspicacity to fill that position. He is a long way from it.

I thank the Minister for his consideration of my amendment. I believe it will be considered later this year when he introduces amendments to the Act. The sense and spirit of the amendment will be considered very sincerely. Of course I will be here to watch it. I say in response to the honourable member for Port Adelaide and the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) that we only hope that what they see as their essential long term wages policies are not put into effect in Australia. We will see that wages are increased beyond what their policies will bring. If the economy has a decent rate of economic growth and a decent rate of growth in real output per person, rising standards of living will be maintained. The proposition of honourable members opposite does not even allow that to occur.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

– It was interesting to hear the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns), one of the leading spokesmen in the Liberal Party, say that the Government’s commitment to wage indexation is only temporary and that it has another scheme in mind. It was despite the efforts of the LiberalCountry Party Government between 1949 and 1972 that certain movements took place in the wage structure. It was not because of the existence of that Government. Another thing disturbs me besides the statement by the honourable member that the commitment to wage indexation is only temporary. What policy will the Liberal and National Country Parties have on wage indexation next month? As has been pointed out in this Parliament on a number of occasions, before 1 3 December last it was full indexation, then it became indexation on average weekly earnings, then indexation on the minimum wage. What the Government is doing now is asking people -

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I take a point of order. The honourable member for Port Adelaide is not talking to the clause before the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

-I suggest to the honourable member for Griffith that the honourable member for Port Adelaide is speaking to the clause as much as other members have been doing so.

Consideration interrupted.

The CHAIRMAN:

– It being 10.30 p.m. and in accordance with the order of the House of 18 February 1976 1 shall report progress.

Progress reported.

page 2760

ADJOURNMENT

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Sinclair:

-I ask that the question be put forthwith.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 2760

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION AMENDMENT BILL 1976

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-The most disturbing feature about what the Government is saying, of course, is that it has a variety of views about wage indexation. Perhaps now that it has been partially successful in its submission to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission about the way in which wage indexation ought to operate, one might see wage claims on productivity coming before the parties in the months ahead. It will be another arena of negotiations, another arena of wage claims which will not be dealt with or which will not be overcome by what the Government sees as some partial success in having people above the average male adult wage, which has been indexed by the full 3 per cent, brought into line. These people have accepted what the trade unions now say, which is that those receiving between the adult male rate of $125 a week and average weekly earnings have taken a drop in their real wage. So there will be added to this indexation further productivity claims. In some instances they may even be called cost of living claims.

So we are a little confused about what the Government is saying and about what it supports as indexation. We on this side of the Committee would like to know from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) what is meant by the Government’s temporary support of indexation. We would like to know about the scheme which the Government has in mind to replace indexation. We would like the

Minister to be honest with us in the Committee and say that the Government’s whole economic policy is based upon convincing wage and salary earners that they must take a drop in their real wage.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

-Before I call the Minister, I point out to the Committee that the clause which we are considering at the moment is clause 6. 1 remind the honourable member for Griffith that under proceedings before the Commission under sections 31, 34, 35 or 36A it shall take into consideration the public interest, and for that purpose shall have regard to the state of the national economy and the likely effects on that economy of any award that might be made in the proceedings or to which the proceedings relate, with special reference to likely effects on the level of employment and on inflation. The amendment moved by the honourable member for Lilley seeks to delete the word ‘inflation’ and to insert other words. Further matters concerning that were discussed by the Committee prior to the suspension of the sitting. The reason I did not interrupt the honourable member for Port Adelaide was that it would have interrupted his time. That is the clause before the Committee and the discussion at the moment.

Mr STREET:
Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations · Corangamite · LP

– Very briefly I reiterate- I would have thought it was well known to the public of Australia and to the Committee- that the Government supports the wage indexation principles of the Full Bench of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Government has laid particular emphasis on the discretionary nature of those principles. I do not think that needs to be gone over again. I make this final point: If the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) is arguing for a continuation of automatic application of the full consumer price index rise each quarter- I suspect he is- he is arguing for a continuation of inflation at around 13 per cent, with an absolutely guaranteed high rate of unemployment. If he chooses to make that argument it is his prerogative to do so.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7 (Representation of parties).

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-Bearing in mind the time, I will be as brief as possible on this clause, but I make the point that it is an important clause and one to which we attach some importance. We strongly oppose it. It seeks to amend section 63 of the Act which deals with representation of parties. As the Act currently reads, parties which appear before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission may be represented by counsel, with the leave of the Commission. This clause proposes that the Minister, in his appearances before the Commission, may appear with counsel without seeking the consent of the Commission or of the parties. That is a distinct change in the position in which the Commonwealth Government would be placed. Only the Government is placed in that advantageous position. Only the Government would have the automatic right to be represented by counsel in proceedings before the Commission. The parties would still be obliged under the Act, as it would read, to seek the leave of the Commission and the consent of the parties to be represented. It would need to persuade the Commission that there were special circumstances, or where the Minister had intervened with the leave of the Commission, so that the parties could be represented by counsel.

So the parties would be in a less advantageous position than the Commonwealth Government. We think that is a quite inappropriate procedure. This will be particularly so when, as will clearly happen in future there will be a much more interventionist approach by the Commonwealth Government than we have seen in the past. Clauses 4 and 5 of this Bill provide that the Government may intervene, as we have seen in references in appeal procedures, in a way which has not been possible previously. Therefore we can expect much more by way of intervention from the Commonwealth Government. If in these proceedings it is represented by counsel putting forward lengthy arguments as why there should be a reference or why a matter should be reviewed by the Full Bench, the parties will feel that they must be represented by counsel, in a way which is not needed at the moment. There will be much more legalism in the system. Frankly, we think it is not a good thing and that we should be encouraging lay advocacy where possible. Although we do not deny the right of the Commonwealth Government to be represented by counsel in Full Bench proceedings, although I personally think it is not particularly desirable, we think we should not extend that procedure which would put the Commonwealth Government in an advantageous position compared to the position of the employers and the unions.

The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) in his speech has given us not one skerrick of a reason why this should be done. There is not a mention in his second reading speech of why the Government should be put in this advantageous position. His reference to it presumably comes under the heading ‘Machinery Matters’, in which he never mentioned the subject. So we have absolutely no idea why the Government has decided to attempt to get this provision in the Act which would give it the right to represented by counsel. We have no idea, because the Minister did not refer to it in his second reading speech.

It seems to me to be highly disirable that the Government be not represented by counsel in most full Bench proceedings. On occasions points of law may need to be argued,but that is not normally the case. In national wage proceedings there is not legal argument. In fact the Queens Counsel who appears for the Commonwealth Government are nothing more than well-paid elocutionists. They read a prepared brief in which they have had little say in the preparation. They simply read, at considerable expense to the taxpayer, a brief which could just as easily be read by the people who compiled it, either the Treasury official or probably more desirably, an official of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. They are the people who can answer the questions. What happens in a national wage case is that the Commission asks questions of the Government. Counsel, who is virtually only a mouthpiece, has to seek advice and come back later. This inhibits the exchange of discussion between the Bench and the Bar table In my opinion, it would be highly desirable for the Government in the future to have less legalism rather that to seek more, which is what it is doing by this provision. The Opposition strongly opposes this clause. We find it quite unfair. Unless the Minister gives us a very cogent reason why the Government should be placed in this very advantageous position we will strongly oppose the clause.

Mr STREET:
Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations · Corangamite · LP

– This matter has already been raised earlier in the debate by the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron).

Mr Willis:

– And by me.

Mr STREET:

– And by the honourable member for Gellibrand, I think, at the second reading stage. I must say that I regret the derogatory remarks which the honourable member for Gellibrand saw fit to make about counsel who appear for the Commonwealth before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I felt that those remarks were a bit unnecessary. I will repeat for his benefit, as he apparently wishes me to do so, the comments which I made earlier in response to the remarks made by the honourable member for Hindmarsh. The comments I made were these: The Minister has always had the right to intervene in the public interest before the Full Bench in section 3 1, 34 and 35 matters. The Minister has always been represented by counsel in such cases except on a very few odd occasions when he has been represented by a member of the Australian Public Service. That has also been the position where he has appeared in proceedings before single members of the Commission by leave. So the amendments concerning representation do no more than recognise the existing position and extend it to cases where the Minister is entitled to ask for a reference or, in the terms of the amendment, a review.

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

– I will just make the point that, in referring to the role of counsel appearing for the Commonwealth Government, I was not being derogatory. I was simply making the valid point that they have little say in the preparation of the brief. They simply read out a prepared brief.

Mr Street:

– They are consulted on the brief.

Mr WILLIS:

-They may be consulted to some extent but basically it is a brief which has been prepared by the departmental officials and it is one in which counsel do not have a great say. The people who prepared the brief would be best placed to answer questions on it. The point I made was in no way derogatory of the persons concerned. I have met many of them over the years and I admire them in their personal capacity. All I am saying is that it is unnecessary for the Australian Government to brief people to put the case when they are only reading something and when it could be easily done and at much less cost to the taxpayer by people who are already on the departmental payroll, and probably with much greater advantage to the procedures of the Commission. Following the remarks of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) we still find it unsatisfactory and we oppose the clause.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

– I cannot believe that the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) and the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) are genuine in their opposition to this clause, which is consequential on clauses 4 and 5 which have already been passed by the Committee. The honourable member for Gellibrand foreshadowed in his remarks on clauses 4 and 5 that he was not happy about clause 7. The honourable member for Hindmarsh made a completely unwarranted and, I suggest, totally unjustified attack on the legal profession. With his long standing experience as an advocate the honourable member for Gellibrand should recall that when the honourable member for Hindmarsh was himself a party in an action before the Commission- it is reported in 1 Federal Law Reports at page 413, the case being Cameron v. Davis and Others- he chose to exercise his right to be represented by counsel. Now we are having the argument put forward that for some odd reason it is improper for the Minister to have the benefit of the advice of counsel and to have counsel appearing on behalf of the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Is that right?

Mr HODGMAN:

-That is the proposition which the Opposition is advancing. I cannot believe that the honourable member for Gellibrand is serious. I draw to his attention the provisions which make it quite clear that the Commonwealth does not have to be represented by counsel. It can be represented by a solicitor or by a member of the Australian Public Service. Last but not least- I say this with some feeling- I think it is totally wrong for the honourable member for Gellibrand to say in the national Parliament that by bringing in this amendment we are in some way giving the Commonwealthor the Minister, to be precise- some advantage over the other parties before the Commission. To me that represents an attack on the Commission and a suggestion that the Commission would listen to the Minister’s submissions with more force and favour because he happened to be represented by counsel.

I do not believe that the honourable member for Gellibrand, who has appeared before the Commission, could seriously contend that the Commission would give greater weight to a submission from one party because he is represented by a barrister than to a submission from another party who is represented by an advocate. I draw to the honourable member’s attention the fact that consistently Ministers in the previous Administration chose to be represented before the Commission by counsel, and in particular the honourable member for Hindmarsh who not only chose to be represented by counsel but who took an active part, as he told us late this afternoon, in what counsel said. .

