House of Representatives
1 December 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 2.15 p.m., and read prayers.

page 3015

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Australian Symphony Orchestras

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we are deeply concerned at the threat to the continuation of symphony orchestras throughout Australia posed by the I.A.C. and Green reports.

We believe that the Government should not allow the symphony orchestras of Australia to be reduced in any way atall.

Your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House will take steps to ensure the continuation and growth of our symphony orchestras, thereby ensuring that the quality of life of the people of this country shall be maintained.

And your petitioners as in d uty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ellicott, Mr Baume, Mr Lionel Bowen, Mr Donald Cameron, Mr Connolly, Mr Dobie, Mr Gillard, Mr Graham, Mr Hurford, Mr Charles Jones, Mr Martin, Mr Moore, Mr Neil, Mr Ruddock and Mr Wentworth.

Petitions 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:

  1. That the use of uranium as a source of energy is currently unacceptable as it presents problems including radioactive waste, military implications and environmental degradation.
  2. That there can, at present, be no assurances that radioactive materials exported for peaceful purposes will not be used in the production of nuclear weapons.
  3. That there is not, as yet, any known safe method of disposing of radioactive wastes, nor is there likely to be.
  4. That the export of uranium from Australia is internationally irresponsible and is not, in the long term, of benefit to Australia.
  5. That the export of uranium from Australia discourages importing countries from investing research and development funds in finding viable alternatives.
  6. That only the overdeveloped industrial nations will benefit from Australian uranium and the gap between these countries and the energy starved third world will increase yet further.
  7. That the securing of land rights by Australian Aborigines, promised by successive governments, is prejudiced by uramum mining.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will immediately cease the mining and prohibit the export of uranium until perfectly safe methods of final disposal for radioactive wastes have been guaranteed; will greatly increase expenditure on research into safe, clean and inexhaustible sources of energy; and will aid underdeveloped countries in their efforts to secure a fair share of the world’s energy resources, while at the same time honouring its obligations to the future of humanity.

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

Petitions received.

Aboriginal Land Rights

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia do humbly pray that the Australian Government:

  1. Extend the freeze on alienation of vacant Crown land in the Northern Territory.

  2. Give urgent consideration to amendments to the Northern Territory (Land Rights) Bill 1 976 to give effect to:

    1. The restoration of the role of land councils and the Land Commissioner.
    2. The removal of distinction between ‘needs’ and traditional claims.
    3. The re-introduction of the 1975 Land Rights Bill’s provisions regarding mining.
    4. The withdrawal of power from the Northern Territory Assembly to make laws over sacred sites, permits and entry to pastoral properties.
    5. The control of all roads through Aboriginal land being held by the Aboriginal people themselves.

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

Petitions received.

Budget 1976-77

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 Budget will increase unemployment to unprecedented and crisis proportions at a time when hundreds of thousands of Australians, especially school-leavers, young workers and apprentices, are without work; the Budget completes the dismantling of Medibank as a simple, effective universal health insurance scheme, providing basic coverage for the total community; the Budget, by its heavy cuts in urban and transport programs, will worsen the quality of life available to many Australians; the Budget will compel State governments to reduce their services and increase charges; the Budget reduces spending on Aboriginal Affairs by 30 per cent and returns expenditure on Aborigines to pre- 1 972 days; the Budget seriously disadvantages migrant groups, most notably in employment and health, and leaves room for concern over the future of ethnic radio; the Budget, despite the Government’s earlier rhetoric about defence threats to Australia, continues to hold the size of the armed services at present levels; and the Budget, despite all the above, still cannot be expected to reduce Australia’s annual inflation rate below 12 per cent. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the 1976 Budget be redrafted to provide for economic recovery within the guidelines laid down by the Australian Labor Government’s1975 Budget.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Les McMahon and Mr Antony Whitlam.

Petitions received.

Uranium

The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, do respectfully showeth:

Are concerned about the consequences of mining of uranium and, in view of the important findings and warnings in the Fox Report, and the recommendations by the Commission that a public debate be held, request your Government to hold a referendum so that the Australian people can have the widest possible opportunity to participate in a debate on this vital environmental hazard; and in the conduct of such a referendum, take measures to ensure that arguments for and against mining and export of uranium receive equal media time and publicity.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMrUren.

Petition received.

Government Legislation

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 Australian nation was founded on the belief that God Almighty is the supreme ruler of the universe and that therefore all people are duty bound to honour Him in their every action.

That the Parliament acknowledges this principle each day of its sitting by the reading of public prayers.

At the same time the nation and many of its leaders seem to seek self gratification as their ultimate goal; leading to grave dissatisfaction amongst many and anarchy in some, which may ultimately lead to the establishment of a dictatorship of either the left or the right.

That many Christians are concerned about the deterioration in moral standards, private as well as public as is instanced by public lawlessness and in the private sphere disobedience to higher authorities and a lowering of moral attitudes.

Your petitioners call on the Australian Parliament to:

Give honour to Almighty God and to acknowledge their high calling; civil authority being in the sight of God, not only sacred and lawful but by far the most honourable of all stations in life. Psalm 82.

To resist all that leads to a belief that material enrichment is the ultimate in personal wellbeing but rather to call upon the nation to fear God and keep His commandments: for that is the whole duty of man. Ecclesiastes 12: 13 and 14.

To apply the Universal law of God; the ten commandments to all its legislative actions, thus providing a sound basis on which to build a harmonious relationship between all sections of the community.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMrBungey.

Petition received.

Pensions

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 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 means 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. byMrBungey.

Petition received.

Broadcasting Council

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 representation of the consumer, the listening public community groups be included in the membership of the proposed Broadcasting Council.

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

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 Plutonium 239 if utilized in Light Water Reactors overseas, and whereas the maximum permissible inhalation of Plutonium 239 is 0.00000025 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 safety 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 micronized 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 economic independence and self-sufficiency. by Mr Falconer.

Petition received.

Australian Broadcasting Commission

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

We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government;

  1. Subscribe to the view that the Australian Broadcasting Commission belongs to the people and not to the government of the day whatever political party.
  2. Eschew all means, direct or indirect, of diminishing the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.
  3. Reject all proposals for the introduction of advertising into ABC programs.
  4. Develop methods for publicly funding the Commission which will prevent the granting or withholding of funds being used as a method of diminishing its independence.
  5. Ensure that any general inquiries into broadcasting in Australia which may seem desirable from time to time shall be conducted publicly and that strong representation of the public shall be included within the body conducting the inquiry.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMrFitzPatrick.

Petition received.

Telephone Service

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

That there is a need for a public telephone to be installed at Coombah Half- Way House for emergency use of the 225 km stretch of lonely highway linking Wentworth with Broken Hill, N.S.W.

That continued refusal by Telecom Australia to provide an emergency telephone threatens users of this highway with danger to the life and property.

That the cost of providing a service at the privately owned Coombah Roadhouse is prohibitive to the operator and should be undertaken as a service to the outback travelling public, by the Federal Transport Department.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMrFitzPatrick.

Petition received.

Mr Marko Nazor

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

A naturalised Australian citizen, Marko Nazor is unlawfully imprisoned in Yuogslavia as an honest and hard working and simple man who returned to his native country to see his mother.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Parliament do everything in its power to persuade the Government of Yugoslavia to free this honest man and return him to his family in Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMrHaslem.

Petition received.

Hungary

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

That in November 1956, following the attack on Budapest by Soviet troops, the Australian Representative raised this matter in the General Assembly of the United Nations.

That the General Assembly established a Special Committee to report on all aspects of the question of Soviet intervention in Hungary.

That today, twenty years later, Soviet troops are still located in Hungary and the Soviet Union exercises undue influence over the affairs of that country.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will ask the Australian Government to instruct its representative in the United Nations to raise the subject of continuing Soviet interference in the affairs of Hungary.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMrHaslem.

Petition received.

Symphony Orchestra in Newcastle

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Hunter Valley Region respectfully showeth the lack of a resident professional symphony orchestra in Newcastle and surrounding areas, with consequent denial to the citizens of adequate provision of concerts, opera, ballet, school concerts, teaching of various orchestral instruments and career opportunities for young musicians.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament give due and early consideration to the provision of funds, in association with the N.S.W. State Government, Local Governments and the community of this region, for the establishment and maintenance of the Hunter Symphony Orchestra, consisting initially of 40 players, located in Newcastle and serving the cultural needs of the 500 000 inhabitants of the region, in accordance with the proposal and budget submitted to the Industries Assistance Commission.

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

Petition received.

National Day of Prayer

To the Speaker, and the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whatever our ideology, in the sight of God, we as a nation are politically, economically and spiritually sick and in need of healing.

We, the undersigned, are Christians, and as such recognise the Bible as the word of God, and in 2 Chronicles 7. 1 4 we are told: ‘If my people which are called by my name, shall humble themselves and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sins, and will heal their land. ‘

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the members in the House assembled will-

Designate a Sunday of your choosing as a ‘National Day of Prayer for the Healing of our Nation’ and have the day and date of this event published in the daily Press.

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

Petition received.

Fraser Island

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

  1. That we, residents of the Local Authority areas of Maryborough, Hervey Bay and Woocoo sincerely believe the decision of the Australian Government to refuse export licences for minerals from Fraser Island, thus causing the cessation of mining, was unwarranted, unjust and based on a report compiled from much inconclusive evidence, much of w hich was uncontested due to a legal technicality.
  2. That the adoption of the Fraser Island Environmental Report in full, without proper public or Parliamentary debate was a denial of basic democratic justice.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament give due and early consideration to (a) having the Honourable the Prime Minister visit the area concerned as a matter of urgency, to make his personal inspection of Fraser Island with a view to having the Government reverse its decision. (b) have the Honourable the Prime Minister investigate at first hand, both the massive human and economic impacts of his Government’s decision. (c) The appointment of a final assessment committee which will weigh the value of Fraser Island in its unmined state against both the value compensation payable to the numerous parties aggrieved by the Government decision and the value of Fraser Island in a mined and rehabilitated state.

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

Petition received.

Education

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 decision of the Federal Government to restrict aid to multicultural education unfairly and disproportionately disadvantages students in N.S.W. Catholic schools.

We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, do therefore humbly pray the Commonwealth Government:

That, pending the increase or redistribution of funds in a more equitable manner as per section 5.6 of the Report of the Australian Schools Commission 1977-79, emergency interim Australian Government financial assistance be offered to those N.S.W. Catholic schools, with large numbers of students of migrant background, that had anticipated assistance for 1977 as per precedents established in previous years.

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

Petition received.

Governor-General

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, although we accept the verdict of the Australian people in the 1975 election, we do not accept the right of a

Governor-General to dismiss a Prime Minister who maintains the confidence of the House of Representatives.

We believe that the continued presence of Sir John Kerr as Governor-General is a cause of division among the Australian people.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will call on Sir John Kerr to resign as Australian Governor-General.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMrWallis.

Petition received.

page 3018

NOTICE OF MOTION

Proposed Select Committee on Electoral Matters

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-I give notice that, on general business Thursday No. 7,I shall move:

  1. That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report on:

    1. the conduct of elections for the Australian Parliament;
    2. b ) the role of the Australian Electoral Office;
    3. the extent to which political party organisations should be recognised and made accountable in electoral legislation;
    4. the funding of political parties and candidates; and
    5. the funding and recognition of political parties and laws relating to political parties in countries comparable to Australia.
  2. That the Committee consist of 10 members, five to be nominated by the Prime Minister and five to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition.
  3. That every nomination of a member of the Committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker.
  4. That the Committee elect as Chairman of the Committee one of the members nominated by the Prime Minister.
  5. That the Committee elect a Deputy Chairman who shall perform the duties of the Chairman of the Committee at any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee, and at any time when the Chairman and Deputy Chairman are not present at a meeting of the Committee, the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the Chairman at that meeting.
  6. That the Committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members, to appoint the Chairman of each sub-committee, and refer to any such sub-committee any matter which the Committee is empowered to examine.
  7. That 5 members of the Committee constitute a quorum of the Committee, and a majority of the members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee.
  8. That members of the Committee who are not members of a sub-committee may take part in the public proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote or move any motion or constitute a quorum.
  9. That the Committee or any sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.
  10. That the Committee have power to move from place to place.
  11. That any sub-committee have power to move from place to place, adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment.
  12. That the Committee or any sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it.
  13. That in matters of procedure the Chairman or Deputy Chairman presiding at the meeting have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of voting, have a casting vote, and that, in other matters, the Chairman or Deputy Chairman have a deliberative vote only.
  14. That the Committee be provided with necessary staff, facilities and resources.
  15. That the Committee in selecting particular matters for investigation take account of the investigations of other Parliamentary committees and avoid duplication.
  16. That the Committee report as soon as possible and that any member of the Committee have power to add a protest or dissent to the Committee ‘s report.
  17. That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

page 3019

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 3019

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY

Mr WALLIS:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to a report by the Canberra columnist Cassandra over the weekend that the Government has organised a deal with Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd over the future of the shipyard at Whyalla? Is there any substance in this report? Further, has the Prime Minister contacted the South Australian Premier, Mr Dunstan, in reply to submissions made by the South Australian Government on the future of the Whyalla shipyard? If not, when can the South Australian Premier anticipate receiving a reply to those submissions? Further, is the Prime Minister aware of the public concern expressed by the Whyalla City Council this week at the absence of any reply from him to their correspondence of some time ago on the same subject?

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

– If there is any correspondence from the city of Whyalla I shall certainly examine it, look at the records and provide an answer forthwith. As far as the South Australian Premier is concerned, basically we have been looking to see what came out of the negotiations with New South Wales and with the New South Wales Premier because there we were dealing with a government which had direct responsibility for its State dockyard. We have certainly made no deal or arrangement with Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd in relation to Whyalla, although I have been told that BHP believes that even under existing arrangements it will continue to employ its present employees, not. necessarily in shipbuilding but in some parts of the BHP activity.

As far as the Government’s general proposition in relation to this matter is concerned, we believe that if the taxpayers were to be asked to provide substantial additional sums, which the Minister for Transport advises me would have equalled about $20,000 per man for each of the 2 Australian National Line ships, then in return there should be a proper industrial relations contract which would make sure that those ships were built as cheaply as possible. I think the honourable gentleman will agree that an additional subsidy of $20,000 a man for the building of those ships compared with the cost overseas is a pretty heavy additional burden on Australian taxpayers.

Because of our concern for the centre- in this case Newcastle- and because of our concern for the men and their families the Government was and is prepared to entertain that situation in certain circumstances. Those circumstances are that the industrial relations contract would stipulate that there would be no changes as to wages and conditions beyond those that applied through the normal wage tribunals, that there would be a guarantee that no strikes or demarcation disputes would occur during the period of construction of the vessels, and that there would be an indemnity if delays were caused by strikes and bans. We have pointed but that such a contract is not unusual overseas. We have also pointed out in response to those who have said that the indemnity was harsh that it is entirely in the hands of the trade unions concerned whether that indemnity clause would be invoked. There were dispute settling procedures which, as I understand it, were agreeable to the unions and to the Government. If there are reasonable dispute settling procedures by which both sides can abide, then there ought not to be the necessity for strikes or demarcation disputes and matters of that kind.

I want to put safety issues and health issues to one side because they are always in a special category requiring special treatment. I am talking about industrial disputes of different kinds, not of the safety kind. If the indemnity clause were invoked it would be invoked only in circumstances in which a commitment not to strike had in fact been broken. We believe that the Commonwealth could ask nothing less if there were to be a contract for these ships to be built at Newcastle. So far there has not been a response from Mr Wran. The Government is waiting for that response because the ball is in his court. One of the things that I regret very greatly is that Mr Wran- I am not sure whether it was out the front door or out the back door- and Mr

Hawke, through one of his hats-I am never quite sure which one- condemned the contract before the men at Newcastle had an opportunity to cast their judgment upon it. The understanding I had come to with Mr Wran in the discussions about these particular matters is that there would be no discussion or dispute in public about the contract until the men concerned had had an opportunity to discuss it and look at it in a calm atmosphere. The Government believed that if there were political dispute over the nature of the contract it would lead to an inevitable conclusion. It is to my very great regret, therefore, that once Mr Wran issued the contract to Mr Hawke and to the trade unions, it immediately became a matter for discussion and dispute. Really, the decision of the men at Newcastle was pre-empted before they had an opportunity to make a decision. I believe this is a classic example of trade union leaders pre-empting the decision of members of trade unions. If the contract had been put to their own people in a calm and quiet manner, they might well have accepted an arrangement that was fair.

Mr Wallis:

-What about Whyalla?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The question of Whyalla is very much contingent on what happens in New South Wales. We are waiting for Mr Wran. One of the proposals that was put also was, of course, that if the 2 ships were to be built at Newcastle under equivalent arrangements the floating dock ought to be built at Whyalla.

page 3020

QUESTION

QUEENSLAND PHOSPHATE

Mr HYDE:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources. Is the Minister aware of the statement by Mr J. M. Tyler in his chairman’s address to the Broken Hill South annual general meeting that ‘In Australia the Commonwealth Government has now advised the company and the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission of its objective to have Queensland phosphate admitted to the Australian market?’ Will the Minister tell the House whether it is the objective of the Government to admit this company to the Australian market. If so, on what terms? Will he indicate whether use of Queensland phosphate rock will at any stage be allowed to increase the price of fertiliser to the Australian farmer?

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

-I am able to confirm that the Government has taken a decision and has advised Mr Tyler of Broken Hill South that it is desirous of supporting his company in getting the Duchess rock phosphate into the Australian phosphate system. The Duchess rock phosphate find is of enormous magnitude and of great importance to Australia, having regard to the decline of reserves of phosphate in other parts of the world. I have informed Mr Tyler by letter that the Government supports the introduction of as much as 250 000 tonnes of Duchess rock phosphate into the system this year and 500 000 tonnes next year. It is quite apparent and would be apparent to the honourable member for Moore that the larger the quantity of phosphate that can be placed in use, the lower will be the costs that ensue. As to the final terms and negotiations that the Broken Hill South Company nas entered into with the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission, I am unable to comment on that matter other than to say that negotiations are ensuing at the moment. It is the Australian Government’s wish that the final price to the Australian farmer be maintained at as low a rate as possible.

page 3020

QUESTION

CURRENCY DEVALUATION

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Treasurer considered the impact of the devaluation on manufacturers’ costs? How does he expect them to adjust for the price increases which they will have to bear in respect of imported components? Has he considered the long term effect on the manufacturing sector of the balance of payments surpluses which will result from the mining boom he hopes for?