Mr Willis:

– Why do you support the change?

Mr HODGMAN:

– I support the change because it is a realistic change to give effect to what is the practical situation. For the honourable member to suggest that at some future point of time we will have a Labor Minister who may choose to appear on his own behalf and put submissions to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission does him less than justice because he has appeared before that Commission on many occasions. The reality of the situation is that this is a consequential amendment. We have dealt with the essential issues in clauses 4 and S. For the Parliament having given the Minister the power to intervene, which he is now given in clauses 4 and 5, to turn around and say ‘I am sorry, in this instance, Mr Minister, you are on your own; we will not let you have a barrister’ is the most arrant nonsense I have ever heard from the honourable member for Gellibrand for whom I have a high regard. On this occasion I suggest that he is playing politics in a way which will not win him any votes. Quite frankly, I think that the honourable member for Gellibrand knows exactly what I am talking about. We are legalising a de facto situation which has operated since the honourable member for Hindmarsh was Minister for Labor. Quite frankly, when he had to go before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission he did not go in person. He took very experienced counsel with him in those proceedings. If it was good enough -

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Not experienced.

Mr HODGMAN:

– As a former member of the Bar, I think that he took experienced counsel with him. The reality of the situation is that the Minister is to be commended for putting an end to the nonsense of whether governments should be represented by counsel. He is putting it in black and white that they are entitled to be represented. If the situation is that the Minister feels it is better for the case to be handled by a member of the Australian Public Service he is entitled to that option. The honourable member for Gellibrand is not bona fide in his objections to this clause because he realises that it is simply giving legitimacy to what has been the established practice for many years.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-The point which the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) was making and which the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) completely ignored is that the Government is placed in the position where it no longer has to seek leave to be represented but all other parties must seek leave to be represented. Why can the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street), or the honourable member for Denison if he is advising the Minister, not tell us why the Government should be placed in this position. The Minister has not answered as to why that should be the case. In our opinion it is unnecessary. Those of us involved in industrial relations believe that keeping legalisms out of industrial relations, like keeping the Government out of industrial relations, may help the situation and not hinder it. So we would like to know why the Government should be put in a position over and above that of all other parties to any hearing.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-Mr Lucock, the challenge thrown down should not be ignored. I challenge the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) to say when leave was last refused by the Full Bench.

Question put:

That the clause be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 79

NOES: 29

Majority……. 50

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clauses 8 to 1 1- by leave-taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 12.

Section 1 33 of the Principal Act is amended-

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I move:

Before paragraph (a) insert the following paragraph: ‘(aa) by inserting after the word ballot” in subparagraph (v) of paragraph (d) of sub-section (1) the following words: “, and where the ballot is not conducted under the authority of a Commonwealth Electoral Officer, the appointment of scrutineers by the Chief Commonwealth Electoral Officer on the same terms as the other scrutineers.”.’.

The effect of this proposed amendment is to provide that where the election is not under the control of the court- not a court controlled ballotthe Commonwealth Electoral Officer should have the right to appoint scrutineers. Mr Chairman, you will remember that originally the Government proposed that all ballots should be court controlled, but the trade unions asked, and the Government conceded their point, that where they wanted to they could conduct their own ballots. I hope that my proposed amendment will commend itself to both sides of the chamber. I do not know whether the Opposition will support it. I only know that the Opposition should support it because the effect of this proposed amendment is simply to ensure that the ballots be clean. I am not suggesting that all trade union ballots by any means are corrupt; nothing like that. We do know, however, that there have been occasions in the past when trade union ballots have been very corrupt. This has been evidenced by the protests by members of the Australian Labor Party themselves and by the decisions of the court from time to time on those protests.

I hope that the Opposition will join with us in saying that it believes that ballots should be as clean as possible. There is no reason the Opposition should object to an outside scrutineer coming in on these same terms as the scrutineers who are appointed by the candidates. It may be asked: What more can a Commonwealth scrutineer do? I put 3 points to the Committee. Firstly, the Commonwealth scrutineers may be able to have resources which individual candidates at union elections might not be able to have, and they might be able to be present at the counts and at the strategic points to make certain that there is no corruption. Secondly, the Commonwealth scrutineers would be experienced people appointed by the Commonwealth Electoral Officer and able to detect malpractice and, therefore, not only prevent corruption but frighten off people who might otherwise attempt corrupt practices. Thirdly, the Commonwealth electoral officers would be able to report to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, and through the Minister to this House, if there were any corrupt practices.

I am putting it quite simply that if the Opposition is genuine in its desire for clean ballots it will support this proposed amendment. If, on the other hand, the Opposition hopes for corrupt ballots in the unions, it will oppose this amendment. The amendment is very plain. It is not meant in any way to interfere with the trade union machinery. It is not meant in any way to put any coercion on the trade union in the way it conducts a ballot. Let it do so in accordance with its rules. This amendment is designed to see that when the union acts in accordance with its rules it acts cleanly and that there is no corruption.

I could well understand that the Government might not want to push an amendment of this character if the trade unions refused to agree to it. After all, the Government is in a conciliatory frame of mind. It is trying to work in cooperation with the trade unions. So I think that, if the trade unions at the present moment were to say through the Opposition that they were opposed to this amendment, perhaps the Government would not want to press it. But I put this clearly and plainly to my friends opposite: If they oppose this amendment, they are showing themselves to be in favour of corrupt ballots. There is no other reason why they should oppose it. If they support it, they will be in the position of having clean hands and clean consciences and of being able to say: ‘Not only do we want the trade unions to conduct their own ballots but also we want the trade unions to conduct them in a clean way’.

It is perfectly true, as I have said, that even when a union conducts its own ballots it by no means follows that it is corrupt. The position is very much to the contrary. But there have been cases of corruption, and these have been particularly bad in the very large unions. For example, a long time ago- I will grant that it was many years ago- the Federated Ironworkers Union fell under the control of a corrupt clique headed by the communist Thornton. The clique monopolised union power and was thrown out only by a court controlled ballot. There was not the slightest doubt that large scale corruption existed in that union. We do not want that to recur. We do not want the suspicion of it to recur. After all, we have an interest in seeing not only that trade union ballots are clean but also that everybody admits them to be clean and concedes that they are clean.

I put this proposition to my friends opposite: If they have any real support for the principle of clean union ballots, they will indicate their support of this amendment; but if they have some kind of hankering or underground desire to have corrupt ballots, they will indicate their opposition to this amendment. The Government has taken honourable members opposite at their word when they said that they wanted to control trade union ballots by their own machinery. The Government took them at their word when they said that there would be clean ballots. Was their word to be trusted or was it not to be trusted? They will show this by their attitude to this amendment. If they support it, they will be seen to be honest men. If they oppose it, they are under suspicion of trying to play a double game and asking for trade union control of ballots in order that corruption can be practised in them.

Mr STREET:
Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations · Corangamite · LP

– The amendment moved by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) raises a number of questions involving practical problems. Leaving aside the question of corruption for a moment, one practical problem is whether the Australian Electoral Office would have the staff to provide the necessary number of scrutineers. Of course, under the rules each candidate is entitled to a scrutineer. In one election for one particular office the number of candidates could run into double figures. I presume that the honorable member for Mackellar is considering that one Australian Electoral Office representative could act for all candidates. But, of course, an election can be conducted anywhere in Australia and, indeed, in very many widely dispersed areas of Australia for the one election.

There are 2 other elements that I think should be mentioned. The first is that on this particular aspect- indeed, the honourable member mentioned this himself- no discussions have taken place, as the Government is committed to an undertaking with the peak employer and union councils in respect of this matter. We have made the point that the unions should be eligible to conduct their own postal ballots. I remind the Committee that under section 140 and 141 of the Act members have recourse to the registrar and eventually to the Industrial Court if they believe there has been any irregularity in the ballot.

Finally, I make the point that the Government has said that this legislation will be given a 2-year trial. The Government will be examining all aspects and the consequences of the legislation during that period. I thank the honourable member for his suggestion. I hope he will understand that because of the practical difficulties that I have outlined we do not intend to pursue it at the present time. However, I remind him again of the 2-year trial period for this piece of legislation.

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-The Opposition, like the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street), does not find itself enamoured of the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth). I would say that the honourable member for Mackellar is completely overstating the extent of corruption or fraud in trade union elections. If he looks at the record of the last 25 years he will find in fact very little evidence of fraud or corruption in trade union elections. Indeed, that is one of the main reasons why we regard as quite unnecessary this legislation in relation to secret ballots.

Mr James:

– There would be more on the stock exchange.

Mr WILLIS:

– What the honourable member for Hunter says is certainly true. The fact is that if one looks back at cases which have been taken under section 141 or section 159 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, both of which sections give a single member who feels that there has been any untoward activity- fraud or corruptionin a union election a chance to take it to the Industrial Court, one will find that it works out to about 2 cases a year, and not all of those were by any means cases which were the result of fraud or corruption. Often they were brought on mere technicalities and so on. So this is one of the most over-played aspects of the legislation.

The Government has tried to create an atmosphere in which the whole of the Australian population was made to fear that there was some fraud or widescale corruption in trade union elections. That is not the case. The history of the last 25 years, as shown in the records of the Industrial Court, would not bear that out. The corruption cases are very isolated indeed. So we do not see any need to adopt this amendment. In the case of elections which are conducted by the union itself, the law as it stands at the moment provides for the appointment of scrutineers, and where there are competing groups trying to wrest power in the union both sides would appoint scrutineers. I am sure that either side would soon draw attention to any malpractice which they saw. Indeed, that is the role of a scrutineer in union elections as it is in parliamentary elections. So we see no need for public servants to be acting as scrutineers. In fact, I would say that people from interested parties would probably make better scrutineers than would disinterested people who probably would be bored to death by the whole procedure.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-I quite understand the view of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) and the fact that he does not want to stir up a hornet’s nest over this matter. The amendment should not, he thinks, be pressed unless the trade unions accept it. However, I do not go along with the other arguments that have been put forward, either by the Minister or by the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis). It may be that the scrutineers will look to the candidates’ interests. I know that they will. But they may not always be experienced men. There may not always be the resources in the candidates’ hands to have sufficient scrutineers. It may well be that the addition of a Commonwealth scrutineer would add nothing. It could add something in some cases. But it could not do any harm, in any case at all. There is nothing to lose.

The Minister asks: ‘Well, what about the resources of the Commonwealth Electoral Office?’ I do not think that that is a very good argument at all. Even though the resources may not be sufficient to cover every case, they would be sufficient to cover some cases. No harm could be done. The fact that there was an experienced man present able to advise the scrutineers of the candidates would prevent any corruption or any suspicion of corruption.

Finally, let me come to the point made by the honourable member for Gellibrand when he said that there has not been very much corruption in the immediate past. What he means is that there has not been very much corruption found out and proved in the immediate past, which is a different matter altogether. If he will go around, as I have no doubt he does go around from time to time, among people who take pan as members in elections of trade unions, he will discover that in the rank and file there is very often a suspicion of corruption. Rank and file members say: ‘We cannot prove this. There is no way of our taking action. We do not know about them, but we know that the game is crook. We know that some people who are elected should not be elected and have got in there by corrupt practices. We cannot convict them of it.’ The suspicion may be unfounded. But I can assure my friend from Gellibrand- and I am certain that he needs no assurance from me on this matter- that this suspicion is most prevalent. It would be a good thing from his point of view really, if he wants clean ballots, and from the position of the Government or of the people of Australia, if the prevalent suspicions were silenced.

These suspicions are prevalent. Perhaps they are justified. But the candidates do not always have the resources or the skill to do this work. Even when they find out something, they may not have it in sufficient form to go to the court. I think that this is a matter in respect of which we can say that nothing can be lost by adopting this course and something could be gained. I am surprised that my friends in the Opposition do not accept this amendment with alacrity. By the refusal of it, they have covered themselves in suspicion in this matter. I can understand the point of view of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The Minister said: ‘I have made a compact with the trade unions for 2 years. I am not going to do anything without the consent of the trade unions in this regard ‘.

My friends in the Opposition should surely see that if the trade unions are honest and if they want this proposal accepted- if they are honest, they would want it- it should be supported. I quite understand the position of the Minister. He says: ‘I have perhaps unthinkingly made a compact with the trade unions without asking for scrutineers. Unless the trade unions and their representatives in this Parliament will help me I cannot go beyond that. I do not want to provoke any strife on this matter because I want to be cooperative with the unions’. I put it to Opposition members that if they are honest they will at least support this amendment in principle. If they do not support it, they make it incumbent upon the Minister, I suppose, to take the view that he has taken. But they also bring suspicion on themselves that they are acting corruptly when they try to keep the Commonwealth Electoral Office out of every trade union ballot.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Remainder of Bill- by leave- taken as a whole.

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

– I will be very brief. I just want to raise a couple of points on clause 13. Firstly, this is the provision which says that the elections shall be by secret postal ballot. I want to point out- I think this should be on the record of the Parliament- that this proposal for postal ballots, if unions generally accept the provision that elections be conducted by the Commonwealth Electoral Officer, will cost the Commonwealth government something like $1.5m a year on the estimates that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) has put forward in a submission to Cabinet. This is a cost of $ 1.5m a year at a time when the Government is supposed to be shaving costs. This shows what happens when ideology comes into the matter. When this happens it seems that costs are irrelevant. According to the Minister’s submission another 20 permanent public servants above the ceiling which currently operates will be needed to man the Australian Electoral Office. Again we have the same point about ideology bending the practice.

I would also like to mention the point I made in my second reading speech in relation to secret ballot legislation. In the last few years there has been an increasing tendency for trade unions to adopt court controlled ballots for reasons which I think have much to do with the increasing cost of conducting elections themselves. This was a trend that was quite noticeable in the 1970s. Over half of the court controlled ballots which have been conducted in the last 25 years were conducted in the 1970s. So there is an increasing trend for court controlled ballots. Yet the Government has seen fit to force everyone to conduct this kind of ballot under which a ballot paper is sent to every eligible member of a union. The unions can please themselves whether they have the election conducted by the Australian Electoral Office or do it themselves.

The point is that this kind of election was increasingly the kind of election which unions were adopting anyway. In fact, in the last year or so unions which intended to conduct elections in this way decided not to do so because they did not want to look as though they were being forced into doing so by the Government. So the number of court controlled ballots would have been much higher than they in fact were if the Government had not been beating the air so much about the need for secret postal ballots. As I have pointed out, the unions were moving rapidly in this direction anyway. Their main argument has been that they did not want to be forced into conducting such ballots and in some cases they did not want this kind of ballot at all. Generally speaking the trend for court controlled ballots was developing and the Government is simply doing no more than forcing some few unions which did not want to conduct ballots in this manner into doing so.

Mr STREET:
Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations · Corangamite · LP

– The honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) quoted a figure of cost and a number of extra officers who might be required in the Australian Electoral Office to conduct union ballots. I make the point that the number of extra staff quoted by the honourable member and the cost are estimates of what would be required if all union elections were conducted in this way.

Mr Willis:

-I said that.

Mr STREET:

– Yes. Because of the nature of the legislation we have introduced, some unions will- be catered for under section 170. Some unions presumably will elect to conduct their own ballots. It is quite true, as the honourable member for Gellibrand has said, that there has been an increasing tendency for unions to use the provisions of section 170. I think inherent in what he said was that he regarded this as quite a desirable trend. Certainly the Government considers that is a desirable trend.

The point I want to make strongly is that no one is being forced into a position by this legislation. That is the whole object of what the Government has done in recognition of the arguments that were put to it. The legislation as now drafted gives unions a clear choice as to how they want their elections conducted- whether by the Electoral Office at public expense or by themselves at their own expense. So the unions have a clear choice and it is up to them which system they choose to use.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Now that the Committee is debating this clause of the Bill, I think it is proper that I should refer briefly to something that was said earlier in the debate in relation to a clause that had nothing whatever to do with the remarks made by the speaker in question. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), talking of the unions, asked: ‘Why should they not have the right to determine whether they want the collegiate system?’ I ask the honourable gentleman: What does he mean by ‘they’? Is he saying that the union officials should have the right to have a collegiate system if they- the union officials- want it or does he mean that the members of the union should have the right if they- the members- want to have the collegiate system? If it is the latter, I have no quarrel with him. If he is going to support a proposal in relation to which the real union that is, the members of the union, the people, the bodies that make up the union itself- are to be given the right to determine whether they want it then that is fanenough. But I suspect that the honourable gentleman means, when he says ‘They should be able to determine what they want’, Mr Maynes and the other people of the National Civic Council who have been so actively campaigning to have wiped out the right of the rank and file to determine what they want? The honourable member for Denison is really meaning Mr John Maynes, Mr Maher and their ilk; that is what he really means.

Mr Chipp:

- Mr Chairman I am very reluctant to do this to my friend, but it is 25 minutes past 1 1 and, while you and I might have been tolerant earlier in the evening, I direct your attention to clause 13, which is quite specific and very limited. It gives the Industrial Registrar power to exempt an organisation from conducting a secret postal ballot if 2 circumstances are met. Those circumstances are set out in sub-clause 3 (a) and sub-clause 3 (b). I would suggest with great respect and with apologies to the honourable member for Hindmarsh that the collegiate system of voting has nothing whatever to do with this clause, and I would like you to ask him to confine himself to the contents of the clause at this stage of the day.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

-! think that there is merit in the suggestion made by the honourable member for Hotham. In discussing this Bill we have ranged rather widely over all the points. As suggested by the honourable member for Hotham, it might be advantageous to us all at this hour if we were to stick, in relation to clause 13 and the remainder of the Bill, strictly to a narrow interpretation of what the Bill implies.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I accept your ruling, Mr Chairman. I shall not mention the collegiate system any more. May I take this opportunity of complimenting you, Mr Chairman, on the way in which you have handled this debate. I say in all seriousness that this has been the best debate that I can remember in this Parliament for a fairly long time, particularly in the Committee stage. The Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) did not give us much of a chance to participate in the second reading stage of the debate, as you will recall. Only 2 speakers from this side of the chamber were allowed to participate. But since you have been in charge of the debate it has been very fruitful. Honourable members on both sides of the chamber are talking about how sensible you have been in your conduct of the proceedings. You have given latitude. I think that it is all to the good that you have done so because as a result of the sensible latitude that you have given, everyone has had his say and it has become a very interesting, enlightening and, I believe, fruitful debate.

I want to add only one more comment, Sir. At one stage of his remarks the Minister said that there had been, I think, only 29 applications for postal ballots out of 1 50 unions.

Mr Street:

– Twenty-nine unions.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Last year there were 29 unions out of one hundred and fifty. But the Minister ought to remember that all unions do not have an election every year. If one assumes that most of the unions have a triennial election system, roughly one-third of the unions have an election each year. Thus at the end of 3 years they all manage to have an election. So really about 29 out of 50 unions last year rather than 29 out of 1 50 had postal ballots. We have to remember that in some unions there is an election only once every 3 years, so if we pick out a single year in isolation and analyse what happened in that particular year we find that maybe 100 unions out of the 150 did not have an election at all. The Government has really run into an arithmetical problem here and the Minister might have that matter examined in greater detail. I think it has been an excellent debate. I compliment the Minister on the calm, cool and collected manner in which he has parried the blows that have been levelled in his direction. I repeat with even more sincerity that you, Mr Chairman, have contributed greatly by the sensible latitude you have allowed everyone.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I shall keep the Committee for only 2 or 3 minutes, but they will be minutes spent discussing clause 13. Clause 13 proposes 2 things: It indicates that the election shall be by secret postal ballot and that where certain other conditions are specified, exceptions will apply in respect of those ballots. That is what we are talking about. I should have thought that the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) was one that at least deserved serious consideration, even though the Government does not accept it in these circumstances.

Mr Bourchier:

- Mr Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The amendment of the honourable member for Mackellar was to clause 12, not to clause 13.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

-Regarding the point of order, I was reading clause 13 and I felt that the honourable member for Lilley had not proceeded with it to this point.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I see the point made by the honourable member for Bendigo but without referring to the amendment I suggest that its substance would have application in respect of clause 13 had it been accepted. I hope that the spirit of that amendment will be looked at. There is one other point that I suggest the Minister examine during the course of the operation of this legislation. It is something I have mentioned to him before and I will repeat it quickly. There will be cases in which some confusion can arise in the minds of voters in union elections in those States where there are significant arbitration and industrial jurisdictions. There will be a duplicity of votes and of voting procedures that could give rise to some doubt and confusion in the minds of voters. I am referring particularly to where there are significant State jurisdictions, such as in Queensland, Western Australia and New South Wales.

The classic Moore v Doyle case shows that voters registered in a State union can be presented with a dual set of ballot papers developed under two quite differing sets of circumstances. I hope that the Minister will look carefully at the confusion that may arise in those cases. Confusion will also arise where unions registered under State jurisidictions cover generally the same occupations as do Federal unions which have a much wider franchise than the voting procedures of the State union. There may be what were previously the same officials working out of the same office, one dealing with State awards and having a similarity to the State branch of a Federal union covering generally the same area.

Difficulties may be found where officials were filling 2 positions in the past, elected to both positions at the same time, because of the very different and wider franchise under this Bill than is provided in the State jurisdiction. I am referring to cases where members go to a meeting and elect State officials. There may be confusion in the minds of the voters as to the officials elected by the 2 procedures, and that confusion will grow because of the difference in voting procedures.