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– I do not know whether the honourable gentleman is expressing any serious concern about the function of manufacturing industry. Certainly the decision to devalue has been welcomed by manufacturing industry throughout the country. It has been welcomed because it will provide a lift, particularly in the employment area. So far as import tariffs are concerned, I simply say that the Government will be looking at areas where the enhanced competitive position of Australian industry will not be prejudiced.

page 3020

QUESTION

CURRENCY DEVALUATION

Mr McLEAN:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Prime Minister. How can the Government prevent the advantages that devaluation brings to the Australian economy being dissipated, particularly with regard to wages policy, control of the money supply and possible short term profiteering by those Australian companies now enjoying higher rates of protection?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The honourable gentleman has raised matters that very obviously were in the Government’s mind when it made the decision concerning devaluation. At the same time as announcing devaluation the Treasurer announced action in 3 other areas of policy. One concerned the deferment of certain Commonwealth expenditures throughout the rest of this year into next year. Another concerned action in relation to the money supply- honourable members will agree, with regret, that this is necessary in inflationary circumstances- which involves some increase in interest rates. I think that by the end of this week necessary action will be taken so that people can judge the extent and the impact of it. When they do judge it, I believe that no one will be able to give any credit to the somewhat wilder allegations that have been made over the last day or so in relation to action in that area. The action which was proposed to the Government and which has been accepted is reasonable and moderate, and it will be judged to be reasonable and moderate.

In addition, the Government will be reaffirming the view that it has taken on the wages front. We have said on a number of occasions that we regret that there has not been a greater opportunity to test the general common sense of the average Australian rather than paying too much credence to the views of some leaders in this area who I believe do not exemplify the views of the great majority of the people whom they purport to represent. There are other areas also which I believe people have not looked at adequately. One of the reasons why costs in Australian industry are high is that many industries are operating at 60 per cent or 70 per cent of capacity. As we get the inevitable transfer from imported goods to Australian produced goods under the circumstances of devaluation, production runs in Australia should increase. That in itself should give manufacturers an opportunity to contain costs. Any manufacturer with a sense of responsibility certainly ought to do his utmost to do just that. Indeed, one major manufacturer which believes that its production will be able to increase very greatly, not only for domestic markets but also through renewed and greater access to export markets, has indicated that the price of its products should be held now for a considerable period. It makes a particular product that should have flow through effects into many different industries.

Mr Hurford:

– Which manufacturer is that?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I have no intention of naming particular manufacturers in this House. The effects should flow through into a number of different industries. One of the things that people need to understand is that, while there will be some people, as there always are, who will take advantage of an opportunity that is given to them to act in a selfish way rather than in the national interest, I believe that they will be in the minority. I would believe that at this time we are coming to a stage where a great majority of Australians are recognising that there is a national task that involves all Australianswhether they are management or labour- no matter where they come from. In defence of some people who might be accused of speculating, let me point out to the House that there are people who have imported goods from overseas, who have bought on traders’ credit and who will be paying in 6 to 8 weeks time at the different rate of” currency. People who have bought goods from overseas on that basis obviously have strong grounds for changing a particular price but people who paid on the old oasis obviously have not and should clear their stocks at the old price. If they have any sense of national responsibility that is precisely what they will do. In other words, there are many things that the Government can do in this particular matter but there are also many things which involve a cooperative effort by people right around Australia in many different activities. The Government, for its part, will continue to explore every avenue open to it so as to be successful in the objectives that it has set itself.

page 3021

QUESTION

DEVALUATION: OVERSEAS BORROWINGS

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

– I ask a question of the Treasurer. Is it a fact that many resource rich but capital poor countries such as Venezuela, a member of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Mexico, the Philippines and Spain have in the last year borrowed amounts in excess of $1 billion not by going into hock with the International Monetary Fund or letting profiteers take them to the cleaners but by borrowing from merchant banks at modest interest rates for periods of 5 to 7 years, or, in the case of the Philippines, from 5 to 8 years? Why did not the Government take this option of borrowing a further billion dollars to solve Australia’s short term economic problems rather than the devaluation option which, to quote his own recent statement, ‘would increase unemployment, would have inflationary effects and would certainly be generally unhelpful ‘?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– If there is one thing that the Leader of the Opposition consistently represents in this place and outside, it is the Khemlani mentality. I would like to say more about that but because of a matter being dealt with outside this Parliament it is not appropriate for me to say any more about it. Hopefully, the time may arise when one is able to say more about that. I can well imagine the Leader of the Opposition seeking to borrow himself out of trouble to the extent of $1 billion or $4 billion. It so happens that so far as this Administration is concerned responsibly we recognised that any option which presented itself to the dimension of $ 1 billion would, of course, have been an option which would not have created confidence; it would have created a sense of continuing uncertainty. The decision to devalue has completely dissipated that uncertainty, much to the chagrin of the honourable gentleman. I say to him, notwithstanding the reference to Venezuela and other countries, that we do not see that as our example. Rather, we responded to a situation which had been developing with the assistance of some people very close to the honourable gentleman during recent months.

That decision having come to a point of inevitability we looked, of course, at the possibility of borrowing in excess of $ 1 billion. But certainty, no; uncertainty created, yes. If the honourable gentleman knew anything about international financing he would be aware of a term called conditionality’. This Government was not prepared to put itself into hock to that extent. Beyond that, of course, with the absence of any certainty about the question of devaluation on the basis of a decision to borrow $1 billion, we recognised that we were not prepared to afford the losses which that sum would have had in itself. I say to the honourable gentleman that no doubt he still conceives of Khemlani. I leave that conception in his mind and his mind alone.

page 3022

QUESTION

RUSSELL HILL: LEAKAGE OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

Dr RICHARDSON:
TANGNEY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Has the attention of the Minister for Defence been drawn to allegations contained in today’s Bulletin about leakage of classified information from Russell Hill? If so, can the Minister inform the House of the result of any assessment that he has made as to the accuracy of the report?

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

– Yes, my attention has been drawn to the third of a series of articles in the Bulletin concerning allegations relating to defence secrets. I would not like perspective in this matter to be in any way distorted. I therefore renew the assurance I gave to the House on the seventeenth of last month that no classified material to my knowledge which has been prepared after 15 November 1975 has been improperly disclosed. I hope the discipline of the English language will not be abandoned. I would like to repeat that: No classified information prepared after 15 November 1975 has to my knowledge been improperly disclosed. That assurance was also given by my right honourable friend, the Prime Minister. The allegation which is made in this week’s Bulletin among other things relates to the research facility at Pine Gap. It states: an ‘Australian Eyes Only’ classified document detailing all the operations of American bases in Australia. This document was prepared for the perusal of a tiny handful of selected Ministers m the Whitlam Government.

It goes on:

The document almost of book size we understand, was vital in persuading senior members of the former Government that the Australian Labor Parry should play down the bases issue and forget Whitlam’s pre-government promise to expose the purposes and nature of Pine Gap, North- West Cape and the other controversial U.S. bases in Australia. One copy of this document is missing.

The House and the country may judge this allegation for its veracity when I say that no such document has ever been in existence.

Mr Young:

– That is why it is missing.

Mr KILLEN:

– The honourable gentleman would readily link this up. The last thing I say is this: Imagination in political perception I regard as being a welcome quality. Imagination in journalistic reporting of what purport to be facts is not merely unwelcome; I regard it as being thoroughly perilous.

page 3022

QUESTION

EXPORT FREIGHT CHARGES

Mr MORRIS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. He will recall his recent statements to the effect that export freight charges were a major factor in maintaining access to international markets for Australian products. Will he advise the House in as precise terms as he can of the effect the massive devaluation of the Australian dollar will have on liner conference sea freight rates from Australia to our major markets overseas?

Mr NIXON:
LP

– Information from the various shipping companies in respect of freight rates has not yet come to my table. When information is available I will provide it to the honourable member.

page 3022

QUESTION

MEAT EXPORTING COUNTRIES

Mr CARIGE:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

-Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware that yesterday a radio broadcast stated that the United States was convening a meeting of all meat exporting countries on 6 December to work out beef allocations for next year? Will the Minister inform the House whether Australia will be attending that meeting? If it is, what stance will it adopt in those discussions? Further, can the Minister say what progress he has made in getting Japan to increase quota access for Australian beef after the severe cuts announced by Japan? Is it true that, as recent newspaper reports indicate, the European beef market is opening up for Australian beef exports?

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

– The honourable gentleman has directed his question to 3 specific areas. The first is with respect to the United States of America. The difficulties in relation to beef access to the United States market in 1977 are concerned with the necessity for negotiations to be concluded with the Ford Administration which, I understand, remains in control of the White House and the United States Administration until 20 January 1977, yet the period within which beef will be admitted to the United States will be largely in the term of President-elect Carter. The discussions on 6 December and thereafter to which the first part of the honourable gentleman’s question was directed therefore are most important. Australia will be represented at an appropriate level. We regard the negotiation as most significant as it presents the opportunity for selling beef to what is still Australia’s principal beef export market, which is of tremendous importance for the revival of the Australian cattle industry. I should perhaps mention 2 aspects in relation to the American market which have caused much comment. One is the extent to which the free trade zones were used by Australia allegedly to by-pass the quota restraints. This is not true as the whole question of the inclusion of the free trade zones was discussed first with the United States Administration at the time when negotiations for the 1976 voluntary restraints were first initiated. Indeed, prior to the signature of the correspondence which set levels of voluntary restraint, the United States had given the Australian Government to understand that it did not wish the free trade zones to be included. It was as a result of that negotiation that they were excluded.

The other aspect of American trade that is of concern to Australia is the suggestion that in some way there was a significant shipment of meat through Canada into the United States and that thereby Australia also avoided the implications of voluntary restraints. We reject that allegation also. There is no doubt that individual Canadian importers were in a position to ship their product where they wished. But the United States has not raised the question of Australian beef being shipped in that way. Our principal concern is that we get a sufficient price for the product sold to Canada, and that, following the determination arranged with the United States, access to Canada also be opened up for the 1977 year.

With respect to the other 2 markets which were mentioned in the honourable gentleman’s question, I will deal first with Japan. The Japanese Government has now advised us that the 20 000 tonnes which were allocated in a recent announcement for the first half of 1977 are to apply only to the first 3 months and, therefore, there will be an expectation in January for a further allocation which we would hope would bring us up to at least approximately the quota allocation for the final 6 months of this year. With respect to Europe, it is true that the safeguard restrictions on beef imports are said to be lifted on 1 April 1977. However, a new import regime is still to be concluded by the European community. Australia is pursuing every possible diplomatic initiative to try to ensure that we do again obtain reasonable access to the Community for Australian exports. This year, in spite of restrictions, we have exported a not insignificant quantity of beef to the Community. The general projection is that demand will increase there next year. In all, in each one of these markets -

Mr Uren:

– One minute!

Mr SINCLAIR:

– The prospects of the cattle industry, I know, do not interest the Deputy Leader of the Opposition one whit. Unfortunately, there are a good many men, women and children in this industry in Australia who are probably as impoverished as any other sector of the Australian community. The failure of the Labor Party to recognise the plight in which these people are currently suffering is a great indictment of it. In all, the markets for Australian beef I see opening up during 1977. Certainly, we are pursuing every possible initiative to ensure maximum possible access for Australian beef to those markets.

page 3023

QUESTION

DEVALUATION: PRICE INCREASES

Mr KEATING:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask the Treasurer a question relative to the devaluation. Will the Treasurer explain clearly to the House on what basis he believes an increase in the price of imports will not contribute to an increase in domestic prices?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– I shall give the honourable member a brief answer. The fact is that the Press statement and the statement made yesterday made it perfectly clear that of course there will be an inflationary impact. I remind the honourable gentleman, whose memory of these matters is far too short, that when the Labor Government devalued in September 1974 it took no offsetting action to stop the inflationary impact of that devaluation at that time. I also remind the House that in that month the then Government had 4.8 months cover in reserves of $2,965.3m. Clearly, without offsetting action at that stage that devaluation was grossly inappropriate and grossly inflationary. This Government has made it perfectly clear that, recognising the inflationary consequences of a decision to devalue, inevitable as it was, there was a need for consequential action in firming and strengthening the 3 remaining arms of policy. I remind the honourable gentleman of the action I have foreshadowed as far as fiscal policy is concerned. I remind him also of the action which is proposed on the monetary front, as well as of the Government’s position in forthcoming cases before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

This Government has made it perfectly clear that it will do everything possible to offset the inflationary consequences of the decision- a decision which, at the same time, in the jurisdiction of the honourable gentlemen on the Opposition benches, will provide a very real lift to the mining sector. He must recall the number of mines which have closed recently and the lack of confidence which emanated there. This decision is of direct assistance to the mining industry; it will seek to restore the competitive position of Australian manufacturing industry; it will assist rural industry; and it will assist import competitive industries. I believe that the beneficial results have been completely overlooked by the honourable gentleman.

Mr Morris:

- Mr Speaker, under standing order 321, 1 require that the Treasurer table the document from which he was quoting during his reply.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the Treasurer: Was the honourable gentleman quoting from a document?

Mr Lynch:

-I thought it was a Dorothy Dix question and I came prepared. No, I was not quoting from a document.

Mr Innes:

– You are a liar, an absolute liar.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I call upon the honourable member for Melbourne to withdraw that remark.

Mr Innes:

-Mr Speaker, I observed the Treasurer looking at the document.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I call upon the honourable member to withdraw.

Mr Innes:

-I will withdraw. It is on his conscience.

page 3024

QUESTION

CURRENCY DEVALUATION

Mr HODGMAN:
DENISON, TASMANIA

-I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister been informed that the Government’s decision on devaluation has been universally praised in Tasmania by the Liberal Leader -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. The honourable member for Wimmera, the honourable member for the Northern Territory and the honourable member for Melbourne are conducting some internecine warfare amongst themselves. I do not know whether it is interesting or not, but it will cease forthwith. I call the honourable member for Denison.

Mr HODGMAN:

-Has the Prime Minister been informed that the Government’s decision on devaluation has been universally praised in Tasmania by the Liberal Leader, by the National Country Party, by responsible members of the trade union movement and, most significantly, by the Tasmanian Labor Premier, Mr Neilson, who described it as good news for Tasmania? Can it be confidently expected that the effect of the devaluation will be to reduce unemployment in Tasmania substantially and to boost greatly primary and rnining industries, manufacturing industry and the Tasmanian tourist industry? Is the Prime Minister aware of suggestions that this decision alone could be the means of providing additional jobs for more than 1000 Tasmanians?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– This decision, coupled with other decisions which the Government made in relation to Tasmania, should be of enormous advantage to the State of Tasmania and to all industries in that State. The honourable gentleman will be aware that a few days ago the other half of the freight equalisation scheme for Tasmania was announced. That scheme is now operating both ways. The later announcement applied retrospectively to 1 July so that Australian industries would get the full benefit of the Government’s commitment in this area. The decision in relation to devaluation will clearly be of great assistance to industries in Tasmania and in other States. It will be of great assistance to farmers in Tasmania who have been very hard hit, for a variety of reasons. I believe that our decisions would do very much more for employment in Tasmania than the famous and much heralded 24-point plan of the Labor Premier, Mr Neilson. I believe that our decisions will be of great advantage to the industries. I do not think the 24-point plan was going to do a great deal. If I could make one comment about one part of the 24-point plan to gain a benefit under a provision for a rebate of payroll tax one had first to sack a person and then to reappoint him. If one did that one would get the rebate from the State Government. It seemed a very odd way of going about business.

I hope that companies such as the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Company Limited, which has been in difficulty because of the price of copper, will review their decisions. It had become quite clear from conversations that the company had been prepared to carry through its programs in the expectation that the world price of copper would rise. It was prepared to run with a difficult circumstance in the intervening period. Now, with the increased prices that will accrue as a result of the decision to devalue, the company could be in a position equivalent to that which it had expected for the next several months and could still employ, I believe, a considerable number of those people whom it said it would retrench. The total position of the company financially would be the same as the company expected. Therefore, I believe the company has an obligation to review its position and its decision in relation to its employees especially since, as I well know, the company understands that it is in a remote area. It is not just a question of the company and the employees, it is a question of a community which is utterly dependent upon this operation.

Overall, I expect the decision to devalue to be of great advantage to Tasmania, as it will be of great advantage to the whole of Australia. I am delighted to know that responsible members of the trade union movement in Tasmania have heralded it as good news for Tasmania. While I can be thankful that Mr Neilson has also welcomed it as good news for Tasmania, I cannot altogether wish him well when his election day comes because I believe the State could be much better governed by a different administration.

page 3025

QUESTION

RADIO AUSTRALIA

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

– I ask the Minister for Post and Telecommunications a question. Three weeks ago he told me that he had asked his Department to consider the report of Sir Keith Waller on Radio Australia, in consultation with other departments, and that he hoped to bring something to the Parliament in the near future. I now ask: Is it a fact that his Department and the Treasury have now recommended that Radio Australia be closed? Since he has tabled Mr Green’s recommendation on Radio Australia, why is the Government so dilatory in, or reluctant to, table Sir Keith Waller’s recommendations? Can the Minister announce the Government’s decision before the Christmas recess?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The suggestion that my Department and Treasury have recommended that Radio Australia be closed is incorrect. Such is not the case. As I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition earlier, I believe that very shortly I will be able to make to the Government and to the Parliament some recommendations. It is very close. I will look to see whether it is possible to do so prior to the recess.

page 3025

QUESTION

LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION

Mr HASLEM:

– I address my question to the Attorney-General. I refer him to the arrangement between the United States Department of Justice and the Australian Attorney-General’s Department dated 13 September 1976 regarding the Lockheed aircraft matter. Has the AttorneyGeneral received any documents pursuant to that arrangement and, if so, what is the result of his consideration of them?