I merely say to the Minister that I hope he will carefully consider suggesting some complementary legislation covering the area between that covered by this legislation and the State jurisdictions where there are significant State arbitration or industrial commissions. The case is worth looking at, and I hope that the confusion does not become wider. I know that the Minister will keep the matter in mind and will treat it very diplomatically, but I suggest that it is a situation which should not be ignored.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

– I am one of the people on this side of the House who would like to have spoken during the second reading debate. Unfortunately, that debate was cut short. There are a couple of points I should Uke to make as this fiasco reaches its conclusion. In relation to what the Government sees as a exercise in taming the unions, it is my view, having been a participant in union ballots conducted both by returning officers of the union and by the Australian Electoral Office, that what the Government has set out to do will not be achieved. The Government ought to look at the history of union ballots and learn a few lessons from it because the exercise we are going through at the moment is quite stupid. As to the suggestion that there should be scrutineers from the Electoral Office in the union office, such people could hardly be called scrutineers. Scrutineers are appointed on behalf of candidates. If the police were present to observe whether everything was being done correctly they would not be called scrutineers.

Another point I should make is that I have never been a participant in a corrupt union ballot, which the honourable member for Mackellar has suggested would be the case if we do not support the views he puts forward. He himself is a party to an act which we can prove is the supporting of a corrupt ballot, that is, when he sits in the Liberal and Country Party rooms and puts up his hand in favour of a 20 per cent discrepancy between the value of the vote in the metropolitan area and the vote in a rural area. The honourable member for Mackellar supports a corrupt ballot.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

-Order! I think the honourable member for Port Adelaide is going back to a clause that has already been agreed to by the Committee.

Mr YOUNG:

-When Government members talk about every union member having a vote, the position is quite ridiculous. The returns by the Electoral Office of the ballots which they conduct show a very minimal response to the ballots. Union officials such as the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) and I- and most union officials who come into this Parliament sit on this side of the House- happen to know a few things about it. If this provision will mean greater activity in trade unions by more people, then we will welcome it. I suspect that even the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) could go and have a look at the ballots conducted by the Waterside Workers Federation or by the miners or the seamen. Who is going to challenge those ballots? The ballots of the most militant unions in this land are unchallenged; so what honourable members opposite talk about is a lot of nonsense.

In conclusion, the other thing I want to say is that this is a great day for the Australian Parliament. I have been through the policy speech delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). Of all the promises made during the election campaign, this is the third promise the Government has kept. It has reinstated the superphosphate bounty and it has provided for the 40 per cent investment allowance.

Mr Street:

- Mr Chairman, I rise on a point of order.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I think the honourable member for Port Adelaide is also aware of the fact that there was no relevance to this Bill in his last remarks.

Mr YOUNG:

-The point I am making is that so much of what the Government said it was going to do has not been done. It is anxious to see this legislation enacted, although it will not be proclaimed, just to give it a negotiating weapon when it meets the Australian Council of Trade Unions next week. The whole exercise is a lot of nonsense.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I was amused to hear the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) say a moment ago that ballots in the Liberal Party were corrupt because some members represent 20 per cent more electors than do other members. I understand that he has been a member of the ALP Executive, some members of which represent 1000 per cent more electors than do others. Does he call the ballots that elected him to his paid position corrupt? I put that to him.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I think the honourable member for Mackellar is as much out of order as was the honourable member for Port Adelaide.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I would like to make one short point, that is, that the Government’s hypocrisy in regard to this legislation is shown quite clearly in these clauses dealing with trade union ballots. The Government claims it is concerned about having trade unions represented by the people who really represent the unionists. That is fair enough. If the Government believes this legislation will bring this about it should introduce it, but the Government is not going to do that. It is going to pass this legislation and suspend it. It is going to do a deal with the very trade union leaders that it claims are not representative of the rank and file. It is going to say to them: ‘Provided you do the sort of thing we want you to do, we do not care whether you represent the rank and file or not. You can stay in office. We are not really concerned about getting into these positions people who are really representative of trade unionists. All we want in these positions are people who are prepared to give in on the basis that they might lose their jobs if a different method of ballot is introduced. ‘

I hope that the leadership of trade unions will look beyond any short term personal benefits that might arise by caving in to the Government at the present time because the Government does not intend to have this legislation proclaimed. I hope the leadership has confidence in the rank and file, and if there is a worthwhile case after meeting with the Government, I hope they will stand up against the sort of propositions that the Government is putting to them. I hope they will be prepared to stand for election under legislation including secret ballots. I criticise the Government very strongly for the utter and complete hypocrisy of threatening trade unions with having clean ballots, but saying at the same time that if the leadership caves in it will not insist on clean ballots.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I want to reply to the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns). He talked about the confusion that can be caused by having elections for federal officers at a different time and in a different way from that which might be used by the State organisation. I think what he was talking about was what purports to be, and no more than purports to be in many cases, the State branch of a federal union which has State registration in a particular State of the four States in which registration is possible. He spoke as though there was no problem now and that this legislation would create a problem where there was now no problem. He is very, very wrong in that belief. It will be surprising to me if the Minister is able to solve this problem. Until there is complementary legislation by the State governments- the New South Wales Government has now decided that it will pass the necessary complementary legislation to the Bill we passed in 1 974 to give effect to the Moore and Doyle case- the Government will not ever solve the problem that the honourable member for Lilley talked about.

Let me take the case of the Australian Workers Union which I know so well. In the case of Queensland the State from which the honourable gentleman comes, the State union known as the Australian Workers Union Industrial Union of Employees (Queensland), or by a name similar to that, is registered as a State organisation and, except for about 4 or 5 awards, all its awards are State awards. The horse training award and a couple of other odd awards are Federal awards; but all the other awards are State awards including the pastoral award, the cane cutters’ and the road construction award which are capable of being covered by the Australian Workers Union Federal registration but which, in point of fact, have never moved into the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

The true position is this: If the State awards that now operate in Queensland are properly based it is only because the members of the Queensland State registered union are properly members of the State union and not members of the Federal union; because Moore v. Doyle showed it is not possible legally by joining one union automatically to acquire membership in another separate legal entity with its own legal personality. That case showed that once a union registers in a State it has to acquire its own legal personality and separate entity- it has to have its own membership, its own offices, its own set of books and its own set of rules. Nothing that is done here beyond what we did in 1974 will cure the situation that I am now talking about.

There are literally tens of thousands of members of the State union in Queensland who are now participating in Federal union elections and who have no right to vote at all. The fact that those union members are in occupations which are capable of being covered by the Federal union -

Mr Chipp:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. About half an hour ago I drew your attention to the provisions of clause 1 3 of the Bill. The clause is exquisitely simple. It gives the industrial registrar power on 2 criteria to exempt an organisation from conducting a secret ballot. What the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) is now saying is absolutely irrelevant to clause 13. I plead with you, Mr Chairman, at this time of night, please, to hold the honourable member to the clause under discussion.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

-In answer to the point of order raised by the honourable member for Hotham, I accept the fact that the point that he has raised has some merit. The only reason that I did not rise and call the honourable member for Hindmarsh to order was that the comment had originally been made by the honourable member for Lilley in relation to confusion caused in this aspect of this clause. Perhaps the honourable member for Hotham might bear with me. Part of clause 1 3 states:

The regulations may make provision for and in relation to the conduct of an election in accordance with the requirements of this section in the case of an election in respect of which the rules of the organization do not provide for a secret postal ballot.

The point that I query is the honourable member for Hindmarsh ‘s comments in relation to State and Federal unions and members being members either of one union or of another. I must confess that I was giving consideration as to whether the honourable member for Hindmarsh was in order in speaking on this way in this particular clause. But I should hesitate to be dogmatic on the question of whether the membership of either a State or Federal organisation might not have some effect on the rules of an organisation which do or which do not provide for a secret postal ballot. I was in the process of coming to a conclusion and a decision on that matter when the honourable member for Hotham raised his point of order. The remarks of the honourable member for Hindmarsh earlier reminded me of the song sung by Mary Poppins entitled A Spoonful of Sugar Makes The Medicine Go Down. I only hope that the honourable member for Hindmarsh maintains his high opinion of me when at this stage I make the comment that perhaps he has stretched the bow a little bit in relation to this part of the Committee ‘s consideration.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Mr Chairman, you have taken so long to tell me that I am possibly stretching the bow a little that you have put me right off what I was thinking about. I was on a very good wavelength. You have put me right off it. I am afraid that the gems of wisdom that were about to fall from me at the time I was so rudely interrupted will now have to wait another day. Thank you very much, nonetheless, for your tolerence. I repeat that this debate is really a firstclass example of Parliament at its very best.

Mr STREET:
Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations · Corangamite · LP

– The honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) referred to the fact that last year 29 unions applied for ballots to be conducted under section 170. He made the point that, as 3 years is not an unusual term of office, therefore approximately 50 unions a year are involved in elections. I merely make the point that not all unions fill all their offices in the one year. So, even though the term of office may be 3 years, certain offices of a union can come up for election each year. Nevertheless, I will make inquiries to find out what percentage of unions holding elections in that year asked for them to be conducted under section 170.

The honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) raised the question of confusion that could arise within Federal and State jurisdictions, as did the honourable member for

Hindmarsh. I merely want it on record that I have written to my State colleagues suggesting that this legislation and the possibility of complementary State legislation to minimise any confusion could be a possible matter for discussion at a conference of Labor Ministers. The honourable member for Port Adelaide referred to the percentage of votes cast in union elections. He implied that the percentage of votes cast in union elections conducted under the auspices of the Industrial Registrar or the Australian Electoral Office was not high. As a matter of fact, for the 29 unions referred to earlier the average return of ballot papers was just under 40 per cent. That might not be as high as we would like. Certainly we hope that over a period greater interest in union elections will result in greater participation. But it is a reasonable percentage and a good deal higher than the percentage for ballots where attendance is requested.

Remainder of Bill agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report- by leave- adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Mr Street)- by leave- read a third time.

House adjourned at 11.55 p.m.

page 2773

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Public Service: Senior Quarantine Inspector (Question No. 48)

Mr Bungey:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the text of the minute, dated1 8 February1 974 from the Director of Health, Western Australia, to Mr W. F. Toomer, Senior Quarantine Inspector, headed ‘Your duties as Senior Quarantine Inspector’.
  2. Did the former Minister for Health, Dr Everingham, advise Mr Toomer by letter, dated 8 March 1974, that Mr Toomer had been restored to full duty as Senior Quarantine Inspector; if so, was this statement accurate; if the statement was not accurate, can he say on what basis of advice the statement was made.
  3. What is the text of the minute, dated 15 March 1974, from the Director of Health, Western Australia, to Mr W. F. Toomer headed ‘Your duties as Senior Quarantine Inspector’.
  4. Was the minute of 15 March 1974 issued by the Director of Health under instruction; if so, whose instruction, and for what reason.
  5. What is the text of the minute, dated 18 March 1974, from the Director of Health, Western Australia, to Mr W. F. Toomer headed ‘Your duties as Senior Quarantine Inspector’.
  6. Did the committee inquiring into quarantine in Western Australia in March 1974, consisting of Dr Gee, Dr Bull and Mr Finlay request the Director of Health, Western Australia, to withdraw the minute dated 15 March 1974; if so, why.
  7. Did Dr J. B. Mathieson state before the Public Service Appeal Board on 21 October 1974 that the committee inquiring into quarantine in Western Australia informed him that they could not get on with their job unless the minute was withdrawn; if so, was Dr Mathieson’s evidence correct.
  8. If the evidence was correct, how was the committee inquiring into quarantine in Western Australia prevented from getting on with their job if the minute of 1 5 March 1974 was not withdrawn and substituted by the minute of 18 March 1974.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– My Department has provided me with the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) It is not the normal practice to make the texts of such documents available. However, in essence, the minute outlined to Mr Toomer that the Director-General of Health had instructed the Director to return Mr Toomer to his full duties as Senior Quarantine Inspector as from 19 February 1 974 subject to a number of conditions concerning: method of communication with other staff issue of technical instructions control of subordinate officers movements from the Perth Office overtime procedure regarding submissions, and need to carry out instructions. (2)I understand the letter to Mr Toomer, dated 8 March 1974, stated it was Dr Everingham ‘s understanding that Mr Toomer had been restored to full duty on 19 February 1974.