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

– Honourable members will recall that on 5 October -

Mr Jacobi:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member is raising a point of order?

Mr Jacobi:

– Yes, Mr Speaker. I have a question on the notice paper in relation to this matter. I am just trying to pick up the reference. It is like the last one I asked many months ago.

Mr Martyr:

– We will wait. There is no hurry.

Mr Jacobi:

– We have plenty of time. We have all day, as a matter of fact.

Mr Ellicott:

– If I could just point out -

Mr Jacobi:

– Just have a little bit of patience.

Mr Ellicott:

– I just wanted to help you, that was all.

Mr Jacobi:

– That is very kind of you.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! What is the number of the question?

Mr Jacobi:

– It is No. 1054, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I do not regard the question as identical. I call the Attorney-General.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– Honourable members will recall that on 5 October last I tabled the text of an arrangement between the United States -

Mr Jacobi:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The AttorneyGeneral will resume his seat. Does the honourable member for Hawker wish to raise a point of order?

Mr Jacobi:

– I regret to have to do so. I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to subsequent question No. 1060 on the same page.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I do not regard the question as the same.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– Honourable members opposite seem to be most reluctant to hear what I have to say. Honourable members will recall that on 5 October last I tabled the text of an arrangement between the United States Department of Justice and the Australian AttorneyGeneral’s Department dated 13 September 1976 entitled ‘Procedures for Mutual Assistance in Administration of Justice in Connection with the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation Matter’. Pursuant to that arrangement documents were supplied by the United States Department of Justice. I understand that these documents were provided to the United States Department of Justice by the United States Senate Sub-Committee on Multinational Corporations. The documents have since been studied by me. In view of previous publicity given to this matter I wish to inform the House that I find nothing in the documents which suggests any breach of law or any other impropriety on the part of the late Senator Paltridge or any other person. The SolicitorGeneral and the senior officer of my Department have also studied the documents and they share the view which I have formed. Does the Opposition want the document from which I have read?

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

-Yes. It would not wash in Japan.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Is the AttorneyGeneral asking to have the document incorporated in Hansard?

Mr ELLICOTT:

– Members of the Opposition seem to have a great interest in the document.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable gentleman: What is his request? Does he wish to have the document incorporated in Hansard.

Mr ELLICOTT:

-I do not mind, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– You will have to make a decision.

Mr ELLICOTT:

-I just thought that I found an interest in the document from honourable members on the other side of the House. I was just offering to provide it to them. If they want it incorporated in Hansard that can be done.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman is entitled to table the document. The document is tabled.

page 3026

QUESTION

DEVALUATION: PROFIT FROM MONEY TRANSFERS

Mr CONNOR:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

-What steps will the Treasurer take to identify and appropriately tax the smart Australian money which, in anticipation of devaluation, left Australia and will now be repatriated at a 17.5 per cent profit? Also, will the Treasurer give to the House exact details of the loss incurred by the Reserve Bank of Australia on forward exchange cover as a result of the recent devaluation?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– The question very much is a nonsense. It is not possible to identify the particular reasons why capital flows leave a country, as the honourable gentleman should be very much aware.

Mr Morris:

– That is why they are moving you out.

Mr LYNCH:

– As far as the first question posed to me by the honourable gentleman -

Mr Morris:

– That is why you are going.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Shortland has continued to interject today, as he does frequently. I call upon him not to continue to interject. If he does, I shall have to take disciplinary action.

Mr LYNCH:

– As I mentioned a few moments ago, it is not possible to identify the reasons why capital flows out of a country at any one time. The honourable gentleman should be very much aware of that. As I said in earlier response to him, the suggestion of a tax upon capital flows which he asserts might have gone to one part of the world or another, for a particular reason well known to him but not to the authorities, is in essence a nonsense. As to the question about the amount relating to the Reserve Bank of Australia, I shall give consideration to it.

page 3026

QUESTION

RADIO AUSTRALIA

Mr CONNOLLY:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question, which is supplementary to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to speculation that his Department will assume control of the operations of Radio Australia? Will the Minister inform the House whether the speculation has any substance?

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

-My attention has been drawn to that speculation. As the honourable member stated that his question was supplementary to that asked by the Leader of the Opposition, I shall refer to a matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition. I simply say with the support of the Prime Minister and, I am sure, with the support of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications that if any officials want to put a recommendation to us that Radio Australia be abolished, then that recommendation will fall on deaf ears. Radio Australia will remain strong and independent.

That leads me to the question raised by the honourable member. I said previously in an interview on radio with the Australian Broadcasting Commission that I considered the reputation of Radio Australia to be excellent, and much of that reputation was derived from its very independence. I consider it extremely desirable for Australia to have a clear and strong overseas voice, capable of bringing reliable, unbiased information to neighbouring areas of particular significance to this country. Radio Australia has an excellent reputation in that regard, especially in Asia and the Pacific. The service by Radio Australia is a most important part of Australia’s equipment in the representation of Australia internationally and also for people to be able to assess for themselves in an unbiased way the viewpoints broadcast by the network through Radio Australia. The Government does not accept the view that Radio Australia should be under the control of my Department. As I said before, Radio Australia will remain strong. It will remain independent and will not come under the control of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

page 3027

COMMONWEALTH GRANTS COMMISSION

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the third report, 1976, of the Commonwealth Grants Commission on financial assistance for local government. Due to the limited number available at this time reference copies of this report have been placed in the Bills and Papers Office of the House of Represenatives and the Parliamentary Library.

page 3027

AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF CRIMINOLOGY

Mr ELLICOTT:
AttorneyGeneral · Wentworth · LP

Pursuant to section 33 of the Criminology Research Act 1971 I present the annual report of the Australian Institute of Criminology for the year ended 30 June 1976.

page 3027

CRIMINOLOGY RESEARCH COUNCIL

Mr ELLICOTT (WentworthAttorneyGeneral) Pursuant to section 43 of the Criminology Research Act 1971 I present the annual report of the Criminology Research Council for the year ended 30 June 1976.

page 3027

LEGISLATIVE DRAFTING INSTITUTE

Mr ELLICOTT:
Attorney.General · Wentworth · LP

– Pursuant to section 28 of the Legislative Drafting Institute Act 1974 I present the Annual Report of the Legislative Drafting Institute for the year ended 30 June 1976.

page 3027

POSTGRADUATE AWARD SCHEME

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report on the Postgraduate Award Scheme. Due to the limited number available, reference copies of this Report have been placed in the Bills and Papers Office of the House of Representatives and the Parliamentary Library.

page 3027

SCHOOLS COMMISSION PROGRAMS

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– Pursuant to section 59 of the States Grants (Schools) Act 1973 I present a statement on financial assistance granted to each State through Schools Commission programs during the 1975 calendar year.

page 3027

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr LIONEL BOWEN (KingsfordSmith) Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented in the Senate.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman wish to make a personal explanation?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Yes, Mr Speaker. On page 2217 of yesterday’s edition of the Senate Hansard, Senator Archer is reported as saying, when asking a question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate: can the Minister advise what effect there would be, particularly on Tasmania, if the Senate were abolished as is proposed by the so-called Bowen Constitution?

I have prepared a constitution. It still provides for a Senate. It is a pity that Senator Archer did not ask for a copy of it.

page 3027

GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT PLANTS AT BANKSTOWN AND LIDCOMBE

Report of Public Works Committee

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

-In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, 1 present the report relating to the following proposed work:

Consolidation into Bankstown of the Bankstown and Lidcombe Government Aircraft Plants operated by Hawker de Havilland Australia Pty Ltd at Bankstown, New South Wales.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 3028

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

Australian Heritage Commission Amendment Bill 1976. Queensland Grant (Proserpine Flood Mitigation) Bill 1976.

New South Wales Gram (Namoi River Weirs) Bill 1 976.

Air Force Amendment Bill 1976.

States Grants (Housing Assistance) Bill (No. 2) 1976.

page 3028

HEALTH INSURANCE

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have received a letter from the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The undesirable economic consequences of the Government’s Health Insurance arrangements.

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

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

Mi HAYDEN (Oxley) (3.13)-The Government’s health insurance arrangements are responsible for undesirable economic consequences. They are responsible for those undesirable economic consequences at a time of considerable difficulty in managing the economic affairs of the nation. They have added greatly to the problems of economic management. They are ill-advised. There are 3 main thrusts to this argument Firstly, at a time when consumer demand ought to be stimulated and not cut back, least of all cut back severely, the proposals for the imposition of compulsory charges for all wage-earners- with few relatively minor exceptionsresult in a reduction in spending power in the community and, accordingly, a reduction in consumer demand. Secondly, the imposition of charges, whether they be the Medibank levy or compulsory subscriptions to private health insurance funds, results in a reduction in personal incomes and in living standards. Thirdly, as as result of these combined factors the arrangements will result in industrial unrest which in turn will lead to costs which will have to be borne by the community at a time when this sort of unrest ought to be avoided as much as. possible.

I will deal with the first of these points, the proposition that the arrangements have been responsible for a substantial reduction in the capacity of consumers to demand goods and services in the market place. In the course of a full year the cost of the Government’s proposals, in terms of charges that have to be met by the community, reaches something like $900m. The community will not receive for that additional outlay anything more than it was receiving before. That is to say, the new Medibank arrangements do not provide more medical services or more hospital services and they do not provide more money for the States for their public hospital services than would have been the case under the original Medibank arrangements. So the community is paying near enough to $900m more for something which it was receiving already. Accordingly, its capacity to demand goods and services in the community is reduced by that amount, and the cost of living will rise as a result of this action.

Incidentally, it is not without its irony that a government declaiming its opposition to compulsion in the community should be responsible, by its stated intention, for conscripting half of the community into private health insurance funds, into commercial organisations, just as it conscripted youth into Vietnam. I always find it remarkable that the conservative coalition parties can always declaim that they are opposed to compulsion and that they want freedom of choice in the community; yet they resort so frequently to the imposition of compulsion. I find it even more remarkable that the media scarcely find it worth commenting on.

Let us look at the effects of a reduction of $900m in consumer spending in the course of a full year. It is the equivalent of something like 24 000 houses costing $35,000 each. That represents between 40 per cent and 50 per cent of the worth of new houses in a year. That is the sort of cutback that is imposed on the economy as a result of this decision. It is the equivalent of about 170 000 motor cars valued at about $5,000 each. That is about half a year’s production in this country. It is the equivalent of about 1 700 000 refrigerators costing $500 each. The production in this country in a year is about 300 000 refrigerators. It is the equivalent of about 17 million women’s frocks costing $50 each. Clearly I am not suggesting that any one of those in the totality I have quoted will be the sort of reduction suffered in that particular industry. I have given those comparisons to illustrate the severe cutback on consumer demand which will arise as a result of a reduction in consumer spending by the private health insurance arrangements of the Government.

It might be suggested that this decision reduces the deficit. The situation with which we have been confronted is that there has been too much ill-informed preoccupation with the deficit. The Government, which claimed that its first objective was to get a recovery under way in the economy, proceeded to implement economic policies which would be directly responsible for a further accentuation of the recession in the country and which would be responsible for a cutback in activity in the business sector, the private sector. We hear so much about the private sector that it has become almost part of the mythology of our community, almost a spiritual incantation, as though it is quite improper to criticise anything about the private sector where the conservative coalition Government is concerned. If that is so, why has the Government decided to cut back consumer spending by nearly $900m a year? That really erodes the position of the private sector of the economy and activity generally within the community. We need consumer spending now, if there is any genuineness, any grain of sincerity, in the Government’s claims that it wants to support the private sector and to stimulate a recovery.

Let me take up the second point that I mentioned, namely, the undesirable consequences which will arise from these health insurance arrangements and the effects on personal living standards and on incomes of people. Let me take the case of a person on average weekly earnings. The compulsory subscription to Medibank will be about $4.50 a week. That represents a 17.6 per cent increase on tax to be paid this year. Just imagine if the Government bad been honest for a change, if the Government had been faithful to its objectives contained in its statements about its purpose at the last election, if it had said that it was its intention to increase taxes by 17.6 per cent instead of claiming to reduce taxes, or if it had said that it was its intention to dismantle Medibank on a massive scale instead of pledging to retain the integrity of the Medibank program.

People’s living standards will be reduced as a result of the compulsory charges that have to be met. It is true that we proposed that there be charges to fund the original Medibank proposals. That was opposed by the conservative coalition when in Opposition. The opposition was based on a matter of great principle, as articulated by members of the then Opposition: They were opposed to the compulsory contributions implicit in that scheme. The situation in which the present Government introduced the

Medibank levy and imposed the compulsory membership of private health insurance funds on those who decided not to belong to the basic Medibank scheme represented a totally different set of economic circumstances from those which applied when we were in government. It was quite inappropriate for the Government in the situation in the course of this year to introduce those charges because, as I repeat, all they serve to do is to reduce, in the course of this year and next year when economic circumstances will be quite difficult, the capacity of people to demand goods and services in the community. That must be one of the most important objectives if the Government is sincere when it says that it wants to see a recovery in the economy.

It is remarkable, and it ought to go on record, that this Government, which campaigned on the promise to reduce taxes and which asserted its opposition to high taxes, is in fact the highest taxing government in the history of this country. The Government has been responsible for a record increase in taxation this year- a 25 per cent increase in personal income tax, an increase of $ 1,755m, a record increase to a record level of $8, 775m. Of course, in the case of the Medibank levy it is seeking to bypass its responsibilities to the community in the form of tax indexation. By introducing a special earmarked charge- the Medibank levy- the Government has sought to increase its total tax take to considerably above what would have been justified with the introduction of tax indexation, except if the Government cared to come clean, which obviously it does not, and state to the public that it is a high tax government and that in its recent Budget its purpose was to increase taxes substantially. It increased taxes by a far greater proportion than they have ever been increased. It increased personal taxes in the community to a level unparalleled in the history of the nation. Those are the hard facts.

The unfortunate consequence of this direct assault on people ‘s personal pay packets is that it will provoke union demands for offsetting wage increases or offsetting benefits to cover the costs which workers now have to meet, as a result of the charges which the Government has implemented. This is turn will lead to industrial disruption of one form or another. That again will contribute in its own way to inflation and to the cost of maintaining the Australian economy. It is all so unnecessary, because it is quite undesirable for the Government to adopt those policies in the given economic circumstances with which the nation is confronted at the moment. I put it to the Government that it has been quite dishonest in its dealings with the trade union movement in Australia on the issue of the costs of Medibank and how they will be treated when they feed into the consumer price index. The President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Hawke, went away from Canberra several months ago after consultation with the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on the issue- I rely on my recollection of newspaper reports at the time- convinced that the Government would ensure that the increases in the cost of living arising from the Medibank levy and from compulsory private health insurance would be fed into the consumer price index and would be fully applied in the wage indexation process before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

What has become increasingly clear is that the Government, by devious measures, has sought to avoid all of that increase going into the consumer price index. It is quite clear from figures which were submitted to the Commission- projections of quarterly movements in the consumer price index for all of this financial year- that the level of the consumer price index anticipated by the Government for the December quarter of about 4V4 per cent is well below the level which one would reasonably expect, on an informed basis, in that quarter following the full effects of the changes to the health insurance arrangements. Informed economists were predicting rates between 6 and 7 per cent and some suggested rates even higher than that. Of course, what has happened is- it dawned on me only a fortnight ago when I was again going through the Budget papers on revenue sources- that the Government will treat the Medibank levy, the compulsory levy, as a tax. As a personal income tax it will not feed into the consumer price index.

The Government deceitfully has done this and, in doing so, has not come clean with the trade union movement. It has led the trade union movement to believe that the full effects of the Medibank charges will feed into the consumer price index when only about half will feed into the consumer price index. This is quite dishonest and incompatible with past practices and practices which are pursued today. It is unusual for charges by government instrumentalities to be treated as taxes. We do not treat the charges of Trans-Australia Airlines, the Commonwealth Railways, public hospitals or government departments for services rendered to the public as increases in personal taxes. The only reason the Government has done so on this occasion is to try to whittle down the rate of increases in wages through the wage indexation system which would otherwise have applied, and justifiably applied, if the Government were to honour its obligations and the commitments that it had given to the trade unions.

Dr EDWARDS:
Berowra

-One might well ask what the Opposition is about in this motion. What it is about is this: It wants a return to so-called ‘free’ medical care. Does it really think that medical care and medical insurance can really be free? There is no such thing as a free meal and it is high time that the Opposition woke up to it. When in fact we assumed office, it was clear that the costs of Medibank without a change in arrangements during 1976-77 would soar to $2,000m of taxpayers’ money. That is the situation which confronted this Government and I will return to it in a moment.

Before I do so, I want to take up one of the last points that the former Treasurer, the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) was making. He tries to have it both ways. Earlier in his speech he castigated the Government for what he alleged is a record increase in income tax. He referred to the figure of 25 per cent. There is a figure in the Budget papers which shows an increase of 22.6 per cent. Let me make it clear that in point of fact even that lower percentage gives a wrong impression of the increase m direct taxes this year. There is an apparent increase of about $2,000m but $540m of that or about 6 percentage points of the increase on the previous year represents the loss of rebates to taxpayers for children. However, at the same time, those taxpayers have received the equivalent sum- all but a few dollars either way- in additional, family allowances as a straight transfer from tax to family allowances. So in any reasonable assessment of what has happened to direct taxes this year, that has to be allowed for that $540m which is a straight transfer from tax to child family allowances. That is at least 6 percentage points of the increase about which the honourable member for Oxley spoke.

Then indeed, there is the Medibank levy. It is estimated in the 9 months of this financial year to be about $250m or another 3 percentage points of the increase. There we have 9 percentage points of this alleged 22.6 per cent increase, leaving an effective increase of 14 per cent in direct taxes. That, of course, reflects the Government’s move to index taxes. With earnings anticipated to go up about 12 per cent and an increase of 2 per cent in employment we expect tax receipts to go up 14 per cent and that is the result. If it had not been for the Government’s indexing of taxes, that increase would have been much larger. In fact, it would have been of the order of $ 1,000m larger. The taxpayers of Australia need to appreciate that this Government by indexing taxes, in other words by adjusting tax scales to take account of the impact of continuing inflation, has reduced its take of taxation by in excess of $ 1,000m. The honourable member, having criticised the Government for this increase in taxation, then went ahead and castigated, presumably, the Commonwealth Statistician- it is not this Government’s task to construct the consumer price index- for the intention, which he alleges, of treating the levy as taxation- something which he himself was doing 5 minutes ago.

But I lose time on the substantive issue, which is the allegation by the Opposition that there are undesirable economic and, in particular, inflationary consequences in the changes that we have made to medical insurance. I remind the House that this Government has a strategy which is to ensure lasting economic recovery, a resumption of growth and thrust in the economy, and full employment. The major prong of that strategy is to combat inflation.

I take this opportunity to reassert that. Because inflation itself is a main if not the principal cause of unemployment, therefore, if we want to combat unemployment and restore thrust and growth to the economy we have to beat inflation, ur policy against inflation has several major prongs. One of them, of course, is to get hold of public spending and the deficit in the public accounts which had soared out of all proportion under the previous Government. Accordingly it is a major part of our policy to get hold of public spending. Along with that of course goes our objective of minimising taxation. Far from being a government that is a high taxer, as the honourable member for Oxley suggested, this Government has, as I have said, implemented legislation to index taxes which means keeping them down in an inflationary context. We want to go further than that. We do not want to stop just at indexing, which limits the increase; we want to achieve actual reductions in the total of taxation and accordingly in the total of public revenue available.

In these circumstances the whole thrust and principle of our approach in the health insurance field can be set out. It is this: Where we have this thrust to contain rising taxation and indeed to reduce it so that there is limited public revenue, it is important that that limited revenue be used to the maximum advantage. So the thrust of our health care proposals has been that those who can afford to pay for their health insurance should do so. After all health care is as fundamental as food, clothing, motor cars or anything else. So those who can alford to pay for their health insurance should do so thereby making available the maximum of the limited public funds that are available- we are trying to cut down on the total of taxation- to help those who cannot afford their own insurance, to help those in need. Consequently we designed these arrangements to ensure that those who can afford to do so pay the full cost or near the full cost of their health insurance.

Who can afford to pay is a question that is open to judgment. But we found on looking at the matter that the full cost of this health insurance was of the order of $300 a year. We judged that that is something that a person on $12,000 a year ought to be able to afford-$300 of $ 12,000 is 2 te per cent. So we said: ‘OK. Those people on incomes of $12,000 a year and upwards will pay the full or substantially the full cost of their health care’. They were offered a family Medibank package of $300. Those who receive incomes below $12,000 pay 2Vi per cent, that is, less than $300. Those on very low incomes pay nothing at all. That was the thinking. The effect of course is that those Australians receiving $12,000 a year and upwards in effect pay substantially the full cost of their health care. Below that level the Government picks up a substantial share of the tab. In fact over much of that range the position is that the income earner is paying about 20 per cent of the cost of his health care; in the upper income levels the figure is in excess of 80 per cent. That is how we believe it should be. In this way it is possible to minimise the cost of this on the public funds. So as a result of these proposals that we have implemented the cost to the taxpayer of the general scheme has been reduced by something in excess of $800m.

Let me stress that from general tax revenue something of the order of $ 1,000m is still contributed to the cost of health insurance. But the cost to the general revenue is reduced by in excess of $800m. I draw attention to the fact that even with this arrangement the deficit that we have budgeted for is of the order of $2,600m. There are continuous difficulties in effectively financing that in a non-inflationary way, and it is a very significant result that the cost in this regard could be reduced by the order I have suggested. I repeat that the arrangements as we have drawn them up result in the fact that those in need and those who cannot afford to pay are substantially assisted from the public purse. Meanwhile it is worth noting that albeit there is this payment from private income- it was expressed in various emotive ways by the honourable member for Oxley as being equivalent to this or equivalent to that- it is not a significant amount in the total of private personal consumption spending which is in excess of $40,000m. It is not the payment for health care, but the lack of confidence as a result of the inflation and unemployment that were bequeathed to this Government from the previous administra.tion that has held back consumption expenditure. As this Government succeeds in getting the situation under control consumption spending will go ahead.

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

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

-The honourable member for Berowra (Dr Edwards) commented earlier in his contribution that there is no such thing as a free meal. I agree. Of course there is not. He spent a lot of his time then trying somehow to prove in some devious way that there might be such a thing. He made the point, I thought that the whole thrust of the Government’s plan was to decrease the cost on public funds and hence reduce the cost to taxpayers. Bully for the Government. That is perfectly correct except for one problem: Taxpayers unfortunately in this country happen to be people. People get sick. People still have to pay their medical bills. Theoretically it is the Government’s claim that taxpayers may not pay so much now, but I will dispute that in a moment. What the people do not pay via their taxation they still must pay out of their pockets when they are sick. I agree that there is no such thing as a free meal. The honourable member has juggled the figures.

Let us examine the total cost. It does not matter a damn to the average citizen really whether he pays via his taxation or out of his own pocket. If die sum total he pays for health services is more now than what he was paying when we organised the scheme he is losing. The Government has imposed a levy. It was claimed that the Government did not believe in increasing taxes, that it wanted to reduce the cost to the taxpayers and so on. So the Government imposed a levy. That is not a tax, but no one can escape it. Everyone has to pay it. Whether it is called a tax or not is irrevelant; it is a tax. The levy was the clever way adopted by the present Government to increase taxes. It did that without saying that it was its intention to increase taxes. The rub is that the levy is less socially equitable than the direct taxation system that was used by the Labor Government to raise a similar sum of money. This Government has imposed a levy on taxable income. I will not go into it here. Honourable members may work it out with a pencil and paper. The figures will not show -

Dr Edwards:

– The Labor Government proposed a levy.

Dr CASS:

– That is right. Thanks to the idiocy of the then Opposition Parties, we were able to adopt a socially more equitable approach which involved funding from taxation revenue. That was the mistake of the Opposition Parties, not of the Labor Party. The present Government has reverted -

Dr Edwards:

– But the levy was as the Labor Party proposed.

Dr CASS:

– I agree that what the Government has reverted to is the same as our original proposal with the exception that the levy has been bumped up considerably. But the Government’s scheme is less socially equitable than the system that the Labor Party was successful in introducing.

There are further deficiencies. One is the ceiling. The ceiling is a burden on the poor, because it tends therefore to lower the contributions that the rich must make. The cover or the opt-out provisions again favour the rich as against the poor. If we take these aspects together, given that a set sum of money must be found- we are not arguing about that factor at the moment- whatever that sum is, this Government’s system ensures that more of that money required for the scheme comes from the poorer section of the community than from the richer section of the community. That is not social equity; that is not helping this Government out of its present economic mess. It is making the situation worse. Let us come to the crucial question -

Dr Edwards:

– We are helping the needy.

Dr CASS:

-The Labor Government helped the needy. Those who were needy were covered by us. Everybody was covered by Medibank. Do not come up with that nonsense. The Government has simply made the situation worse for those who are a bit above the needy line but well below the rich line. The actions of this Government have made the burden much more difficult for those people. Let us look in real terms at the total cost to the community of this Government’s health scheme. Let us look at taxation charges, benefits payments to the private funds and what a person must pay from his or her pocket. Let us sum all of these payments together. What then is the effect of the intervention by this Government? I suggest that it is disastrous.

I make that claim, first, in terms of business efficiency. The Medibank computer was able to handle, at 4 per cent administrative cost, all of the claims for medical benefits and hospital benefits that came to it. Some hospitals benefits claims still went through the private funds. So, in that period when Medibank was doing much of the job of the private funds, the administrative costs of those private funds were still at approximately IS per cent while Medibank ‘s administrative costs were approximately 4 per cent. That does not smell like inefficient government service. Despite that fact, this Government is now forcing a large proportion of the community out of Medibank, away from the organisation with overhead administrative costs of 4 per cent into the arms of private organisations with overhead administrative costs of IS per cent. How, may I ask, does that save money, given that the doctor or the hospital concerned still has to receive the same amount of money in the end? In other words, the taxpayer or citizen must find 10 per cent more to pay the same bills under this Government’s system.

I turn next to the bulk billing arrangements. Under Medibank, our Government provided bulk billing arrangements so that, for the poorthat is, those who could not afford the payments -or for those doctors who were prepared to bulk bill and were not bothered to charge any moiety, which is the beautiful term used and which means a mark-up for the doctors, there was a facility by which charges could be levied directly on Medibank. A great deal of administrative nonsense was saved. A doctor who bulk billed did not need to send accounts to patients. There was no necessity for claims to be made for rebates. All of this was done simply by a doctor sending an account to Medibank from which he received a cheque in payment. This Government has changed that system. Medibank is still in existence. But this Government now permits those doctors who bulk bill also to charge their patients the balance, that is, the difference between the bulk billing payment and the doctor’s fee. Under our scheme, a doctor who bulk billed was not able to charge that balance. This Government allows that practice. One does not need to be terribly clever to know what will happen. Most doctors will use the bulk billing facility when they think it suits them and it pays them. In addition, they will charge the patients the extra portion of the bill. So, most doctors in my view will charge the difference, which is 15 per cent, allowing for the fact that there is an 85 per cent rebate on the common fee -

Mr Hunt:

-The gap is $5.

Dr CASS:

-They will charge the gap, or $5, whichever it may be- that was the figure under the Labor Government also- with the result that whatever was the saving that we achieved under our scheme, represented by the difference between what a doctor received by bulk billing and what was the common fee at that time, will be an additional charge imposed upon doctor’s patients. I repeat that this will arise because in my view- and I am sure practice has shown this to be the case- most doctors will charge the gap. What is worse, some doctors are even charging pensioners in this way. Fortunately, not all of them are doing this. I do not believe that most doctors are in that category. But there are some unpleasant members of the medical professions who are using this loophole which this Government has provided them. They are now charging pensioners who must find whatever money is needed to meet the gap.

I move from that aspect to consider what seems to be the whole point of this exercise, that is, to enshrine and to boost the whole concept of fee for service medical practice, and to guarantee its survival. In his second reading speech on the relevant legislation, the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) when dealing with this aspect said that the Government was taking this action to ensure that private medical practice would survive and in the ope that the Government’s action would encourage the doctors therefore to provide the equivalent of what were once honorary services to hospitals. This is not happening. The doctors are not taking the bait. The doctors are demanding payment. In more and more cases, they are demanding fee for service payment in hospitals. They are greedily grabbing at all of the fee for service facilities that have been provided by this Government’s distorted Medibank plan. I have claimed, and often claimed, that that is what bumps up medical costs.

In this respect, let me quote a survey to demonstrate my claim. I know that we are not Americans but we are people. I do not believe that doctors in Australia are fundamentally different from doctors in America. I do not believe that people in Australia are fundamentally much different from people in America. A study was carried out recently on contrasts in health maintenance organisations and fee for service performance. A whole group of these organisations were analysed in this study which was reported in the Social Security Bulletin of May 1976.

In essence, first of all a check was made on the claim that all healthy people belonged to health maintenance organisations. The study found that there was no significant difference between patients belonging to health maintenance organisations and the general community. The same number of chronically ill patients were found in both areas. The study checked on whether people who contributed to health maintenance organisations were more health conscious. The study found that this was not so. The levels in either group seemed the same. What were the differences? Hospital care is the area where all the operations are done and to which the large bills are attached. Hospital use was two-and-a-half times lower in group practice plans where doctors were on a salary compared with hospital use by doctors working on a fee for service basis. There is the answer to the problem. The surgical rate of group practices and salaried doctors was half the rate where doctors wanted fee for service. Anywhere one looks, at whatever time one tries to analyse the figures, the claim that if people have something seemingly for nothing and therefore the sky is the limit is found to be nonsense. A patient cannot operate on himself; he cannot write his own prescription. The patient depends on his doctor for these things. The only freedom that the patient has is to visit his doctor. If there is too much medical care, too many drugs prescribed, or too many operations undertaken, that is the direct responsibility of the doctor, encouraged by the fee for service technique. That is what this Government is encouraging. I assure the Minister that costs will soar enormously.

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

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

- Mr Deputy Speaker, before I go on to develop my argument in support of the changes that this Government has made, I wish to answer two or three of the points that have been made in this debate. The honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) said that everyone pays the levy. That is not correct. This may have been a sweeping statement that he made generally. But 75 per cent of our pensioners who have health benefit cards do not pay the levy. Those people on the lowest incomes do not pay the levy, so the ceiling is not a burden on the poor, because the poor do not pay the levy. Without a ceiling what would be the position? The Government looked at the possibility of applying a levy without a ceiling. We found that this would be most severe on 2-income families. Sixty per cent of Australian families would be worse off under the plan submitted by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which proposed a 1.6 per cent levy without a ceiling. So let us not assume that the without-ceiling concept provides a more equitable system to a greater number of people. I do not believe that it does.

With respect to the increasing charges to which the honourable member has referred, I point out that even under his former Medibank scheme 70 per cent of Australians remained privately insured for hospital cover, so there was a cost in respect of the operations of those insurance schemes operated by the private health insurance funds. But one fact is certain: Now that we have a competitor in the market- I refer to Medibank Private with all its efficiency in the field- competition will be provided amongst all of the private health insurance funds. Perhaps we shall see more efficiency in the area of the administration of private health insurance.

I think the Opposition believes in the old adage that memories are short. It is rather hypocritical for the Opposition to launch a campaign against the Government on the grounds of its bad economic management. Early in January this year we began an in-depth survey of the economic prospects in this country and it became abundantly clear that we had a very grim scene in front of us. We had inherited a monumental mess. The honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden), who proposed this matter for discussion, was the third Treasurer in 6 months. I think he was unfortunate as a Treasurer because he too inherited a monumental mess and one of the greatest examples of economic mismanagement in our time. It soon became clear that if the expenditure rate had continued we would have had a Budget deficit of no less than $5,000m in that financial year, and the forward estimates for this financial year would have been even greater. Therefore, consistent with the Government’s objective, we decided that inflation had to be checked and government expenditure reined in where possible. This required some urgent, hard and, to some extent, unpopular decisions. There was no other responsible way out.

We inherited an inflation rate of about 15 per cent and the worst unemployment since the Great Depression of the 1930s, and the business and industrial sector had been drained of confidence. In attacking the budgetary situation, which one has to attack if one is serious about trying to overcome the inflationary situation, we found that there were 4 ways of reducing the overall Budget deficit. The first was to increase taxation, but we decided that we did not want to do that. The second was to print more money. A former Treasurer tried to do that, but was not successful. The third was to reduce the rate of increase in government spending, and we chose that course. The fourth was to borrow money to try to overcome the problem. We chose the third option which meant that we would prune back the overgrown bushes of public expenditure, hoping for some self-sustained spring growth. Against the general background of economic disorder, we looked at the exploding health treatment costs and the efficiency of universal health insurance in its existing form. We set up a Medibank Review Committee which went to work in January this year. It had very wide ranging terms of reference against 3 important criteria: Medibank and universal health insurance were to be retained and there was to be no means test at the point of service to the patient. We were mindful of what such schemes had done to the economies of the United Kingdom, Canada and elsewhere where there was no restraint on costs. We wanted to ensure that Medibank did not consume the social dollar. Quite clearly, it had an appetite to do so.

As part of our overall economic appraisal we turned to health care costs in a substantial way and we found that health care costs in Australia were exploding at an even faster rate than the record inflation. Without our changes the total government and private health treatment and health care costs for this financial year were estimated to be $5,400m. That is an enormous sum when compared with the value of iron, wool, coal, wheat and meat exports, which were valued at $4,500m for the previous financial year. Hospital and medical costs were estimated to be $3,320m this year. We estimated that the cost of Medibank itself would reach the order of $2,000m which would be a direct burden upon Consolidated Revenue. We also found that over a period of 1 1 years the Commonwealth share of health costs had increased by 10 times, from $260m in 1963-64 to $2,500m in 1975-76. There were allegations of rip-offs, overuse and abuse. Some doctors were even complaining that they had doubled their incomes in the first 12 months of the operation of Medibank. We had the openended hospital cost sharing agreements with the States, with no opportunity for the Commonwealth Government to have any say in the Budgets or the variations thereto.

So Medibank Mark 1 had achieved universal health coverage, but in the characteristic style of the former Government it was at the expense of disregarding economy and efficiency. It provided few incentives to economy by individuals or the medical profession. It placed on the State and Federal governments virtually the whole burden of basic medical and hospital financing, not just for those needing assistance but also for those who could afford to make a greater contribution.

It threatened the continuance of private medical practice in hospitals. About 70 per cent of the population continued to privately insure, indicating that this was a trend that the Australian people were anxious to preserve. Public hospital charges were uneconomic and unrealistic.