It was also understood by the Director-General of Health that this was the case.

  1. See (1) above. However, in general, this minute outlined that the Director-General had directed that Mr Toomer be informed that the Director-General’s instructions were: as Mr Toomer’s appeal had been disallowed, that incident had now been closed

Mr Toomer should therefore be returned to the full duties of his position that Mr Toomer be counselled on his past shortcomings and have fully explained what was expected of him in the future including method of communication of orders or authorisations on technical quarantine matters, functional control for administrative and non-technical matters and penalties under the Public Service Act for not carrying out legitimate orders.

The minute also included a reiteration of the Director’s requirements, which were the remaining aspects covered in ( 1 ) above.

  1. Director of Health, Western Australia, was directed by the Director-General of Health to make clear to Mr Toomer those instructions which emanated from the DirectorGeneral.
  2. See ( 1 ) above. However, this minute merely cancelled the minute outlined in (3 ) above and returned Mr Toomer to the full duties of his designated position without qualification.
  3. No. However, Mr Gee, speaking as First Assistant Director-General, Quarantine Division, Department of Health and not as a member of the Committee, did repeat to the Director of Health, Western Australia, the DirectorGeneral’s instructions that Mr Toomer was to be restored immediately to full duty if this had not already been done.
  4. Dr Mathieson did make such a statement before the Committee. I am informed, however, that the Committee’s activities were not dependent on the withdrawal of the minute referred to.
  5. See (6) and (7) above.

Fruitgrowing Industry: Tree Pull Scheme (Question No. 286)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is there confusion amongst fruitgrowers in respect of the re-introduction of a tree pull scheme, which has been compounded by the announcement of an alternative meanstest free proposal in the report of the Australian Industry Development Corporation.
  2. Is time running out both seasonally and financially for fruitgrowers if a tree pull scheme is to be of maximum value; if so, when will an announcement be made.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. and (2) The Government is fully aware of the uncertainty prevailing, in many sections of the fruitgrowing industry, particularly in the Goulburn Valley, and is concerned at the difficult situation facing individual growers. Accordingly, as indicated in my Press release of 20 May, the Government decided to extend the Fruitgrowing Reconstruction Scheme established by the State Grants (Fruitgrowing Reconstruction) Act 1972 on the basis that applications received by 31 December 1 976 will be eligible for consideration for the payment of compensation, and trees will have to be removed by 30 June 1977.

There will be a liberalisation of the eligibility conditions, so that the net assets a grower can have after clear fell tree pull will be doubled.

Proceedings Under Matrimonial Causes Act 1959-1973 (Question No. 300)

Mr Innes:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

Before he made his personal explanation on Wednesday, 24 March 1976, did any Judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales contact him regarding his answer to my questions the previous day.

Mr Ellicott:
Attorney-General · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

On Wednesday morning, 24 March, I was contacted by the Chief Justice of New South Wales, Sir Laurence Street, who indicated that he thought my answer of the previous day (which in fact was in answer to the Leader of the Opposition), as reported in the Press, was not completely accurate. I informed him that I had since become aware of this and proposed to make a statement correcting it later that day. The Chief Justice gave me certain information which was consistent with the information contained in my subsequent statement.

Medibank: Drug Dispensing (Question No. 337)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Further to Question No. 18 concerning the dispensing of drugs under Medibank in hospital outpatient departments, and the reply that the Commonwealth has no information on this subject, why does the Commonwealth not require the information when it has to pay SO per cent of the cost of the drugs and their dispensing.
  2. If the information is not available, how can the Medibank Review Committee do its work.
  3. If it is available from other sources, why was it not provided.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Under the Medibank hospital agreements the net operating costs of recognised hospitals are shared between the Commonwealth and the States. As a consequence, there is an incentive on the States to contain costs. In view of this situation the Commonwealth does not see a particular need for detailed information on drug and dispensing costs in recognised hospitals which, when viewed against total expenditure under the hospital agreements, are relatively minor components.
  2. The Medibank Review Committee was primarily concerned with Medibank in a broad policy context. As such, the absence of detailed data on drug costs in recognised hospitals did not in any way handicap the Committee s work.
  3. Information has recently come to hand from State hospital authorities which reveals that, three StatesQueensland, Western Australia and Tasmania-have experienced no significant change in the percentage of National

Health Scheme drugs dispensed in respect of outpatient departments of recognised hospitals since Medibank commenced. Two States-New South Wales and South Australia report that the information is not available. The remaining State- Victoria- reports that no detailed statistics are available on changes in the number of hospital prescriptions written in the outpatient department of every Victorian hospital since the introduction of Medibank. Preliminary information from some Victorian hospitals indicates that a moderate increase has taken place in these institutions, but the extent is variable.

Divorce (Question No. 340)

Mr Young:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What discussions have taken place between officials of his Department and officials of the Department of the Attorney-General of New South Wales regarding the powers of the registries of courts in New South Wales to withhold certificates that a decree nisi of divorce has become absolute.
  2. What powers do State Governments have to refuse such certificates to citizens making application for them.
  3. How many applications for such certificates were made during the period 1 January 1975 to 31 December 1975 in the State of New South Wales.
  4. How many of these applications were refused.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The only discussion of which I am aware is the conversation between the officer of my Department and the Registrar of the Family Law Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales referred to in my supplementary answer on 6 April 1976 to a question from the Leader of the Opposition (Hansard, page 1 343 ).
  2. This question calls for an interpretation of the law and can only be decided by the courts. The honourable member is, however, referred to rule 299 of the Matrimonial Causes Rules and regulation 1 62 of the Family Law Regulations.
  3. 3 ) I am informed that there were approximately 1 3 000.
  4. I am informed that there were approximately 6 (where insufficient information was available to indentify the suit).

Oriental Fruit Fly (Question No. 375)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

What action is being taken by his Department to contain the spread and to destroy Oriental Fruit Fly recently discovered in the Northern Territory, and what funds have been provided for this purpose.

Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

The Australian Agricultural Council at its meeting in January 1976 received a report submitted by the Standing Committee on Agriculture on the outbreak of Oriental Fruit Fly in the Northern Territory. Council noted the extremely serious possible consequences for Australia’s horticultural industries and agreed that an intensive biological study of the parasite by experts should be initiated without delay to determine the likely extent of it spreading beyond the Northern Territory, the feasibility of eradication, the best methods for suppression, control and commodity disinfestation procedures. The honourable member can see from the answers to his questions by the Ministers for Health, the Northern Territory and Science (Nos 387, 388 and 390 respective^) that measures have been initiated in the control of this fly. Investigations recently made both overseas and in Australia support the opinion that Oriental Fruit Fly has been established in the Northern Territory for a considerable period of time. Considerable biological data on the pest is being assembled and efforts are being made to elucidate the pest status of the fly. Funds amounting to S1.803m have been allocated by the Minister for Health for all aspects of the Oriental Fruit Fly campaign.

Telephones (Question No. 393)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that residents in the Electoral Division of Sydney are undergoing delays in respect of their telephone service; if so, what steps are being taken to rectify the situation.
  2. ) Are there staff cut-backs in this area.
  3. Will the apprentice intake be greater in 1976 than 1975; if so, what are the details.
  4. Will he ensure that the Australian telephone service remains one of the best in the world.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Telecom Australia advises that new telephone services in the electoral division of Sydney are being provided within one to two weeks. The standard of service on the clearance of faults is not as good as Telecom Australia would like to provide in this area. Wet weather conditions have been an inhibiting factor in achieving an improvement in performance. There is some shortage of skilled staff in this particular location due to wastage and efforts are being made to overcome the problem by transfers.
  2. It is expected that fewer apprentices will be recruited in Sydney at the end ofl 976.
  3. The Government’s policy is that the telephone network should continue to be developed to serve the reasonable needs of the Australian community. Every action possible will continue to be taken to provide the Telecommunications Commission with the resources to implement that policy.

Spectacle Frames (Question No. 501)

Mr McVeigh:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many Australian companies manufacture spectacle frames at the present time.
  2. Have any companies manufacturing spectacle frames closed down in recent years; if so what were the reasons for their closure.
  3. How many persons are engaged in the production of spectacle frames in Australia.
  4. Can he say whether Australian spectacle makers are among the best manufacturers of this commodity in the world.
Mr Howard:
LP

– The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. The principal manufacturers of ophthalmic frames in Australia at present are:

Martin Wells Pty Ltd. Framemakers Australia Pty Ltd. Optex Eyewear Pty Ltd. Michael Kent Eyewear Pty Ltd. Melbrex

Optical Laboratories Pty Ltd. In addition there are a few small firms manufacturing limited quantities, usually of a specialist nature. Martin Wells is also the principal local manufacturer of sunglass frames.

  1. I am not aware of any, and certainly no such manufacturer of any significant size has closed. However Polarizers (Australia) Pty Ltd. ceased production in July 1975, prior to which it was a major manufacturer of sunglass frames. The reason for the closure is understood to have been lack of profitability.
  2. Total employment in the manufacture of ophthalmic frames in Australia is approximately 370 persons.
  3. Markets have been established in a number of overseas countries for Australian-made ophthalmic frames, which would indicate that these products are of world standard.

Department of Defence: Expenditure (Question No. 535)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. What commitments for expenditure in 1976-77 and 1 977-78 does his Department have.
  2. On what date was each commitment made.
  3. What sum is involved in each commitment.
  4. For what purposes is each commitment.
  5. To whom have the commitments been made.
Mr Killen:
Minister for Defence · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. to (5) I refer the honourable member to the Treasurer’s reply to question No. 526 (Hansard, 26 May 1976, page 2525).

Attorney-General’s Department: Expenditure (Question No. 537)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What commitments for expenditure in 1 976-77 and 1 977-78 does his Department have.
  2. On what date was each commitment made.
  3. What sum is involved in each commitment.
  4. For what purpose is each commitment.
  5. To whom have the commitments been made.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s questions ( 1 ) to (5) is as follows:

The attention of the honourable member is drawn to the reply furnished by the Treasurer to question No. 526 as published in Hansard on Wednesday, 26 May 1 976.