After a full inquiry 2 things became clear. The first was that changes needed to be made to constrain costs, to give incentives to keep costs down, to encourage efficiency in the State hospitals and to push ahead with preventive medicine and health and community programs. The latter is something to which I hope the Government will be turning more attention in the future. Secondly, it became clear that financing other than just out of the general tax pool was absolutely necessary. I think the Government, the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions were agreed on that principle. The point at issue was the way in which we applied the levy. We decided on an optional system because we believed that we would be able to create a competitive situation, particularly with respect to private medical practitioners. We believe that, in restructuring Medibank and universal insurance in the way we have, we have not been inequitable to the lower income people. At the same time we have given an incentive to the private practitioners of this country to be careful ow they raise their fees, because if their fees rise faster than average weekly earnings quite clearly the premiums will go up and people will leave their private insurance funds and stay with Medibank Standard which will be the lowest cost, quality health care insurance.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

-The discussion is concluded.

page 3035

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 1976

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

Second Reading

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · Flinders · LP

-I move:

The major purpose of this and associated Bills I shall shortly introduce is to give effect to the Government’s income tax initiatives announced in my Budget Speech. The Bill also contains provisions relating to other aspects of the income tax law. One of the Budget proposals dealt with in this Bill, and in two of the associated Bills, is the scheme of income equalisation deposits being established for the benefit of primary producers. The scheme will provide valuable assistance to companies and individuals who carry on business as primary producers and whose incomes can, because of seasonal and market conditions, vary considerably from one year to the next. The income equalisation deposits scheme will encourage primary producers to make deposits in years in which their incomes are high and thus provide funds to draw on when incomes fall. In this way the scheme will have a stabilising effect on the levels of rural incomes and expenditures. Provisions governing the financial aspects of the scheme are embodied in an associated Bill entitled the Loan (Income Equalisation Deposits) Bill 1976. As those provisions, together with the amendments being made by this Bill to the Income Tax Assessment Act, are explained in detail in a memorandum I have arranged to be circulated, I think I need do no more for the present than refer to some general features of the scheme.

The incentive for primary producers to make financial provision under the scheme is to be found mainly in the income tax deductions that will be allowable for moneys deposited. Conversely, proceeds received on the withdrawal of deposits for which tax deductions have been allowed are to be treated as assessable income for taxation purposes. The scheme will be available for companies and individuals who, in income tax parlance, are engaged in a business of primary production. This includes farming, grazing and other rural activities and the carrying on of fishing or forest operations. Moneys deposited under the scheme will be borrowings by the Commonwealth and Loan Council approval has been obtained for this. Deposits will be accepted by the Commissioner of Taxation, to whom applications to withdraw moneys are also to be made. Interest, initially at the rate of S per cent per annum, will be payable on deposits. The interest rate will be variable by regulation.

Following enactment of this legislation, deposits that are lodged with the Commissioner not later than 3 1 January 1977 will, within the limits provided in the legislation, be allowable as tax deductions against income of the 197S-76 income year. Deposits lodged after 31 January 1977 and not later than 31 August 1977 will be deductible in respect of income of the year ending 30 June 1977. Thereafter, deposits made in the period of 12 months ending 31 August of each year will be deductible against income of the year ending on the preceding 30 June. For a taxpayer whose accounting period for income tax purposes ends on a date other than 30 June, the 12 months period will end 2 months after the close of the particular accounting period.

Deposits may be made by any individual or company but income tax deductions will be available only to depositors who carry on a business of primary production in Australia, or are partners or beneficiaries entitled to share in income from such a business carried on by a partnership or trust estate. An infant beneficiary who is presently entitled to a share in primary production income of a deceased estate may qualify for deductions for deposits made by the trustee of the estate out of the beneficiary’s share of the estate ‘s income.

Deposits relating to any particular income year will be allowable as tax deductions up to an amount equal to 40 per cent of the depositor’s gross income receipts for the year from primary production activities. The deduction allowable in any assessment, however, will be no greater than the depositor’s taxable income from sources other than property. The total accumulated deductions at any one time, allowable to a depositor in respect of amounts lodged under the scheme or as drought bonds, will be subject to an upper limit of $ 100,000.

As a general rule an amount for which a tax deduction is allowable under the scheme must remain on deposit for at least 12 months. A deposit may, however, be withdrawn within 12 months if the taxpayer is experiencing serious financial difficulties caused by circumstances not in existence when the deposit was made. A depositor seeking to withdraw an amount within 12 months of lodgment will be required to satisfy the Commissioner of the grounds on which the application is based. If the Commissioner is not satisfied, the matter is, on the taxpayer’s request, to be referred to a Taxation Board of Review for consideration.

Amounts deposited in respect of the 1975-76 income year, that is, not later than 3 1 January 1977, can be withdrawn at any time if the taxpayer is experiencing serious financial difficulties, whether or not the difficulties are due to conditions that existed at the time that the deposits were made. These special arrangements recognise that drought conditions may have been experienced by primary producers since 31 August 1976, which would have been the last day for making deposits in respect of the 1975-76 income year if the scheme had then been in operation.

An amount deposited and withdrawn by a primary producer before the end of the period in which a deposit may be made in respect of a particular year will not be allowable as a tax deduction. So, for example, if a primary producer places an amount on deposit on 5 January 1977 and, on or before 31 January 1977, lodges an application to withdraw it on grounds of serious financial difficulty, a deduction will not be allowable against 1975-76 income if the deposit is returned.

Where an application to withdraw deposits is lodged, or where a depositor dies, becomes bankrupt or, being a company, begins to be wound up, the relevant amounts- to the extent of the income tax deductions that have been allowed- are to be included as assessable income. Generally speaking, the amounts will be treated as income derived in the year in which the application to withdraw is lodged. In cases involving death, bankruptcy or winding up proceedings, however, the amounts will be treated as assessable income of the tax period ending on the date of the relevant event. Amounts allowable as deductions in respect of deposits, or amounts included in assessable income as a consequence of withdrawals, will not be taken into account in ascertaining provisional tax payable.

Primary producers will, of course, continue to be able to apply for recalculation of provisional tax on the basis of estimated taxable income. With the introduction of the new income equalisation deposits scheme, there will be no need to continue the earlier drought bond scheme and it is to be wound up. Present holders of drought bonds for which tax deductions have been allowed will be permitted to convert their holdings to income equalisation deposits, without any immediate tax consequences.

I turn now to other extensive provisions of the Bill which propose to change very significantly the basis on which deductions are allowable for the major capital expenditures of general mining and petroleum mining enterprises. I indicated in my Budget Speech that the Government intends to promote a healthy and efficient minerals sector and at the same time ensure that a fair balance is struck between the levels of income tax payable by the mining industry and by other industries. In reaching the decisions affecting mining enterprises that are to be implemented by the Bill, the Government gave close consideration to the report of the Industries Assistance Commission that dealt with the income tax arrangements for the mining industry. Deductions available for capital expenditure on the development of a mine or oil field, on the provision of community facilities adjacent to a mine or field, or on the purchase of mining rights or information, that currently are allowable over the estimated life of the mine or field will, for new expenditures, be allowable on reducing balances, by reference to a maximum life of 5 years instead of 25 years. This will increase the rninimum annual rate of deduction from 4 per cent to 20 per cent.

New exploration and prospecting expenditure incurred in searching for petroleum, and the lifeoffield deductions for allowable capital expenditure on the development of a petroleum field, will henceforth be deductible against assessable income derived from any source by the person incurring the expenditure. New capital expenditures on facilities for the transport of minerals, including oil and natural gas, that are now deductible over 20 years will, at the option of the taxpayer, be deductible over either 10 years or 20 years. In addition, the classes of eligible expenditure on transport facilities for this purpose will be expanded to include certain capital expenditures of a non-plant character that are incurred in providing port facilities in relation to the transport of minerals, including petroleum. Each of the amendments proposed m relation to the taxation of the mining sector is to apply in respect of new expenditures incurred after Budget day- 1 7 August 1 976.

The Bill also gives effect to 2 Budget proposals relating to the dividend distribution requirements of the income tax law. With the needs of small businesses particularly in mind, it is proposed to lower the minimum distribution required to be made by private companies to avoid tax on undistributed income, by increasing- from 50 per cent to 60 per cent- the proportion of after-tax business income that a company may retain. It is not proposed to vary the 10 per cent retention allowance for property income or to provide a retention allowance for dividends that one private company receives from another. Private companies will benefit from the increased retention allowance in their undistributed income tax assessments in respect of income of the 1975-76 income year.

The Bill also proposes to terminate the excess distribution provisions that enable a private company that has paid more in dividends than the undistributed income tax formula requires for an income year to take credit for the excess in calculating the minimum distribution that it is required to make in respect of its income of a later year. The Government has received representations urging that, on one view or another, it should not proceed with this proposal, but after careful consideration we remain of the view that the case for terminating the excess distribution provisions is a compelling one. To a substantial degree, the dividend policies of private companies are in conformity with the dividend distribution requirements of the income tax law so that no more is paid in dividends than is needed to avoid a liability for undistributed income tax. Most of the existing excess distributions are the products of various kinds of tax minimisation arrangements and the continued availability of the amounts would benefit relatively few private companies not associated with arrangements made to exploit the distribution provisions.

Sophisticated arrangements of shareholdings within private company groups have been devised to circumvent the very complex measures that have been enacted to reduce tax avoidance by private company interests. There can be no certainty that further changes in the excess distribution provisions would, given the nature of the situations to be dealt with and the quite bewildering complexity of this area of the law, hold out any greater assurance of success than the amendments made as recently as 1973. But in any event, the situation created by the increase now proposed in the retention allowance- when considered in conjunction with the effects of other income tax initiatives that have been taken by the Government or are proposed- provides a strong case for terminating the excess distribution provisions.

With the retention allowance for business income raised to 60 per cent, a level of 40 per cent of taxable income less tax is about the limit to which a private company’s sufficient distribution could be reduced without adversely affecting the role of the provisions of the tax law designed to ensure that private companies distribute some reasonable amount of after-tax profits as dividends to shareholders. Continued availability of excess distribution credits would adversely affect revenue in the same way as an increase in private company retention allowance levels, but with the benefits accruing almost exclusively to persons who had devised ways of circumventing basic distribution requirements of the law.

Being satisfied that the need for the excess distribution concepts no longer exists, the Government is taking the only practical course open to it. The provisions are, accordingly, to be terminated so that excess distributions will not be available in determining whether private companies have paid sufficient amounts by way of dividends in respect of income derived during the income year ending 30 June 1977. For a company which ends its financial year on 30 June, the effect of the termination arrangement will be to permit any available excess distribution to be taken into account in measuring the sufficient distribution required to be made by 30 April 1977. No excess distribution will, however, be reflected in the calculation of the distribution required to be made during the 12 months period ending 30 April 1978, or in any subsequent distribution period.

Another provision of the Bill will give effect to the announcement I made last month of the Government’s decision to exempt from tax the income derived by the Thalidomide Foundation as trustee for thalidomide afflicted children. As a consequence of the exemption each of the children will be exempt from tax on his or her share in the income of the Foundation.

Mineral exploration expenditure in Papua New Guinea is another subject dealt with by the Bill. Subject to some transitional rules, the right to deduct such expenditure was withdrawn in 197S when that country became independent. We have since agreed, as had the previous Government, to a request by Papua New Guinea that the life of the transitional provisions be extended. The extension will permit deductions for exploration expenditure incurred up to 30 June 1978 in pursuance of exploration rights held at the time of Papua New Guinea ‘s independence.

A technical amendment is also being made to the definition of ‘Resident of Australia’ for income tax purposes. One part of this definition has long treated as an Australian resident a person who is, or is a designated dependant of, a contributor to the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund. Because the recent change in superannuation arrangements for Commonwealth officers had led to the constitution of a new fund, it is necessary to bring up to date the references in the definition to people who are contributors to the Superannuation Fund.

Another measure in the Bill terminates as from 1 July last the residual application of the tax concessions for visiting industrial experts that, subject to some phasing-out rules, had been withdrawn in 1973. This final termination was announced in June and follows the decision to abolish a grants scheme that had in 1973 been substituted for the former tax concessions. As mentioned earlier, an explanatory memorandum relating to the Bill is available to honourable members providing detailed explanations of the provisions of this and 3 related Bills and makes it unnecessary for me to dwell on the provisions at the present time. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 3039

LOAN (INCOME EQUALISATION DEPOSITS) BILL 1976

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

Second Reading

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · Flinders · LP

-I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This is the second of 3 Bills designed to give legislative effect to the Government’s decision to establish a scheme of income equalisation deposits for the benefit of primary producers. As I have already explained features of the deposit scheme in speaking to the Bill that has just been introduced, I need refer only briefly to the purposes of this measure.

The provisions of the Bill are basically in line with other loan raising laws although there are some differences because of the particular nature of the deposits. First, the proceeds of income equalisation deposits are to be transferred to a new trust account established by the Bill. Secondly, because the Commonwealth, in accepting deposits does not issue securities, the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act will not apply. Thirdly, because of income tax implications, the deposits will not be transferable from one person to another.

The Bill appoints the Commissioner of Taxation as the person authorised to determine requests for withdrawal of deposits and authorises him to declare, in certain prescribed circumstances, that deposits have become repayable. Depositors are given a right to have a request for withdrawal referred to a board of review if it is refused by the Commissioner. Honourable members will have detailed explanations of the Bill’s provisions in the memorandum circulated on this and associated measures. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 3039

LOAN (DROUGHT BONDS) AMENDMENT BILL 1976

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

Second Reading

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · Flinders · LP

-I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill is the third of the series of measures to give effect to the income equalisation deposits scheme. It proposes to amend the Loan (Drought Bonds) Act in relation to the conversion of drought bonds to income equalisation deposits to which I have already referred. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 3039

INCOME TAX (COMPANIES AND SUPERANNUATION FUNDS) BILL 1976

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

Second Reading

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · Flinders · LP

-I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill will impose income tax for the 1976-77 financial year, at the rates declared in the Bill, on the 1975-76 incomes of companies and the 1976-77 incomes of superannuation funds. The rates of tax payable by individuals and trustees for the 1976-77 financial year were, of course, enacted earlier this year when personal income tax indexation was introduced. The rates of tax declared by this Bill do not vary from those declared for the 1975-76 financial year.

For companies, and for superannuation funds that are taxable only because of a failure to observe the 30-20 investment rules, the rate is again 42.5 per cent. For superannuation funds that fail to comply with other exemption requirements, the rate is again 50 per cent. So too is the rate of additional tax payable by private companies that do not make a sufficient distribution of profits. Notes on the Bill are included in an explanatory memorandum being made available to honourable members and I do not think that there is any need for me to go into further detail at this introductory stage. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 3039

TOURISM

Proposed Select Committee

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

– I move:

  1. 1 ) That a Select Committee be appointed:

    1. to examine the significance and potential of tourism in the Australian economy and whether it has special features in comparison with other industries, with particular reference to its effects on:
    1. employment,
    2. balance of payments aspects,
    3. the community’s knowledge of Australia and the Australian heritage,
    4. community health and welfare, and

    5. regional development and decentralisation;

    6. to identify the short and long term issues facing the industry in Australia;
    7. to examine the importance of the various modes of transport in the development of tourism to and within Australia;
    8. to examine the roles and responsibilities of the Commonwealth, State and local governments and the industry in relation to the development and promotion of tourism;
    9. to assess the adequacy and the availability of statistical and other information relating to tourism, and
    10. f) to report on its investigations into these matters and to recommend action that might be taken by the Commonwealth Government or by the Commonwealth Government in co-operation with State and local governments and the tourist industry to alleviate any problems identified by the committee during the course of its investigations.
  2. That the committee recognise the responsibility of the States in these matters and seek their co-operation in all relevant aspects.
  3. That the committee consist of eight members, live to be nominated by the Prime Minister and three to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition.
  4. That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker.
  5. That the committee elect as Chairman of the committee one of the members nominated by the Prime Minister.
  6. That the committee elect a Deputy Chairman who shall perform the duties of the Chairman of the committee at any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the Chairman and Deputy Chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the Chairman at that meeting.
  7. That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members, and to appoint the Chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and refer to any such subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine.
  8. That a majority of the members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee.
  9. That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may take part in the public proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote or move any motion or constitute a quorum.
  10. That the committee or any sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.
  11. That the committee have power to move from place to place.
  12. That any sub-committee have power to move from place to place, adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment
  13. That the committee or any sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it
  14. 14) That the committee be provided with necessary staff, facilities and resources.
  15. 1 5 ) That the committee in selecting particular matters for investigation take account of the investigations of other parliamentary committees and avoid duplication.
  16. That the committee report as soon as possible and that any member of the committee have power to add a protest or dissent to the committee ‘s report.
  17. 1 7 ) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

In response to a question from the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) on 4 November 1976 the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) agreed to consider establishing a select committee of the House to look into tourism. Honourable members will be aware that some segments of the tourist industry have been experiencing difficult trading conditions. It is an industry which is particularly susceptible to fluctuations in levels of economic activity. The problems of the industry are exacerbated by the increasing number of Australians travelling overseas. The latest figures available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicate that during 1975-76 Australians spent $5 19m travelling overseas while overseas visitors spent $255m in Australia. The Government’s decision to devalue will, of course, assist in narrowing the gap between travel debits and credits.

The tourist industry is an important industry. It is a significant employer of labour, employing up to 5 per cent of the work force. It is important to State economies, particularly Tasmania and Queensland. It is the life blood of some regions. The Gold Coast and the Snowy Mountains are but 2 examples of this. Tourism has important social implications. It is a means by which Australians as well as overseas visitors can learn more about our country and our heritage. It is a worthwhile means of using increasing hours of leisure. In short, the many facets of this important and growing industry contribute to the Australian economy through: Urban and rural development; decentralisation; new and expanded employment outlets; contribution to foreign exchange earnings; avenues for profitable short and long term investment; a contribution to education; new avenues for improving community health and welfare, both physical and mental; a deeper understanding of different cultural standards and community attitudes; and a wider base for international understanding and goodwill. It is against this background that the Government has decided to establish a select committee to inquire into the industry. Acting on behalf of the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton), I have put down the terms of reference.

The terms of reference are broad and the task is of some magnitude. It is difficult therefore to set a firm deadline for the committee to complete its inquiries and prepare a report. However, I am sure we can rely on the enthusiasm of the members of the committee to complete their task as quickly as possible. Because of the involvement of Commonwealth, State and local governments in tourism, specific mention has been made in the terms of reference of the responsibilities of the 3 levels of government. Honourable members may know that last September the Minister for Industry and Commerce appointed a Government Members Committee on Tourism under the chairmanship of Senator Rae. This Committee has been working most diligently and has received many submissions. Its report is due to be completed before the end of the year. I feel sure that its findings will be of interest and of considerable use to the select committee. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-The Opposition welcomes the move by the Government to establish this select committee on tourism. We welcome the recognition by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard) that it was moves from this side of the House which brought this committee into being. It has been because of the active participation in this House by the honourable member for Lang (Mr Stewart) and the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) that we see some glimmer of hope for the tourist industry. I also pay due respect to the unwanted member of the Cabinet- as he was after the election last yearSenator Peter Rae because of the work he has contributed to the tourist industry of Australia. Nevertheless a number of things regarding the tourist industry have been ignored. We have ignored them for so long that perhaps this select committee can come up with some of the answers. I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House because following me will be honourable members to whose superior knowledge I bow- for example, the former Minister for Tourism and Recreation. It is the intention of the Opposition to move an amendment to paragraph 16 of the motion. In that paragraph the Government proposes that the committee should report as soon as possible. We on this side of the House believe that the date on which the committee should conclude its work should be stipulated.

No shortage of information is available to people interested in the tourist industry. I understand that the honourable member for Lang will go through, item by item, the sorts of documents which have been made available or which were tabled during the period of the Whitlam Government. The recommendations and information made available to the people of Australia and to parliamentarians only need condensing for this committee to bring back a very swift report. A number of difficulties are associated with the tourist industry, and devaluation will not overcome all of them. The tourist industry is still finding it difficult, as are many other industries which depend upon such a large content of female labour, because of the decision taken by our industrial tribunals in relation to equal pay. About 62 per cent of the employees in the tourist industry are females. Obviously, because of the impact of that decision the tourist industry is taking some time to adjust.

Also in Australia we have the unique position where our major international airline is spending its complete budget convincing people why they ought to leave Australia. Perhaps we should look at a combination of the roles of our airlines in the field of advertising. We should look at the roles of Trans-Australia Airlines, Ansett Airlines of Australia and Qantas Airways Ltd. It seems rather ridiculous and a contradiction in terms for us to be looking at the tourist industry while we are contributing so much of the taxpayers’ money to convincing those taxpayers that they would have a better time and that their money would be better spent outside this country. Obviously, that sort of thing would lend itself to very close investigation by this committee. I do not think that anybody in this Parliament would commence these hearings believing that any select committee of this Parliament will be successful in persuading all those Australians who might want to travel outside the country that it would be a good thing not to do so. What we need to do is to balance what has been occurring over the last three or four years in order that we can persuade a lot of Australian people who are going overseas on their holidays not for the first time but perhaps for the fifth or sixth time that it may be worth while to have some interest in parts of Australia which are unique by international standards and which would be very worth while seeing.

I believe that a concentration on the importance of tourism inside Australia could bring this about. As I said earlier, there is a multiplicity of reports concerning this matter. There have been reports by the Industries Assistance Commission, the Temporary Assistance Authority and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Investigations have also been undertaken by interdepartmental committees. We are able to obtain all the information concerning this matter quickly. I believe that it would be in the interests of the tourist industry, which has suffered so much recently, for us to be able to stipulate a time when this Parliament would receive a report. It is for that purpose that I move:

That paragraph (16) be amended by omitting the words as soon as possible’ and substituting ‘no later than 31 May 1977’.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

-I second the amendment. First of all I want to congratulate the Government -

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr A. W. Jarman)

AYES: 83

NOES: 31

Majority……. 52

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Young’s amendment) stand part of the question.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr A. W. Jarman)

AYES: 83

NOES: 31

Majority……. 52

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3043

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– I move:

  1. 1 ) That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs: The health problems of Aboriginals with particular attention to-

    1. the prevalence of different types of disease suffered by Aboriginals and Aboriginal communities;
    2. the relationship between Aboriginal health and environmental, social and cultural factors;
    3. the effectiveness of existing health care programs for Aboriginals generally, and the adequacy of Western European-type health services to cope with the health problems of Aboriginals, and
    4. alternative methods of health care delivery that take account of Aboriginals’ life styles, including camp situations.

  2. That the committee consider ways and means by which-

    1. persons with appropriate qualifications can be encouraged to assist Aboriginals achieve a better standard of health, and
    2. Aboriginals including traditional healers can participate in the development and delivery of health care services to their own communities, and in any modification of existing services.

  3. That the committee recommend possible courses of action.

Honourable members will recall the discussion initiated by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) in this House on 3 November as a matter of public importance that the Government make a commitment to eliminate certain diseases from Aboriginal communities and establish a select committee of the House to this end. In the course of the ensuing debate my colleague, the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt), expressed the Government’s concern at the health problems of Aborigines, particularly such diseases as trachoma and its incidence in central and northern Australia amongst the remote communities. The Minister spoke also of the readiness of the Government to consider the establishment of an appropriate committee to investigate this matter.

The Government’s total funding for health services to Aborigines for 1976-77 is $ 15.9m. In addition to this, special funds of $600,000 have been provided by the Department of Health and my Department for a task force to conduct a pilot study to deal with trachoma and eye health amongst Aboriginal communities in central Australia. In the light of the earlier debate and the Government’s own desire to seek a closer study of problems associated with eliminating diseases in Aboriginal communities, the Government has now decided that these problems of Aboriginal health should be referred to the Standing Committee of this House on Aboriginal Affairs for examination and to report its recommendations progressively to the Government. The Standing Committee already has in hand a study of alcohol problems amongst Aborigines in the course of which evidence on health factors has been given. It seems more appropriate therefore to build on the present work and developing expertise of the Standing Committee than to establish a new and separate committee to deal with incidences of particular diseases amongst Aboriginals.

I note that in the third main report of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty presented by the Reverend George S. Martin, attention has been drawn to some specific problems in Aboriginal health which require investigation. I expect that the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs will therefore find that report of value as well as the Senate Committee’s report on environmental conditions of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders which make some specific recommendations on Aboriginal health. Those recommendations are already under study by my Department in conjunction with the Department of Health.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

-The Opposition very much welcomes the motion that has been advanced by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) and notes that the terms of reference are not limited to the Northern Territory. I take it that the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs will be free to investigate Aboriginal health everywhere in Australia- the Kimberleys and elsewhere. This is very important and I hope that the Committee does receive the co-operation of the State authorities which are charged with some aspects of health in their own areas. We are particularly gratified at the wide terms of reference that have been given to the Committee. There is no doubt that there are many diseases which are almost entirely confined to the Aboriginal community. I speak of tuberculosis, yaws, leprosy, hookworm and trachoma. The numbers of people of European background who suffer from any of those diseases would be very few. The number of Aborigines who suffer from them, I understand, is quite large. I agree with the Minister that the latest report of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty does give some important leads. I think that paragraph 2 (b) of the Minister’s motion is very important. It states:

Aborigines including traditional healers can participate in the development and delivery of health care services to their own communities, and in any modification of existing services.

I hope that the recommendations will be sensitive to the status of traditional Aboriginal healers. We will have to be careful that we do not intervene in such a way that the health policies of Europeans will reduce the Aboriginal traditional healers to a menial status. The Aborigines have a great respect for their traditional healers. It is very interesting also to note that they have a great respect for older European doctors. I understand that a New Zealander, a senior doctor, who was employed by the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress or under its auspices and who is shortly to leave the area, was greatly respected because of his age and also because of his personal qualities.

The investigation that is suggested here is overdue. We have tended to believe in the past that if we set up facilities for the whole community in the Northern Territory or elsewhere then they were accessible to Aborigines. I understand that the medical service of the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress has on its clinic books some 8600 Aborigines which shows that the Aborigines have confidence in the form of medicine which goes to them, and they are more diffident about approaching organisations like hospitals and so on at Alice Springs. Investigation as to how effectively to deliver health care to them, having regard to their traditions and their location, is a matter which I think is overdue. I should like to congratulate the Minister on the motion which he has put before the House. I should like also to express the Opposition’s support for and interest in the motion. I am sure that the Opposition members of this Committee will regard it as a tremendous opportunity to serve the Aboriginal people. It will also enable the Aboriginal people to defend their health standards. I hope in the forms of health care that are set up and in the action taken that we will win their cooperation

The last point I want to make is that I understand that under the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress the Aboriginal people themselves have very much wanted instruction for women and for men in health care. I believe that a Dr Helen Thorn is doing work in this regard as far as the health education of Aboriginal women is concerned. I believe there is now a need for a male doctor to help the men in health education. This is allowed for in the terms of reference and it is one gratifying feature of the Minister’s motion. I am quite sure that the motion has the support of this side of the House.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3044

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) BILL 1976

[No. 2]

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– by leave- I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the introduction and second reading of an Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill 1976 [No. 2].

I should explain that with the concurrence of the Opposition, action has been taken to reprint the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill 1976 which is presently before this House as Order of the Day No. 1. The reprinted Bill incorporates the amendments which I foreshadowed m my statement to the House on 17 November and which were circulated that day. The reprinted Bill will facilitate consideration of the legislation by honourable members. It is intended to discharge the existing Order of the Day when the House has passed the reprinted Bill.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I should like to say briefly that the Opposition is happy to see the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) tidy up this legislation because only recently 48 amendments were introduced by the Government. It would have been extremely difficult to deal with the Bill with those amendments as well as the amendments of the Opposition. I should like to add that the Parliament has been disadvantaged further in this matter due to the fact that the consolidated Bill only recently has come into the hands of honourable members. Two copies of the Bill were available to the Opposition last Friday. If there is some difficulty in navigating the progress in the Committee stage of this debate it will be in consequence of the matter I have raised.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-In supporting my colleague the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) I would like to say first that I think it is sound procedure that the Bill be reprinted in this way. There seems to be a continuing series of muddles when this Government handles legislation of any complicated nature. This is in the almost continuing theme of the Medibank situation. This operation was commenced last year while we were in government. The legislation after being before the House was taken away, redrafted, then amended, then redrafted and then more amendments were made. One of the quaint things about Australian politics is the way this Government managed before it came into power to make it look as though it were a model of efficiency. All I can say is that it is a model for muddling.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Second Reading

Mr VINER (Stirling-Minister for Aboriginal

Affairs) (5.6)- I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

As I stated when speaking to the motion to suspend Standing Orders to enable the introduction of this Bill, the reprinted Bill incorporates the amendments which I foreshadowed in my statement to the House on 17 November last. It is not therefore necessary for me to further elaborate the point except to say that a reading of my second reading speech on 3 June 1976 and my statement on 1 7 November will disclose both the philosophy and detailed policy decisions which lie behind the Government’s land rights legislation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

In Committee

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Commencement).

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

Omit the clause, substitute the following clause: “2. This Act shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation.”.

The reason for adopting this course is that whereas the Act is to come into operation on a date fixed by proclamation, as is mentioned in clause 2, clause 70 is to operate subsequently; not concurrently, but on a later date which is to be fixed for the purpose of sub-clause 1. Clause 70 relates to entry onto Aboriginal lands. This matter gives great concern to the Opposition and to Aboriginal communities all over Australia. Substantially it provides that a person shall not enter or remain on Aboriginal land except in accordance with the law of the Northern Territory. That is the essence of clause 70. When will the regulation be introduced in the Northern Territory? The position that will follow the passing of legislation is that Aboriginal people themselves will not be able to determine the question of entry onto Aboriginal land but at some time in the future the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly will be determining it. Mr Justice Woodward made recommendations on this matter. In paragraph 109 of the second report of the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission, under the heading ‘Control of access to Aboriginal land’, he stated:

One of the most important proofs of genuine Aboriginal ownership of land will be the right to exclude from it those who are not welcome. The Land Councils believe that this principle should be supported by a permit system and I agree with them. I accept the Northern Land Council’s view that the system should be administered by the officers of the Land Councils, who would, where necessary, consult with the local community and clan leaders before issuing a permit.

But His Honour Mr Justice Woodward is not on his own in expressing enthusiasm for this concept. In fact in the debate that occurred in November 1975 after the introduction by the Labor Government of the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill the then spokesman for Aboriginal affairs, the present Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) had quite a bit to say on this matter. He said, as reported on page 2752 of Hansard of 4 November 1975: . . Aboriginal groups to which I spoke . . . were emphatic that they wanted to say who came on to their land. They did not want a remote land council telling them what to do and who was to enter their land. As far as I can understand the matter, they also wanted the right to say whether a person should come on, whether that person was an Aboriginal or not.

Here we have a situation embellished by the support of His Honour Mr Justice Woodward and the former spokesman on Aboriginal affairs for the Liberal-National Country Party coalition. Yet in this legislation there has been a departure from that concept. Although it was intended that the function be administered by land councils and through them delegated to community councils, we will be substituting a situation which will have the effect that instead of the remote land councils making decisions, remote Darwin-based bureaucrats will be making them.

We regard this matter with very grave concern. I know that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) in his second reading speech indicated that guidelines are to be provided for the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly in respect to the laws it is to make on Aboriginal lands. In his statement on 17 November 1976 he said that traditional Aboriginal rights to enter Aboriginal lands must be provided for. He then went on to say:

The leader of the Legislative Assembly and the Minister for the Northern Territory (Mr Adermann) have assured me that the Territory legislation will be worked out in consultation with Aboriginals and with my involvement and agreement.

It seems to me that to hoist the whole future of entry into Aboriginal land on such a vague assurance is a most unsatisfactory and even contemptuous way of treating this Parliament and this issue. One would go so far as to say that it represents an abrogation of responsibility on the part of this Government and the Parliament as well.

Perhaps there will be no law at all. The possibility is that the Legislative Assembly might initiate some action about this matter. On the other hand, there is a possibility that no action at all will be instituted. The situation perhaps will be that anyone will be able to enter Aboriginal land. That situation could easily eventuate if the Assembly failed to take action. In terms of the referendum decision that was taken and which clothed this Parliament with power on this subject it is not good enough to bail out on a matter so important for Aboriginal people. As the former Opposition spokesman, the present Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott), has said, wherever he sat people felt very strongly about this matter. Those members of the Parliament who are active in Aboriginal affairs would take an identical view. So it seems to me that this is an indication of the Government’s intention to hand over the prerogative in this matter to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. If that does not represent white paternalism- in fact, if the whole proposition is for white people to determine who goes on Aboriginal land and if that also does not represent white paternalism- I doubt whether there is a meaningful definition of that phrase. For those reasons, the Opposition has moved its amendment.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I wish to discuss the amendment moved by the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson). As indicated by his speech, there seems to be some misunderstanding throughout the country and certainly within the Australian Labor Party about the role of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly in the past and in the future. The honourable member expressed concern that the Legislative Assembly might legislate in some way to deprive Aborigines of the right of access to their own land. He claimed that Aborigines had said that they did not want a remote land council deciding who went onto their land. That is dead right. The Aboriginal people do not want a remote land council- either a central or northern land council- deciding who goes on to their land. As they have stated continually, they would prefer such a decision to be made by their own clan councils.

The honourable member for Hughes went on to say that, by the same token, Aborigines would not welcome decisions being made on this matter by remote Darwin-based bureaucrats. In this regard, he cited the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. He would know that in the course of the last 3 elections for the Legislative Assembly and its predecessor, the Northern Territory Legislative Council, one of the platforms on which the Country-Liberal Party stood related to the Aboriginal control of entry on to their land, that is, reserves. The policy of the Australian Labor Party at that time in the Northern Territory was to do away with the entry permit system. He and the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant), as former Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs, would know that that was the case. In elections for the former Legislative Council, that proposition from the Labor Party was defeated. The Labor members of the Council were not successful. In the election following the creation of the Legislative Assembly in the Northern Territory, no Labor candidates were returned to that body. It was the Country-Liberal Party in the Northern Territory which defended the right of Aborigines to decide who went on to their land. It was not the Legislative Assembly or the bureaucrats who decided that matter.

The system was that a person seeking entry on to Aboriginal land would send a telegram to the council concerned. The telegram did not go to the northern land council, but to the local Aboriginal council, which would be, for example, the Goulburn Island Council, the Oenpelli Council or the Milingimbi Council. A telegram or note was sent to the appropriate council saying that the sender wished to go on to that council ‘s land. The council communicated its response through the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. I want this matter to be put straight. Again and again I have heard in this Parliament and have read in newspapers that it is the Northern Territory

Legislative Assembly which decides who goes on to Aboriginal land. Members of that Assembly fought for the entry permit system to remain in the hands of the traditional owners through the local councils. I take this opportunity to put the record straight.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-Mr Chairman, I cannot understand why the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) wants to hold up passage of clause 70. This clause has to do with entry on to land. The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) has said that everybody is in agreement that this land ought to be under control of the Aboriginal people. Yet we find that the Government proposes to suspend clause 70 so that the proclamation enacting this legislation may go forward. I think that, in a way, this action will emasculate the Bill. Why is it that we must wait now after 13 years or more since the first shots were fired on land rights in this Parliament? The honourable member for the Northern Territory will forgive us if, on this side of the Committee, we have a reasonable suspicion that the National Country Party is not all that dedicated to the principle of land rights for Aboriginal people. The honourable member may forgive us, then, if we think that the Legislative of the Northern Territory is not a reliable protector of those interests.

Mr Katter:

– That is not true. The honourable member knows that.

Mr BRYANT:

-One of the reasons why I say that emphatically is the behaviour in the past of people like the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) on these matters. He has always acted as though the land rights of Aboriginal people could be transcended, for instance, by miners. I think the real issue here is the timing of the legislation. What is the point of legislation being brought forward here in relation to matters which have been under consideration for so long and which have been before the Parliament for so long, when the proposal now is to leave out what is an important part of that legislation? Even if for the time being there is to be no consideration of malfeasance- if that is the appropriate word- on the part of the Minister and his minions in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, that does not do the legislation any good. I wish to see the Opposition ‘s amendment agreed to and written into the Act so that this legislation will be proclaimed as a whole. If that happens, we will be able to get on with the job.

A further point arises. The responsibility for the carriage and implementation of this legislation lies fairly and squarely on this Parliament.