Postal Commission: Industrial Problems (Question No. 567)

Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to claims that current industrial problems in the post office in Western Australia in relation to the employment of non-union labour are being promoted by the Western Australian Government and political organisations associated with that Government in order to establish a justification for political interference in the operations of the Postal Commission.
  2. 2 ) If so, will he investigate the claims.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. and (2) The industrial problems in Western Australia associated with the employment of a Postal Officer at Busselton have been resolved. I have no knowledge of any allegations that the difficulties were being promoted by any organisation.

Department of Primary Industry: Staff Recruitment (Question No. 589)

Mr Macphee:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many persons are employed by his Department or by agencies responsible to him or his Department in a staff recruiting capacity and what amounts are chargeable to his Department or such agencies in respect of their annual salaries.
  2. To what extent does his Department or any such agency engage private employment agencies to assist in the recruitment of staff.
  3. What sum was spent by his Department or any such agency in engaging private employment agencies in the financial year 1974-75.
  4. To what extent does his Department or any such agency engage or otherwise obtain assistance from the Commonwealth Employment Service in the recruitment of staff and what sum has been paid to the Commonwealth Employment Service in respect of such assistance.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The Department of Primary Industry employs nine people in a staff recruiting capacity. The amounts chargeable to the Department for salaries total $87,146 per annum. None of the Authorities coming within my portfolio employ staff solely in a recruitment capacity.
  2. The Department does not engage the services of private employment agencies but several of the Commodity Authorities find it necessary to seek assistance from private agencies in recruiting professional and technical staff which are often in short supply.
  3. In the financial year 1974-75, the Commodity Authorities paid approximately $21,700 to private employment agencies.
  4. Most of the Commodity Authorities utilise the services offered by the Commonwealth Employment Service in recruiting staff to semi- and unskilled positions and for obtaining clerical /typing assistance. The Authorities have not been charged by the Commonwealth Employment Service for the assistance provided. The Department recruits its staff through the Public Service Board and does not seek assistance from the Commonwealth Employment Service.

Telephones (Question No. 663)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the statement appearing on page 70 of the 1975 Annual Report of the Australian Post Office that the number of deferred applications for telephone services where the service cannot he offered pending major extensions of plant stood at 16 472.
  2. What is the estimated number of deferred applications as at the end of the year 1975-76 bearing in mind the fact that the capital works program of Telecom Australia has been cut by $1 lm for the year 1975-76 and total operative staff are to be reduced by 1250 during the same period.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Telecom Australia has advised that, at the end of April, the number of deferred applications was 12 622. It is expected to be marginally lower at the end of the year.

Industry: Temporary Protection (Question No. 675)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What procedures exist for groups or firms to seek temporary protection when they are affected by imports, or decisions of the Industries Assistance Commission.
  2. Can the refusal or failure to seek protection for local industry by firms engaged in both the manufacture and import of goods prevent any application being made on behalf of the industry or those dependant on such industry.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1) It is open to any interested group or firm to present a case to the Government for temporary protection against the effects of import competition.

Such cases should be directed to the respective industry Minister or his Department.

The case would not however be against a decision of the Commission as its role is purely advisory. Decisions on its advice are taken by the Government.

  1. No.

Whilst applications for assistance are normally made by manufacturers engaged in a particular industry, as stated in ( 1 ) any group may present a case for protection.

It is normal practice however for the industry department to consult the industry concerned as well as other interested parties before a decision is made on whether a reference should be forwarded to the Industries Assistance Commission or the Temporary Assistance Authority.

Defence Force: Recruitment (Question No. 688)

Mr Garrick:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is he, as reported, pleased with the level of recruitment to the Defence Forces so far this year.
  2. Is it a fact that despite a general cut-back in Government advertising a recruiting campaign for the Defence Forces has been launched this year at an estimated cost of $2m; if so, why has the campaign been undertaken, especially in the present economic climate.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes, but despite the present economic and employment climate, it has not been easy to encourage suitable people to accept Service employment as an alternative to the ess demanding and disciplined life styles of civilian occupations.
  2. No unusual recruiting campaign has been launched this year. Each financial year we must seek to replace those leaving our Defence Force with high quality young men and women to maintain it at the level set by the Government. To do this requires year round recruiting endeavours which are supported by advertising in the media. For the 1975-76 financial year $2,084,630 was provided in estimates and in spite of significantly increased costs this is not being exceeded.

Parafield Aerodrome (Question No. 691)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to complaints regarding the restriction of air space, affecting air operations at Parafield Aerodrome in Adelaide, following the recent announcement of certain RAAF operations being transferred to Edinburgh Air Base.
  2. Were investigations carried out as to the suitability of the facilities at Woomera for those RAAF activities.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. In addition, I have received representations from the Royal Aero Club of South Australia Inc., Parafield. The present situation is that formal negotiations on the subject of air space in the Edinburgh area are about to take place between the Adelaide Region of the Department of Transport and the three Services. No additional restrictions on air space have yet been made.

  2. Yes. The reasons why Woomera was considered less suitable than Edinburgh include:

    1. Re-surfacing of runways and airfields pavements at Woomera would be required.
    2. Additional personnel would be needed.
    3. Remoteness from the Weapons Research Establishment at Salisbury.
    4. Overall cost of establishing the RAAF’s Aircraft Research and Development Unit at Woomera would be 50 per cent higher than at Edinburgh.
    5. Annual operating costs would also be significantly higher.

Public Service Air Travel (Question No. 367)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What sum has been paid by the Department of Science to each airline for air travel within Australia during the last 2 years.
  2. 2 ) Will the Minister supply similar information in respect of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.
Mr Adermann:
Minister Assisting the Minister for National Resources · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

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

  1. The Department of Science paid the following amounts to airlines for air travel within Australia for the two year period from 1 April 1974 to 31 March 1976.
  1. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, paid the following amounts to airlines for air travel within Australia in the two year period from I April 1 974 to 3 1 March 1 976.

Health Care: Joint Hospital’s Works Councils (Question No. 487)

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Who are the representatives of the Australian Government or the Hospitals and Health Services Commission on State organisations involved in health care.
  2. On what dates has the Joint Hospitals Works Council met in each State.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) South Australia

Community Health Centres- Committees of Management:

Ingle Farm

St Agnes

Clovelly Park

Angle Park

Christies Beach

Hindmarsh

Federal-State Co-ordinating Committee for Nursing Home Accommodation in S.A. Eastern Regional Geriatric Rehabilitation Advisory Committee Southern Regional Geriatric Rehabilitation Advisory Committee State-Federal Committee on Community Health Planning Federal-State Mosquito Control Committee (Torrens Island)

Dr A. C. Green. Director of Health (or his nominee)

Dr A. C. Green (or his nominee)

Dr A. C. Green (or his nominee) Dr A. C. Green (or his nominee) Dr A. C. Green (or his nominee) Dr A. C.Green or his nominee)

There are no representatives of the Commonwealth Government or the Hospitals and Health Services Commission on State organisations involved in health care in either Queensland or Western Australia.

  1. New South Wales, 4 November 1974, 11-12 March 1975, 9 September 1975 and 20-21 May 1976; Victoria, 4 December 1974, 19 February 1975, 11 September 1975 and 27-28 May 1976; South Australia, 8-9 October 1974, 25-26 February 1975, 24 September 1975 and 3-4 June 1976 (Proposed dates); Western Australia, 31 October 1974, 27-28 February 1975, 22 September 1975 and 1-2 June 1976 (Proposed dates); Tasmania, 25-26 November 1974, 17-18 February 1975, 29 September 1975 and 25-26 May 1976; Queensland, 19 November 1974, 17-18 March 1975, 8 September 1975 and 18- 19 May 1976.

Quarantine: Port Hedland (Question No. 47)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What fumigation equipment is provided at Port Hedland for use of quarantine staff to fumigate ships.
  2. ) Does his Department consider it adequate.
  3. What procedures are followed in respect of ships requiring fumigation at North West Ports in Western Australia.
  4. Has the Shire of Port Hedland expressed concern at lack of fumigation equipment at Port Hedland; if so, what action has been taken or is planned on the Shire ‘s complaint.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– My Department has provided me with the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. None.
  2. ) Not applicable; see (4).
  3. The fumigation process is lengthy, expensive and not without risk. Fumigation is therefore only performed at certain ports and when rat infestation is heavy enough to warrant it. Fremantle is the only port in Western Australia designated by the World Health Organisation to issue deratting certificates. Ships arriving at North West Pons would only be fumigated if the vessel proceeded on to Fremantle or a port in another State where fumigation is carried out, and the infestation was heavy enough to warrant the procedure. For other ships arriving at North West Ports, trapping and poison baiting would be undertaken.
  4. Yes. The Shire has been informed that vessels which call at Port Hedland from overseas are not prone to rodent infestation because they are mainly bulk iron ore or salt carriers, the cargoes of which are not attractive to rodents. Some of these vessels may have minor infestations of rats which can be efficiently dealt with by simpler, safer and cheaper methods of eradication such as trapping, and baiting infected areas with anticoagulant and other poisons. Use of these methods is normal international practice and they are recognised by WHO as effective.

Quarantine Inspector: Port Hedland (Question No.50)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What are the functions and responsibilities of the Quarantine Inspector, North West Ports, stationed at Port Hedland, Western Australia.
  2. What ports does he cover, and how many vessels from overseas berthed at these ports during the last 2 years.
  3. What assistants are provided, what are their qualifications, and for how many hours work have they been paid during the last 2 years.
  4. What restrictions apply to travel by the Quarantine Inspector, North West Ports, within the area of his responsibility.
  5. Have these travel restrictions been changed during the last 2 years; if so, in what ways, and for what reasons.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– My Department has supplied me with the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) As per duty statement:

Inspectorial Functions applicable to General, Plant and Animal Quarantine Duties.

Detailed inspection of vessels berthed at Port Hedland to ascertain the degree of rodent and vermin infestation, report and supervise plant matters (i.e. insect infestation and grain spillage on cargo).

Maintain shipping, aircraft records, daily dairy, and general office duties.

Scrutinise overseas cargo and parcels relevant to plant and animal Quarantine regulations.

Disinfect, fumigate or destroy goods in accordance with Quarantine requirements.

As far as practicable, attend arrival of incoming overseas aircraft at airports north of Carnarvon, spray and seize prohibited foodstuffs and refuse. Supervise destruction thereof.

Liaise with and train part-time Quarantine Assistants employed at outports north of Carnarvon.

Perform other duties as directed.