This is a national question to be resolved by the national Parliament. I believe that the entry of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory into this arena is an aberration of some magnitude. I hope that the Minister will take the bit between his teeth and ensure that all of the contents of the Bill are proclaimed as an Act at the same time.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Parramatta

-The situation as I understand it from reading this clause if that there is a very necessary time lag between the proclamation of the Bill generally and the establishment of land councils as proposed in this Bill. The establishment of those councils will enable the provisions of clause 70 to be put into effect, to operate and to achieve its purpose. There are already certain limitations upon the right of entry on to Aboriginal land which are administered through the Social Welfare Ordinance of the Northern Territory. So, for the time being, the rights of individuals to go on to Aboriginal land are already restricted and the exercise of those rights is capable of being restricted by the operation of that ordinance.

Until this Bill becomes law following its proclamation and until the councils are establishedthis involves a time lag- and are able to accept the responsibility to administer the entry of persons on to Aboriginal land, there will not be a situation in which the provisions of this legislation including clause 70 can be enacted and brought into operation at the one time. If, as has been suggested, the Government lacks bona fides with respect to this issue, I daresay the Government could seek simply not to bring the legislation on- that has not been the case- or simply fail to proclaim it anyway. Who could be heard to complain about that? There is no question of lack of bona fides. There are quite proper reasons for what is proposed. If honourable members opposite had sought an explanation, I am sure that their queries could have been adequately answered to their satisfaction.

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

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

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr KATTER:

– I most certainly do. The honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) made a most remarkable statement. He claimed that I was well known as being more interested in miners than in Aborigines, or made some such statement. I claim this to be entirely wrong. In fact I have an interest in a small mining lease and my partner is an Aboriginal. We own it together.

I would like the honourable member for Wills to quote his authority and to say whether it is the Hansard record -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I think that the honourable member for Kennedy, having made a statement claiming misrepresentation and having said that the statement of the honourable member for Wills was not correct, has now explained the misrepresentation. If the honourable member for Kennedy desires to go into the matter any further he should speak to the clause before the Committee. The matter to which he is now alluding is more a comment on the subject matter of this debate than a personal explanation. ,

Mr KATTER:

– I do not want to hold up the proceedings of the Committee, Mr Chairman. I accept your ruling. I know that the honourable member for Wills could not possibly have been serious in making that statement.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I want to take up the point made by my friend the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr Ruddock), and to offer a proper apology to the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter). If I have said untrue things, or have misinterpreted what he said in the past and have offended him, I am sorry. Apparently he does not use the English language adequately. As far as we are concerned, this piece of legislation has to be taken as a whole. The legislation will be mangled if clause 70 is not brought into operation at the same time as the Act is proclaimed. There is no guarantee that the Government will get on with the job. There is no reason why clause 70 should not take effect as from the day the Act is proclaimed. I take it that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) will not take months and months to get round to the proclamation. If the Act was proclaimed tomorrow, clause 70 could come into operation. Why does he not get on with it?

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– This amendment is not acceptable. With a fair reading of the provisions of clause 70 and a better understanding of the operations of the Bill on the part of the Opposition, the Opposition would understand why it is necessary to allow time for the special proclamation of clause 70. I draw the attention of honourable members to the fact that clause 70 ( 1 ) provides as follows:

Except in the performance of functions under this Act or otherwise inaccordance with this Act or a law of the Northern Territory, a person shall not enter or remain on Aboriginal land.

The time that will be allowed will enable the passing of the necessary Northern Territory law as foreshadowed both by this Bill and by statements I have made in support of the Bill. The various arguments put forward by the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) can be seen, upon examination, to be quite specious. My friend the honourable member forthe Northern Territory (Mr Calder) pointed out the error of the continuing proposition of the honourable member for Hughes that it will be the Legislative Assembly which administers the rights of entry to Aboriginal land.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is not what Woodward said.

Mr VINER:

-It is what the honourable member says will happen. This Parliament does not administer the laws that it passes. That is done by the departments of government or the authorities clothed with the particular function. It is clearly indicated in the statements I have made that the laws relating to entry will operate through land councils and with respect to the wishes of the clan or community councils, many of which are already established in the Northern Territory and which also will be capable of incorporation under the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill previously passed by the House.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– There is nothing in the Bill to that effect.

Mr VINER:

-That is the fact of the matter.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– There is nothing in the Bill; that is the fact of the matter.

Mr VINER:

– The honourable gentleman knows from the contents of the Bill and the statements I have made that what I say is correct and it will happen. I also point out to the 2 honourable members opposite, both of whom are former Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs and ought to know- if they do not, I will tell them now- that there is in existence the Social Welfare Ordinance of the Northern Territory which presently controls entry to Aboriginal land. That Ordinance will continue to operate until such time as it is superseded by a law of the Northern Territory which is passed in accordance with the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act and which is acceptable to me.

Question put:

That the clause proposed to be omitted stand part of the Bill.

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

AYES: 78

NOES: 30

Majority……. 48

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 3.

Aboriginal ‘ means a person who is a member of the Aboriginal race of Australia; alienated Crown land’ means Crown land in which a person (other than the Crown) has an estate or interest, but does not include land in a town; town’ has the same meaning as in the law of the Northern Territory relating to the planning and developing of towns and the use of land in or near towns, and includes any area that, by virtue of regulations in force under that law, is to be treated as a town; unalienated Crown land’ means Crown land in which no person (other than the Crown) has an estate or interest, but does not include land in a town.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-I move:

In the definition ‘Aboriginal’, after ‘Australia’ add ‘and is registered or entitled to be registered under the provisions of paragraph 24 (a) or who has been nominated by a person so registered as a member of his land-owning clan or group’.

If honourable members look at the Bill as drafted they will see that Aboriginal means ‘a person who is a member of the Aboriginal race of Australia’. That might mean that a person who had one sixty-fourth part Aboriginal blood would qualify under the definition. Could I say something about the definition of Aboriginal?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I take a point of order. As I understand the position, the Minister is regarded as having moved clause 3, and the Opposition is given the call in respect of the clause.

The CHAIRMAN:

– In the normal course of events the Opposition would get the call. In the circumstances, it is necessary to proceed with the amendment of the honourable member for Mackellar before we pass on to the amendment of the honourable member for Hughes. That is the reason.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-The customary definition of Aboriginal used in the Department was originally drawn, I think, by Professor Rowley, amended by myself when I was Minister and put out by myself when I was Minister. It is to this effect: An Aboriginal is a person of full or partial Aboriginal descent who himself claims to be an Aboriginal and is accepted as such by the community with which he is associating. That gave some protection. This definition gives no protection at all. A person who is one sixty-fourth Aboriginal, who is not living as an Aboriginal and who has nothing to do with Aborigines, could claim the benefits of this Bill. This is not good enough.

Mr Sullivan:

-I take a point of order. I am interested in what the honourable member for Mackellar is saying. I cannot hear him.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I suggest that the conversation is at too high a level and is almost cutting out what the honourable member for Mackellar is saying. I think that those who are close to the honourable member should give some consideration to not carrying on a discussion while is is endeavouring to make his speech so that the rest of the Committee might hear it.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I thank you, Mr Chairman. I am suggesting that we add to the definition in the LJ1 the words contained in the amendment so that the definition of Aboriginal will read:

Aboriginal’ means a person who is a member of the Aboriginal race of Australia and is registered or entitled to be registered under the provisions of paragraph 24(a) or who has been nominated by a person so registered as a member of his land-owning clan or group.

If honourable members look at sub-clause 24(a) of the Bill they will see that it enables Aborigines to make a register of people whom they consider to be Aborigines.

This Bill allocates traditional land. Its title speaks of traditional Aboriginal land. The people entitled to this land are traditional Aborigines. I am worried always that people who have only a slight mixture of Aboriginal blood, because they are perhaps better educated in our European sense or because they are slicker, might go to the Territory and impose upon the true and traditional Aborigines to whom this Bill refers. I feel very deeply about this. I believe that this Bill betrays the traditional Aborigines who could be overwhelmed or taken to the cleaners by the part-Aborigines who could come up from the south and who are without traditional ties. I would almost call them carpetbaggers. They could come up from the south and take charge of land councils and land trusts. They could establish their residence in the area of a land council in the Northern Territory. There is nothing difficult about that. Having done that, they have been able to use their superior European- I emphasise the word ‘European’- education. This is a Bill to protect traditional people within a European framework. They will be able to manipulate these people, to take charge of them and, in point of fact, to take away from them their inheritance in their traditional land. I have seen this happening with my own eyes in the Northern Territory and elsewhere. I know exactly what can happen under this Bill. I feel very deeply on this point because I do not believe that we are doing what we set out to do.

The title of this Bill relates to traditional Aboriginal land. The people who are entitled to those lands are the traditional Aborigines, not blow-ins from the south or blow-ins from another area, whether they be full-blood or part-blood. The people who are entitled to that land are the people who have the traditional links with it. We have been talking perhaps with our tongues in our cheeks. But I hope at any rate that I have been talking sincerely about the spiritual ties of Aborigines with their land. These are traditional ties. There is no tie between an Aboriginal and some part of the land of which he is not the traditional owner.

To my way of thinking this matter is compounded by our misapplication of councils and trusts. The council is the big central body. The trust is without function; it is a purely passive creation which the land council will control. The situation is made worse by what I believe to be an untraditional alignment in land councils and trusts. We are setting up here an organisation under which Aboriginals will be defrauded of their birthright. Of course, this will not happen overnight. But inevitably it will happen if we allow the part-bloods and those full-bloods who have no traditional ties but who may be a little on the smart side to come in and usurp by their superior skills in committees, by their superior command of the European language, and by their superior knowledge of European law, or whatever it may be, the real rights of the traditional Aboriginals. If we mean anything, if we are in any way sincere when we speak about the spiritual tie between an Aboriginal and his land- it is there- we will maintain that position by allowing only traditional Aborigines to be concerned in the administration of their traditional land.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-Whilst I think that there is something in what the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) says, I also think that clause 24 covers the proposal that he puts before us. Clause 24, in part, states:

A Land Council shall compile, and maintain, a register setting out-

the names of the persons who, in the opinion of the Council, are the traditional Aboriginal owners of Aboriginal land in the area of the Land Council; and . . .

It is true that people may be able to go to these Aboriginal areas and talk themselves into rights to which they are not entitled. They will be able to do this while there is a register. They would be able to do that even under the honourable member’s definition which accepts the register as the definition of an Aboriginal. So I think it is a cyclical argument. Mr Chairman, I rose really to raise a point of procedure. There are 4 amendments to this clause. I suppose that we can speak only the normal number of times- that is twice- in respect of the clause?

Mr Bourchier:

– You will use up1½ hours in one hit.

Mr BRYANT:

-I have been working on this subject for about 20 years. The Government ought at least to let us have about ten or twelve hours in which to speak on the subject.

The CHAIRMAN:

– In a sense we have not yet come to the point of putting the amendment to the Committee. I have had discussions on this matter with the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson). It is felt that the 4 amendments could be moved together, in which case it would mean that the honourable member would have 2 opportunities, if he required them, of speaking to the clause. Of course, if he can overcome the wrath of his colleagues he can always get the leave of the Committee to speak on a third occasion. But such a matter is not within the province of the Chair.

Mr BRYANT:

-I am in full sympathy with the honourable member for Mackellar in respect of the general need to get the definition right. But I think that by trying to define the word ‘Aboriginal’ in a more narrow way we could end up in more trouble. It is just one of the inevitable problems that confront people wherever they try to define race or ethnic groups or anything of this nature. It is found that such a task is almost impossible to accomplish inside the ordinary terms of language. Therefore we have to rely upon registration of some sort. I believe that this requirement is adequately covered in clause 24.I would not vote for the amendment, or perhaps against it.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– This Bill concerns traditional Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. One would imagine that it would concern traditional Aborigines in the Northern Territory. Yet the definition of ‘Aboriginal ‘ in this Bill is the definition that was included in the Bill in 1975 which the Australian Labor Party introduced. Some of us objected to the definition then, and not without reason. I objected to the definition because I am endeavouring to see that the traditional land owners in the Northern Territory get control of their own land. Because of the way in which the definition is worded- the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) put the case very well- people other than traditional owners will be able to work themselves into the land councils and land trusts. So I think it is imperative that the

Government takes note of the definition put forward by the honourable member for Mackellar. If we cannot get that definition accepted this time perhaps it could be looked at by the proposed committee which will oversee the implementation of this legislation in respect of the rights of the traditional owners. This is what I and various other people in the Northern Territory are concerned about. I refer to people such as Pastor Albrecht who has been backed up by Strehlow, De Graf, Pfitzner, Stolle and the learned Dr Gavranic who gave evidence yesterday on the subject of alcholism to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. This man had spent 5 years in the Northern Territory and a great deal of that period in the Arnhem Land area. He supports the same kind of concept that we Territorians support. We are endeavouring to ensure that the traditional owners have control of their land. The very broad definition of ‘Aboriginal’ in the Bill will tend to take away that control from those people.

We have heard much of Dr Peterson. In fact I am led to believe that he was an adviser to Professor Woodward who is quoted as the be-all and end-all of the knowledge of what happens to Aboriginal land. Dr Peterson gave us a definition of ‘Aboriginal’ which is not the same as the definition in the Bill. Since Dr Peterson has played such a part in this matter and, as an anthropologist, is a man who claims to have an extensive experience and knowledge of Aborigines, I think that we should at least look at his definition. His definition is:

Someone of Aboriginal descent who is accepted as an Aborigine by Aborigines in the community in which he lives.

That virtually is what the honourable member for Mackeller is talking about in his amendment. I think the Government should take note of that because it has followed the Woodward report and the advice of these men constantly bearing in mind that this is traditional Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory and that these are the people for whom we are battling so that they will have the final control over their land, and nobody else, I suggest very seriously that that definition or some similar definition should be looked at very seriously.

Mr HYDE:
Moore

– I think too much is being made of this definition. After all, it is a general definition for general purposes.

Mr Calder:

– It is not a general purpose Bill.

Mr HYDE:

– It is for general purposes within the terms of the Bill. The land councils are there as a bridge between 2 different communities, 2 different societies. We need a general definition to cover the people who will serve on those councils. The traditional Aboriginal owner is denned much more narrowly and quite separately within the same clause. The definition of a traditional Aboriginal owner will overcome the objections which have been made, save that one that nontraditional Aborigines may find their way onto the land councils. That is true. But there is a need for non-traditional Aborigines on those councils.

Mr VINER:
Stirling Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

-The Government cannot accept the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth). I think it is most unfortunate that the honourable member for Mackellar should use such exaggerated language in his debating of this Bill. He used a similar kind of language when debating the second reading speech, and here he is again using the same words, such as betrayal and defrauding of the traditional birthright of Aborigines. I think, with the greatest of respect to the honourable member, that it does not do his intellect any justice to hear the arguments which he has put forward. His amendment would limit the operation of the Bill to those Aborigines who are traditional owners. The arguments of the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) would do the same. What neither honourable gentleman knows or acknowledges is that many Aborigines are not traditional owners but they have a traditional interest in the land. Traditional owners form a special and very small class of Aborigines within the clan group and who by reason of Aboriginal law and by Aboriginal custom, one might say by inheritance or by choice according to Aboriginal law or custom, are the owners of the land. They are not the owners for themselves with a proprietary interest such as you, Mr Lucock, and I have in our land. They are the owners for all Aborigines who, by reason of their clan grouping, have a traditional interest of one kind or another in that land, to live on it, to use it, to pass through it or to attend ceremonies upon it.

I should have thought that the honourable member for Mackellar and the honourable member for the Northern Territory would either have known or have acknowledged the distinctionit is a fundamental distinction- between the traditional owner and the Aboriginal who has a traditional interest. Therefore, if the amendment of the honourable gentleman were accepted he would exclude from the protection and the benefit of this Bill all those Aborigines who have traditional interests in the land.

The particular definition is adopted on the advice of the Parliamentary Counsel as being the definition which conforms with the constitutional power of the Commonwealth to make special laws with respect to people of any race. Hence, the definition of an Aboriginal is a person of the Aboriginal race. Some might say that that is tautological. If the matter were ever in dispute it would be a question of law and fact to be determined by the courts. The honourable member for the Northern Territory mentioned Mr Peterson and spoke of a definition put forward by him. I direct the attention of the honourable gentleman to the definition of Aboriginal provided in the draft Bill annexed to the report of Mr Justice Woodward. The definition is that an Aboriginal means a descendant of an indigenous inhabitant of Australia. I should have thought that that meant the same as the definition which we have in the Bill. I direct attention to the limitations on membership of certain organisations which are established under the Bill, particularly land trusts and land councils. I refer to clauses 4, 7, 21 and 23. Through the mechanism of those limitations the kinds of fears which the honourable member for Mackellar has asserted are not only diminished but are obliterated.

Mr Wentworth:

– I am not going to sit silent while the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs misrepresents me.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The chair will be resumed at 8 o ‘clock.

Sitting suspended from 6.2 to 8 p.m.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-I want to deal very briefly with points raised by the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant), the honourable member for Moore (Mr Hyde) and the Minister. First, the honourable member for Wills, when he said that the item could be circular because non-traditional Aboriginals get on to the register, omitted one very fundamental point. Aboriginals can be persuaded of many things and they will on occasions falsify many things but they will never, to my way of thinking, falsify lines of descent. These are sacred to Aborigines and they consider them in quite a different category from any other category. So the register would be, to all intents and purposes, watertight.

Second, the honourable member for Moore mentioned that there were other protections in the Bill. Clause 7 of the Bill states that the Land Trust shall be appointed by the Minister from nominations received. However, nominations are confined to people who live within the area of the relevant land council. This also applies in regard to the qualifications for membership of land councils. So the same watertight provisions do not apply in practice. Anybody who really knows how Aborigines think and behave and what they believe to be really sacrosanct will, I think, agree with my contention. The Minister said that my amendment was too restrictive in that it would- I think this was what he impliedconfine the definition of Aborigines to owners. If the Minister reads what I have suggested, he will see that they are people who are registered as owners or have been nominated by a person so registered as a member of his land-owning clan or group. This is something which Aborigines will follow absolutely meticulously, absolutely honestly and without question. It enables anybody who is recognised by the Aborigines, in accordance with their own strict laws which they preserve quite meticulously, in a clan relationship or group relationship, to be registered. As somebody who has had some experience in the field, I can say that he will be registered as such.

These are objections which have been raised to the proposition which I have put forward. They seem to me to be objections which have no substance in them. So far as I know there have been no substantial and correct arguments introduced in this chamber today against the proposition that I am putting forward. In view of its importance for maintaining for traditional Aborigines the traditional land and traditional rights which this Bill describes in its title, I ask that the amendment be seriously considered, if not here at least in another place.

Amendment negatived.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Mr Chairman, I seek leave to move the 4 amendments standing in my name in respect of this clause.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I thank the Minister and the Committee.

I move:

In the definition ‘alienated Crown land’, omit ‘, but does not include land in a town ‘.

In the definition ‘town ‘, omit ‘, and includes any area that, by virtue of regulations in force under that law, is to be treated as a town’.

In the definition ‘unalienated Crown land’, omit ‘, but does not include land in a town ‘.

Omit sub-clause (4), substitute the following sub-clause:

A reference in this Act to the granting of a mining interest in respect of Aboriginal land shall be read as including a reference to the renewal of a mining interest. ‘.

I hope that I will have the opportunity to make some brief comment on amendments 2, 3 and 4 and possibly to speak at a later stage in respect of amendment 5. In relation to amendments 2, 3 and 4, the Opposition is very concerned that the intentions of His Honour, Mr Justice Woodward, to include Aborigines who live in towns as being capable of having land granted to them have been circumvented by the provisions of this legislation.

The Opposition believes that it should be possible to make grants of land available in towns for Aboriginal people. When all is said and done, can a town be proclaimed in respect of a group of Aboriginal people? Can a town be proclaimed over a community to exclude it from the definition and the provisions of this Bill so as to prevent people in the community from obtaining a grant of Aboriginal land? That is the issue which is at stake in respect of these matters. Can a community be designated under the laws of the Northern Territory as a town and so be excluded from the benefits of this legislation? In short, the purpose of these amendments is to give effect to the recommendations of Mr Justice Woodward that the Aboriginal Land Commissioners have jurisdiction to make recommendations relating to grants of land for Aboriginals within towns.

In his recommendations Mr Justice Woodward stated in paragraph 328 that planning for Aboriginals in towns must involve consulting them and determining their preferences. He recommended specifically in sub-paragraphs (v) and (vi) that Land Councils should make submissions to town planners and the Land Commissioners who, after investigation, should report to the Government on acquisition of necessary land for Aborigines in towns. Without these amendments a large number of Aboriginal families and communities will be excluded from the operation of this legislation and will be forced to go once again cap in hand to the Department of the Northern Territory which has led the opposition to the granting of land in towns and to the claims heard already by the interim Commissioner, Mr Justice Woodward.

An example of this can be seen from the Alice Springs land claims where the Commissioner was ordered to stop his investigation of claims in which, in a preliminary report, he had rejected the arguments of the Department of the Northern Territory. In addition to holding this inquiry the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) announced that due to the economic situation no funds would be available for any site development for at least 12 months. In his report Mr Justice Woodward stated that most of the fringe dwellers of cities and towns have suffered more from the coming of white settlement than have those still living on reserves. He quoted from submissions from both the central and northern Land Councils to support his proposition. A large number of Aboriginal people living in towns will be deprived of the opportunity to obtain land under the provisions of this Bill unless the amendment is carried.

In his report Mr Justice Woodward referred to the census conducted in 1971. In the greater Darwin area there were 2374 Aboriginal people living in towns. In Alice Springs the number was 1269. In Katherine it was 174 and in Tennant Creek 1 19. Just in those places there is an aggregation of some 4000 Aboriginal people. Mr Justice Woodward said, in effect, of these people- I will not quote all the provisions because I do not have time- that their problems were urgent and important and that they related to social welfare and urban development issues. He pointed out that they were the dispossessed victims who had lost traditional land and he said they had suffered more from white settlement than those on reserves or cattle stations. They were now squatters. They became attached to their land. They wanted to live on the land where they were now living. They may have been part of a traditional area or formerly been part of some other area, but they have now left that area and have come to have an association with a new area.

He pointed out that there should be due regard for tribal differences, to avoid dissention. He pointed out that consideration should be given to their special needs in town, such as thenneed to have access to a hospital and matters of that kind. He recommended that the Land Council field officers should identify their needs in respect of such matters as camping areas, community housing areas, hostels, single family housing and the like, and that their views should be put to the town planners and the land commissioners. He said that the aim should be that within a reasonable time all Aboriginal groups should be living or camping on land in which they have an interest. His Honour went on to express the hope that by 1 976 there would be no Aboriginal groups in the Northern Territory living in sufferance on Crown lands. A number of honourable members in the chamber at the present time would know a good deal about the town people in places such as Darwin, the Kulalak people and the people at Railway Dam out of Darwin-people who occupy areas which were once the traditional transitional grounds over which those people passed and who now live there permanently in smaller numbers than in bygone times.

It is the hope of the Opposition that these amendments will be carried so that it will be possible to make grants to Aboriginal people living in the town situation and apart from the places of which they have been dispossessed. This is an extremely significant matter. The Opposition would like to call for a division on this question, but in consideration of the time involved we probably will avoid a division. But, in our avoiding a division, I would not like the impression to be given that we do not attribute the utmost significance to this situation. It is a departure from the Woodward recommendations, a departure from every attitude that any group of Aboriginal people has ever expressed about this matter, and a departure from the 1975 legislation introduced by the Australian Labor Party. If there is to be any give and take at all, if there is to be one skerrick of compromise at all in respect of the matters which the Opposition is earnestly putting to the Minister, this is an issue with such characteristics and with high objectivity.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I speak to the fourth amendment of the battery of amendments moved by the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson). It refers to subclause (4) of clause 3. This is an interesting clause. The Government proposes in this Bill, which is an amending Bill, to amend the clause in the original Bill. I believe that the Government’s amendment is correct and that the Opposition’s proposed amendment is incorrect. It is incorrect for some very viable and very worthy reasons. The sub-clause in the original Bill read as follows:

A reference in this Act to the granting of a rnining interest in respect of Aboriginal land shall be read as not including a reference to the renewal of a mining interest that was in existence when the land became Aboriginal land.

It appears to me that in that clause the Government was trying to guarantee that a mining interest was not capable of being intercepted when there had to be a renewal of the mining interest. That is a very legitimate requirement, but the sense of the clause left a great doubt. It could be interpreted that the mining interest was capable of being intercepted at any time and there was no right of renewal. So the Government quite correctly introduced some new words. The proposed sub-clause now reads:

A reference in this Act to the granting of a mining interest in respect of Aboriginal land shall be read as not including a reference to the renewal, in accordance with an option or other right conferred before the land became Aboriginal land, of a mining interest that was in existence when the land became Aboriginal land.

That gave some guarantee that when an interest was to be renewed- many of them are for 21 years; they have to be renewed progressively- it could not just be cut off or intercepted at the time of renewal. The effect of the Opposition’s amendment is to put any renewal in a position of risk which ultimately could guarantee that the rnining interest or development would not proceed. I know that it is fashionable in this place to bash mining interests, to say that mining is not a satisfactory activity and to say that mining is always a disruptive activity. I am not one who holds to that proposition. It is quite clear that in other clauses of this BUI there are many guarantees as to the negotiating rights of Aborigines through the land councils and the deed-holding body, the Land Trust, in respect of the mining interests. As it is proposed by the honourable member for Hughes on behalf of the Opposition, the whole show is put at risk -

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have not put the case yet.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The honourable member would not put his own interests at risk. I am just looking at the words of the Opposition’s amendment. The meaning of those words is quite clear. They would react ultimately to the very great detriment of the Aborigines. They would not even allow the rights of Aborigines with respect to rnining interests to be protected because there would be none being renewed from which Aborigines would need to be protected or from which they could obtain payment in terms of negotiated settlements and so on. So I hope that the enormity of the proposition that is being put by the Opposition is realised in this chamber. It is for that reason that I welcome the Government’s amendment to the original Bill. It clarifies sub-clause (4) of clause 3. That sub-clause has caused a lot of concern and a lot of uncertainty. No matter how it is read, it certainly does not mean what was intended by the original subclause. The Opposition’s amendment runs completely contrary to what I thought was the first intended meaning and, as a matter of common sense, I believe that it ought to be rejected. I believe that the Government’s proposed amendment is one of sound common sense, knowing what is involved in terms of those interests which are essentially long term interests and not short term interests.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-One of the more interesting pieces of materialist philosophy is what might be called the transcendental rights of mining, the sovereign rights of rnining, which are superior- in the view of people such as the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns)- to any other right of any other person in this country.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– That is a piece of absolute nonsense.

Mr BRYANT:

– The honourable member should listen to what I have to say. I listened with great courtesy to him, even though I thought he was preaching some materialist nonsense, as he might define it, which offended me greatly. The situation is that under this legislation we are transferring to the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory the ownership, in a particular form, of the lands to which they have traditional rights, but we are not transferring the absolute rights. If over the years someone has acquired a mining right, that right is to continue untrammelled. My friend from Lilley points out that there must be no interference with the rights of renewal. I believe that that offends against the spirit of the legislation. It is not even anti-mining to say that we ought to do that. We are transferring the ownership of this land to the Aboriginal people in the same sense as we transferred the ownership of Papua New Guinea to the people of Papua New Guinea at independence. I suggest that the honourable member for Lilley would say: ‘We should have retained control of the copper mine in Bougainville’. But he would not say that of course. We have to find a new formula for dealing with mining. I believe that the minerals on these lands should belong to the Aboriginal people and, therefore, that we have to find some formula by which the Aborigines can develop these lands if they wish to do so in their name, in their right and under their ownership. One of my objections to this Bill is in fact that it ought to be renamed. It is really not an Aboriginal land rights Bill. It deals with the mining rights on Aboriginal lands. That theme runs through the Bill and seems to be of greater authority than the actual Aboriginal lands themselves. I think we are only moving halfway.

It is one of those intriguing facts in our society that the right of the miner runs continuously whereas no other right does. One may have a home on land but it is no trouble for the Government to take a person’s home and put a road through it. It is no trouble taking a person’s farm and turning it into something else. Land can be acquired for any of these purposes and we do it all the time. If one pegs out land as a miner, one has a particular relationship to the land. In fact, one has almost all the land rights which we are now trying to obtain for Aboriginal people. What this Bill purported to do, one would hope, would be to transfer that ownership to the Aboriginal people. Later at the Committee stage we will discuss some particular instances. There is no suggestion at this stage that we should take from people their present rights. We are talking about renewals. Why should a person have an absolute right to renew a lease? That right does not exist anywhere else.

If one is leasing part of Canberra, there is no suggestion that one has an absolute right to continue with that lease after 99 years has elapsed. If one is leasing something from the honourable member for Lilley, when the lease is up and unless it is written into it in some particular way, one does not have the absolute right to continue. Many people in this country have acquired rights over land by simply occupying it in the past. The Aboriginal people, having occupied the land for 20 000 or 30 000 years, must almost have that right. I am saying that this is not antidevelopment, anti-mining or any of those things. If we are really genuine about transferring the rights, the proprietorship of this land to the Aboriginal people, we should not allow the renewal of leases to continue in the present sense.

I support my colleague the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) in what he had to say about those other tilings which again put certain rights above the rights of Aboriginal people in towns and on Crown lands. I think we are discussing a very important principle.

Mr Katter:

– You should take your hand out of your pocket.

Mr BRYANT:

-It is not necessary. That is right. Members of the Country Party have an attitude to these matters but I am putting it seriously to the House that this is the very spirit of the legislation that we are debating. Therefore, if we have to decide a new formula, introduce subsidiary legislation or something of that nature to bring about a different deal in relation to mining rights, we should not allow the renewal of leases to continue in their present form because I believe it offends the spirit of the legislation and it will make absolutely certain that there are large parts of the Northern Territory on Aboriginal domain which will never belong to the Aboriginal in the strict sense.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) was arguing against the Opposition’s case before he heard it. I would consider that he is now enlightened, following the remarks of my colleague the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant).

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– You said you were moving the 4 amendments together.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-It is true that I moved the 4 amendments at the one time but I did not make any reference to the matter about which the honourable member for Lilley spoke. I think he thought he was replying to another matter because he had a speech prepared on it. In any event, I will say a few words about it now but more will be said about this matter at a subsequent stage. The fundamental question here is this: Should miners, those people who are entrepreneurially engaged in a pursuit of gouging minerals from the ground in the Northern Territory, need consent when land becomes Aboriginal land? For the first time in Australia’s history, as a result of this legislation, Aboriginal people will have land rights. It might have been all right to ride roughshod over the Aborigines in bygone times but the whole purpose of this legislation is to grant land rights.

The Opposition is moving amendments to delete a number of words which would have the effect of giving Aborigines rights in this particular matter. The amendments are designed to ensure that mining interests with options and other rights, interest in land and the like, must seek consent from Aboriginal people in their corporate state when land becomes Aboriginal land. The Government can bastardise this legislation and it can ruin it but this was indeed the unqualified intent of Mr Justice Woodward which has been set out in the most unequivocal and unambiguous terms in his report. I should like to make a brief reference to some of the salient comments that he made about this matter. An inquiry has been conducted into this matter. The then Opposition, the present Government, was in agreement with the fact that we should have this great and high principled application to the issues involved. Unless the Government can put up a case against the recommendations of Mr Justice Woodward to this Parliament it ought to adopt the amendment. Mr Justice Woodward certainly made out a most forthright case along the lines that the amendment proposes. In paragraph 623 of his second report, His Honour said:

No doubt all those companies -

A lot more than one paragraph of his report could be referred to- which can show substantial expenditures should and will receive priority when any areas of Aboriginal land become available for exploration under any new arrangements that may be decided upon.

Paragraph 624 states:

However I think it is essential that they should all be required to adhere to the new arrangements and should not, as the Australian Mining Industry Council has urged on me, be exempt from them.

In paragraph 625, he said:

When the understandable expectations of these companies that they would be able to continue exploration under the rules which governed them to begin with, are weighed against the equally reasonable expectation of Aborigines that their wishes about reserve lands will now be respected, I have no doubt in my mind which expectation must be disappointed.

I am sure that the Committee has no doubt in its mind about what His Honour implied in that respect. The 1975 Labor legislation, which acted as a catalyst on the whole consideration of this matter and which is still substantially upheld in the current legislation, gave expression to these principles. I do not think, Mr Minister, that I am mistaken if I say that the 1976 legislation, as distinct from the current legislation- the Coalition legislation- also provided that mining interests seeking extensions should be subject to consent. At one point in time we were all in agreement in respect of this matter- His Honour, Mr Justice Woodward, the Opposition and the Liberal and National Country parties. But something has happened. What is it that has happened since June 1976 to cause the Aboriginal needs to become secondary and subjective. I believe that the Government has a lot to answer for in this regard. This is not a question of saying that the Government does not want mining in the Northern Territory or that it does not recognise the need for mining; it would recognise the need for mining in any State or Territory regardless of who owned the land. If the Government is trying to get the thing on the cheap, and to come in on the grouter and say that here it has this distinctive, discriminatory situation where only Aboriginal people will not have a say about the terms and conditions, it is resorting to the extreme form of paternalism and it is running in the face of the attitude of the Aboriginal people which has been unanimously expressed.

Can any honourable member present- the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) is a great zealot and enthusiast and is highly experienced in these things- point to one corporate body of Aboriginal people which wants what this Government is proposing under this provision? Of course not. So, the Government is just denying all the counsel and all the high conviction that it has had in bygone times. It has changed its course of action. The Government is not prepared to require these mining companies to front up now in the face of the new situation where there are now new owners, the Aboriginal people. If the Government does not accept the proposition that the legislation will be significant it will not be significant, especially in respect of the great area of responsibility that the Government is turning over to the Country Party dominated Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory which comprises people who have opposed nearly all these principles.

The Minister has put the whole situation in such a way that so many of the important implemental aspects of these matters will be in the hands of people who have opposed any progress in these issues. Unless this Government which in fact has a prerogative over the matter about which we are now talking- the question of consent about existing mining interests- is prepared to put some teeth into the legislation and show that it means business what will happen in respect of these things about which the Commonwealth, has a oversighting role in regard to the Legislative Assembly? These people have shown an antipathy. I do not regard the Minister as having an antipathy to the best interests of Aboriginal People and their quests for land rights. I regard him as being sympathetic. I am putting it to him that here is a matter in respect of which he has an unfettered prerogative and for which once he showed some enthusiasm. Now he has welshed on the deal and the Committee is entitled to some explanation. Unless there is some explanation I believe Aboriginal people around Australia will regard this government as lacking good faith in respect of this important matter.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I must say something about what the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson), has just said. He used very strong words concerning the Legislative Assembly and the powers that are given to it in this Bill He has insinuated that the Assembly will control these rnining interests and the land on which Aborigines will have mineral rights. Just looking briefly at clause 73, the ordinance which is complementary to this legislation concerns sacred sites and the entry of persons onto Aboriginal land. As I have already said, the Legislative Assembly has voted 3 times against the Labor Party when it wanted to throw open Aboriginal land to everyone- Collins and all the rest.

The people who defended the Aboriginal cause were the members of the Legislative Council as it was called in those days. The Labor Party members in the Northern Territory were the ones who consistently voted to do away with the Aboriginal permit system, and honourable members opposite know it. The matter comes up again and again. The complementary legislation refers also to protection, conservation, prohibiting the entry of persons into controlled fishing areas and. so on. It is completely wrong to say to this Government that the Legislative Assembly members will hold the Aboriginal land rights with regard to minerals in the hollow of their hands. That is absolute nonsense.

While we have been discussing this matter Mr Justice Woodward has been quoted at length as being the ultimate authority. I remind the Committee that he was advised by the Northern Land Council and the Central Land Council. I do not know whether the people involved took