  1. Ports covered by Quarantine Inspector, North West Ports and overseas vessels cleared on the past two years arc as follows:

  1. –

    1. i) Quarantine Assistants ( employed part-time).
    1. Quarantine Assistants do not require formal qualifications to perform the quarantine duties required of them. These duties are performed in accordance with standard procedures laid down in Departmental instructions.
    2. 1974-1718 hours; 1975-1438 hours.
  2. The prior approval of the Western Australian Divisional Office is required for all travel, in accordance with the normal procedures operating within the Department.
  3. Travel restrictions are the same except for the extra constraint on routine visiting which has been applied to all officers of the Division, as an economy measure, since September 1975. However, the Quarantine Inspector, North West Ports, has also been on leave since September 1975.

Quarantine (Question No. 384)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) In how many vessels, and at what ports, have officers and /or employees of his Department used cyanide in the last 12 months.
  2. Have any officers or employees engaged on this work been affected by cyanide.
  3. If so, will he (a) detail the instances, (b) give the qualifications and experience in use of cyanide of any affected officers or employees and (c) indicate what action was taken by the Department, oris planned.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– My Department has provided me with the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes.

  2. 3 ) ( a ) On 24 February 1 976 at Port Adelaide.

    1. A quarantine inspector with 34 years quarantine service and experience of some hundreds of cyanide fumigations was temporarily affected. He holds a current State cyanide fumigator’s licence, No. 1586 and is a qualified Health Surveyor (1956).

A Quarantine Assistant Grade1who has been associated with four cyanide fumigations under supervision, was also temporarily affected. He is currently studying a Royal Society of Health Course and attended a Quarantine Assistants training course in June 1 975, arranged by the Department.

  1. Cyanide fumigation by the Departmental Quarantine Officers in SouthAustraia was suspended. Instructions were issued on 28 February 1976 that cyanide fumigation was to be done in future only after each proposal had been considered and approved by the Commonwealth Director of Health.

Quarantine (Question No. 385)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has he or his Department received reports concerning the presence of rats on the Sultan Sea berthed at Dampier. Western Australia, from 18March 1976 to 20 March 1976.
  2. What actions were taken by his Department in relation to this vessel, and, in particular, which Departmental officers and employees inspected the ship, and what were their qualifications and experience.
  3. What Departmental staff, or staff of other Departments, act for the Department of Health at Dampier. and what are their qualifications and experience.
  4. Are all ships entering Dampier inspected; if not. why not, and on what basis are inspections determined.
  5. Will he give an assurance that quarantine measures at Dampier are adequate, and that no quarantine threat exists because of the current staffing and procedures at the port: if not, why not, and what action is planned.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– My Department has provided me with the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (1)Yes.

  1. The vessel was boarded on arrival at Dampier by the Quarantine Medical Officer and the Quarantine Assistant visited the vessel to ensure that rat guards were in place and that galley refuse was stored under approved conditions.

On 20 March, when the vessel was fully loaded, it was reported that rats had been seen in the region of the galley. The Master was instructed to trap and to lay poison and the vessel was permitted to sail that day for overseas.

  1. Dr L. Fenwick, whose qualifications are M.B.. B.S. (Syd) was appointed as part-time Quarantine Medical Officer on 10 November 1966. Police Sergeant Keely, who is the part-time Quarantine Assistant, was appointed as such 6 June 1975. Quarantine Assistants do not require formal qualifications to perform the Quarantine duties required of them. These duties are performed in accordance with standard procedures laid down in Departmental instructions.
  2. Current procedures provide that all vessels entering Dampier undergo quarantine medical inspection on arrival by the Quarantine Medical Officer and daily inspection during their stay in port by a Quarantine Assistant. The Quarantine Assistant ensures that rat guards are in place and that galley refuse is stored under approved conditions.
  3. Yes.

Cancer (Question No. 400)

Mr McVeigh:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many organisations are carrying out research into cancer in Australia.
  2. ) What are their names.
  3. How are they funded.
  4. What is the per capita expenditure on cancer research in Australia at the present time.
  5. Can he say how this per capita expenditure compares with (a) the United States of America and ( b ) Great Britain.
  6. Is any contribution made by any American organisation to cancer research in Australia; if so, how much, and to whom.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) to (6) Research in Australia into cancer, along with research into other diseases and medical conditions, as undertaken by universities having medical schools, most teaching hospitals and the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research. I understand that funds for this research in Australia are sought by those organisations from a multiplicity of diverse sources and that much the same arrangements obtain in the United States of America and Great Britain. I am unable to say what proportion of the funds that are secured by the organisations, Australian or otherwise, are directed specifically to research into cancer and consequently I cannot provide the per capita expenditure figures sought.

However, I can say that in supporting medical research with funds provided through the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Government made available in 1 97 5 $ 1 , 1 10,000 specifically for cancer research. Of this sum, the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute received a block grant of $800,000 and thirty separate projects received $310,000. In 1976, $948,000 has been committed for the Institute and $380,000 for twenty-seven separate projects.

Shipping: Medical Clearance (Question No. 403)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Who has been responsible for the medical clearance or certifying of foreign ships entering the port of Gladstone during March and April 1976.
  2. Who was responsible for his appointment.
  3. Was approval sought from or given by any Canberra based officials in respect of this appointment.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Dr J. A. Mc Gree; Mr A. Armstrong; Dr D. N. Everingham.
  2. Dr McGree was appointed a Quarantine Officer by the Governor-General in Council in 1 938.

Mr Armstrong was appointed a temporary Quarantine Officer by the Director-General of Health as Direct of Quarantine in November 1975.

Dr Everingham, who acted as locum tenens for Dr McGree in private practice for two weeks from 22 March, was appointed a temporary Quarantine Officer by the First Assistant Director-General, Quarantine Division, Canberra in March 1976.

  1. See(2)above

Medibank: Radio Therapists (Question No. 423)

Mr O’Keefe:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has limited private practice under Medibank caused radiotherapists to resign from hospitals.
  2. If so, has this action made it difficult to attract radiologists into hospital work, and is this causing great concern as radiotherapists use radiation to treat cancer and other diseases, and radiologists use X-ray to diagnose a condition.
  3. If the position is as stated, will he urgently investigate the situation with a view to overcoming this serious medical problem.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. to (3) The provision of Hospital Radiotherapy Services is primarily a matter for the States.

Inquiries made of State Health Authorities have not indicated any significant number of resignations of Radiotherapists following the introduction of Medibank.

Pest Eradication (Question No. 439)

Mr McVeigh:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Have there been any Commonwealth /State discussions concerning complementary and supplementary legislation to control pest eradication in Australia, if not, will he investigate the possibility of holding such discussions, particularly with respect to common legislation for ingredients of poisons and qualifications of exterminators.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

Close consultation between the Commonwealth and the States on the control of pest eradication has been promoted over a long period by the Australian Agricultural Council. These consultations are on a continuing basis.

There is a substantially uniform approach over virtually the whole field of pesticide control, including such matters as the registration of pesticides, direction for pesticides usage, labelling, etc.

Legislative measures are the responsibility of the individual States and Territories, under the legislation in the particular State or Territory.

The work performed under the auspices of the Australian Agricultural Council has been integrated with the activities of the National Health and Medical Research Council. This has brought about a close co-ordination of approach between the States and the Commonwealth on these matters.

The National Health and Medical Research Council at its sixty-sixth session in May 1968 approved Draft Uniform Pesticide Regulations are recommended that they be distributed to States and Commonwealth Territories as a guide for the statutory control of the hazards from the commercial use of pesticides. The question of the control of pest eradicators was raised in committees of the Council in 1970 and again in 1972 and it was agreed that the NH & MRC Draft Regulations of 1968 provided a basis of control. I have arranged for the matter to be raised at the relevant committee of the NH & MRC with a view to bringing about more uniform adoption of the draft regulations, than has been so far achieved.

Medical Practitioners (Question No. 481)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) It is a fact that some medical practitioners are refusing to accept appointments from patients unless those patients are contributors to private medical insurance schemes.
  2. If so, have medical practitioners the right to refuse to treat patients if they do not contribute to private medical insurance schemes.
  3. Will he have discussions with organisations covering the medical profession to ensure that the unethical actions of some medical practitioners are condemned by those organisations.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) No evidence is available to the Department of Health or the Health Insurance Commission to indicate that some medical practitioners are adopting that practice referred to in the question.
  2. I am advised that doctors do have the right to decide whether they will see a patient or not, just as patients have the right to choose their doctor. However, as mentioned, there is no evidence available to me that any such action is on the basis of whether individuals contribute to private medical insurance schemes.
  3. On the information available there is no need for discussions with the medical profession on the tines proposed by the honourable member.

Hyperactivity in Children (Question No. 491)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the recent ABC Science Program on the association between food additives and hyperactivity in children.
  2. Is there any research being carried out on the additives being put into foodstuffs.
  3. Could a symbol be adopted to be placed on all foods which are absolutely free from artificial colourings and flavourings.
  4. How many different additives are allowed by law to be used at present, and has there been adequate research carried out on them prior to their use.
  5. What organisation or firm has carried out or is currently carrying out research into the matter now.
  6. Will he take appropriate steps to ensure that manufacturers be compelled, by law, to mark on their products what flavourings, colouring and preserving agents are used in their products.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes, I am aware of recent ABC Television and Radio programs concerning the theories of Dr Benjamin Feingold on the association between food additives and hyperactivity in children.

I would stress that the relationship postulated by Dr Feingold is at present unconfirmed. Research is underway in Australia into this theory (see (5)).

  1. 2 ) Yes. Some research is being carried out in this country; however, the bulk of the work being done on these substances is carried out overseas.

Results of all these research studies, both in this country and overseas, are carefully examined by the appropriate committees of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NH & MRC). As a result of this consideration, recommendations are made by Council as to which additives may be approved for use in foods.

  1. Rather than use a symbol to distinguish foods which are free from particular substances, it is considered more useful and informative to require all added substances to be listed on the label.

The NH & MRC is currently considering the whole range of matters to be included on food labels. In the listing of added substances, the proposals include a requirement that foods containing added colouring and flavouring would be labelled ‘colouring added’ or ‘flavouring added’. (Current State legislation already requires food to which a preservative has been added to be labelled accordingly).

  1. The list of approved food additives in Australia is very short compared with those of most western countries. It contains approximately 230 approved food additives. In the United States of America, for example, the list of approved additives contains approximately ten times the number permitted in Australia.

All the additives approved for use in Australia have been individually evaluated by the appropriate committee of the NH & MRC, taking into consideration all the data available, both here and overseas.

Even after approval, these additives are continually reviewed by this committee.

  1. At its 81st Session in October 1975, the National Health and Medical Research Council approved a research grant to a team of two psychiatrists and a doctor specialising in nutrition to conduct research into the possible relationship between artificial colourings and flavourings in food and hyperactive behaviour in children.
  2. As mentioned in (3) above, the whole matter of labelling of foodstuffs is currently under consideration. The final recommendations should be available shortly.

The power to require food to be labelled rests with the States and Territories under their own individual legislation. Recommendations made by the NH & MRC are generally adopted into such legislation.

In this regard, a joint Commonwealth/State Working Party is currently considering the development of model food legislation for uniform application throughout Australia.

Weed Killer 245T (Question No. 499)

Mr McVeigh:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is the common weedkiller 245T available without restriction at supermarkets and garden shops in Australia.
  2. Can he say if this weedkiller was used as a defoliant in the Vietnam war.
  3. If so, was its use the cause of deformities in unborn babies in that country.
  4. What research is being undertaken at the present time to ascertain if the use of this weedicide can produce worse side effects than thalidomide.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. This substance is available for purchase by the general public in Australia.
  2. Yes.
  3. There were reports of deformities in the new born in that country attributed to its use but these reports, to my knowledge, have never been satisfactorily substantiated.
  4. A great deal of research has been carried out on this weedicide and this has been noted by the Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals Sub-committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council; this Sub-committee is keeping the matter under review.

At its Eightieth Session in April 1975 the National Health and Medical Research Council included the following statement and recommendation in its Report of that Session: ‘Council considered the most recent reports of teratogenesis following the administration of large oral doses of 2,4,5-T and considered that the available evidence indicated that the impurity tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin (TCDD) was the agent implicated in congenital abnormalities. Council noted that recent information had shown that 2,4,5-T available in Australia contained less than 0.1 ppm of TCDD at which level no teratogenic activity has been reported. Council considered that recommended safety precautions followed in the handling of pesticides should provide adequate protection to all persons exposed to 2,4,5-T in its manufacture and use.

Council recommend that 2,4,5-T containing more than 0.1 ppm of TCDD should not be permitted for use as a herbicide in Australia and that there should be a maximum residue limit of 0.02 ppm of 2,4,5-T permitted in water.’

As part of the process of registration for sale and use of 2,4,5-T action is taken in the States to ensure that all products available to the public contain no more than 0. 1 ppm of TCDD.

Rural Finance (Question No. 504)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is he able to say what interest rate is charged on Rural Credits Division advances and other advances by the Reserve Bank to primary industry marketing authorities.
  2. Is he also able to say what interest rate is charged by the equivalent New Zealand authority to the equivalent New Zealand industries.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The range of rates applicable to advances by the Reserve Bank’s Rural Credits Department is currently 9.5-10.0 per cent per annum.
  2. My Department has been advised by the Treasury that as far as the Reserve Bank of Australia is aware the rate charged by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand is not published.

Yarralumla Nursery (Question No. 517)

Mr Cadman:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the annual running cost of the Yarralumla Nursery in Canberra.
  2. How many staff are employed and what positions do they occupy.
  3. What is the annual production from the Nursery.
  4. What is the cost of production for the 3 most popular plants or specimens.
Mr Staley:
Minister for the Capital Territory · CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) The running costs of the Yarralumla Nursery (including the Pialligo annex) in the 1974-75 financial year was $446,000 and estimated expenditure for 1975-76 is $466,000.
  2. ) 39 staff are currently employed and comprise:

Nursery Manager……….. I

Overseer, Grade II………. I

Overseer, Grade I……….. 4

Industrial Staff (plant propagation and other work)…………… 31

Clerical………….. 2

39

  1. 410 000 plants were produced in the 1974-75 financial year. Estimated production for the current financial year is 350 000.
  2. The cost of production for individual species is not available but is estimated to be 60c for small size container stock (20 cm x 10 cm) and up to $4.00 for open rooted stock (2 metres high).

Department of Primary Industry (Question No. 527)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. What commitments for expenditure in 1976-77 and 1977-78 does his Department have.
  2. On what date was each commitment made.
  3. What sum is involved in each commitment.
  4. For what purpose is each commitment.
  5. To whom have the commitments been made.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

– The honourable member is referred to the answer give by the Treasurer to Question No. 526 reported in Hansard of 26 May 1976.

Department of Employment and Industrial Relations (Question No. 531)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

  1. What commitments for expenditure in 1976-77 and 1977-78 does his Department have.
  2. On what date was each commitment made.
  3. What sum is involved in each commitment.
  4. For what purpose is each commitment.
  5. To whom have the commitments been made.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. to (5) I refer the honourable member to the answer given by the Treasurer to Question No. 526 which appeared m Hansard on 26 May 1976 (page 2525).

Department of Health (Question No. 539)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What commitments for expenditure in 1976-77 and 1977-78 does his Department have.
  2. On what date was each commitment made.
  3. What sum is involved in each commitment.
  4. 4 ) For what purpose is each commitment.
  5. To whom have the commitments been made.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– My Department has provided me with the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. to (5) I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by the Treasurer to Question No. S26 published in Hansard, 26 May 1976.

Learmonth Communications Station: Garbage Disposal (Question No. 556)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Further to Question No. 2562 (Hansard, 9 July 1975, page 3682) what action has been taken to provide an incinerator at Learmonth, Western Australia.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– My Department has provided me with the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) Provision of an incinerator at Learmonth proposed for 1976-77 has been deferred as a measure of economic restraint.
  2. The arrangements outlined in my answer to Question No. 2562 will continue to apply until an incinerator is provided and no quarantine risk is involved.

Domiciliary Nursing Care Benefit (Question No. 614) . Mr Macphee asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that one of the criteria for the receipt of the Domiciliary Nursing Care Benefit is that the patient must be visited by a Royal District Nurse.
  2. Is there a shortage of such nurses and did a mass meeting of such nurses recently complain about the excessive workload which they bear.
  3. Has the Minister considered supplementing this service by making the Domiciliary Nursing Care Benefit payable to relatives who are appropriately qualified to care for aged, sick or invalid persons and who do, or are prepared to, devote themselves full time to caring for their elderly relatives.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1) In order to qualify for the payment of the domiciliary nursing care benefit, a patient must have a continuing need for nursing care and must receive that care in the home by, or under the supervision of a registered nurse. In most instances, the attending nurse would be a member of the District Nursing Service or of an equivalent Service. However, it is not essential that the attending nurse be a member of a nursing service to be eligible to fulfil the nursing care requirement. Under the provisions of the National Health Act, any qualified nurse who is currently registered under a law of a State or Territory may provide nursing care to an approved patient.
  2. I am not aware of any mass meeting of domiciliary nurses to complain about the excessive workload which they bear. However, I would point out the provision of nurses within the States is primarily the responsibility of each State Government. The Commonwealth assists, financially, nonprofit nursing organisations by way of subsidies for their nursing staff under the provisions of the Home Nursing Subsidy Act.
  3. Where the beneficiary or a member of the family is a registered nurse and the person provides some skilled nursing care to the patient, it is not necessary to engage the services of another person to provide skilled nursing care to the patient

The requirement for visits by a registered nurse has been partly relaxed in relation to patients living in remote rural areas where it is not possible, because of the area’s remoteness, to arrange for a nurse to visit regularly. However, in these remote areas, it is necessary for the nurse to visit the patient occasionally to ensure that the level of care being provided is adequate to meet the patient’s needs.

Wheat Varieties (Question No. 657)

Mr McVeigh:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. Is prime hard 14 per cent protein wheat which is grown in Queensland and northern New South Wales, recognised as being among the top quality wheats in the world.
  2. Do these wheats command premium prices in world markets in competition with the best wheats from Canada, the United States and the Soviet Union.
  3. Has his attention been drawn to the breeding program of some Australian wheat breeding centres based on the lower quality high-yielding Mexican dwarf varieties.
  4. Is it a fact that these Australian wheat breeders have developed techniques which rectify defects in quality and milling abilities of hard wheats propagated from Mexican germ plasm by crossing the variety WW 15 with hard cultivars.
  5. Do these wheats contain Gabo which is one of Australia’s quality wheats, in their parentage.
  6. Will there be any downgrading of the high quality hard wheats grown in Queensland and northern New South Wales following the release of any new wheats based on Mexican dwarf varieties.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. to (6) I understand that with the introduction of the high yielding, semi-dwarf Mexican wheats into the Australian wheat breeding programme, the relationship between the protein content of the grain and yield has become an important consideration.

This balance between yield and protein content has been the subject of a thorough and extensive study by Australian plant breeders and geneticists.

I am informed that the subject was discussed at the Australian Wheat Industry Review Conference held in Sydney in March 1976. The discussion is to be documented in a paper which will form part of a post-conference volume to be issued by the CSIRO reporting on a range of matters discussed at the Conference.

Mini Budget: Press Briefings (Question No. 702)

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Which newspaper editors did he brief on the mini- Budget on the night before the Treasurer delivered it on 20 May.

Mr Fraser:
Prime Minister · WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

I saw a number of people privately on the afternoon and evening of 19 May. As the discussions were private I do not intend to give the names of those who took part.

Importation of Tomatoes (Question No. 725)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Have any applications been received for by-law entry of tomatoes or tomato products now that the tomato season has ended.
  2. If so, from whom were they received, for what tonnage and from which countries.
  3. When making any decision on by-law entry will he take into account the fact that certain processors refused to accept all of the tomatoes that were offered to them by Australian growers.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. Not applicable.
  3. I am advised that the 1976 tomato crop is sufficient to meet local requirements for tomatoes and tomato products. In these circumstances by-law admission is therefore inappropriate.

Victorian Abattoirs (Question No. 240)

Mr King:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) To what extent have there been stoppages at meat abattoirs in Victoria during 1975-76.
  2. What meat firms had disruptions in the form of strikes during the same year.
  3. 3) What effect have such disturbances had on ( a) the production of meat for local consumption, (b) the production of meat for export and (c) the financial returns to primary producers.
  4. Have these strikes been of lengthy or short duration.
  5. To what extent have stock entered at regular markets for slaughter in Victoria been transported to other States.
  6. Do (a) strikers and (b) those who are stood down because of strikes receive unemployment relief.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and ( 2 ) Fully comprehensive statistics on all industrial disputes in Australia are not available. However, information made available to my Department by the Meat and Allied Trades Federation in relation to strikes at Victorian abattoirs and meat firms during 1975 and 1976 is contained in Table One.

  2. (a) and (b) I am informed statistics on production of meat in Victoria for local consumption and export are available in the Bureau of Agricultural Economics publication, ‘Australian Beef Cattle Industry- Submission to Industries Assistance Commission ‘ April 1 976. While stoppages at Victorian abattoirs and meat firms during 1975 and 1976 would undoubtedly have reduced meat production in the short term, it is not possible to isolate the long term effects of the stoppages on production. The Department of Primary Industry have advised that in the years 1975 and 1976 to date, there has been no loss of market, inability to quote on contracts, or non-fulfilment of contracts in the meat export market as a result of industrial disputes. The Australian Meat Board have advised that statistics are not retained on the effect of industrial disputes on meat production.

    1. I am informed statistics on farm income are available in the Australian Bureau of Statistics Quarterly Estimates of National Income and Expenditure (ABS Reference No. 75). It is not possible to isolate the effect of stoppages at abattoirs and meat firms in Victoria during 1975 and 1 97 6 on the level of farm income.
  3. See answer to Question ( 1 ).
  4. I am informed this information is not readily available.

  5. (a) No.

    1. Yes if they are not members of the striking union(s) at the establishment where the strike occurs.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 1 June 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1976/19760601_reps_30_hor99/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant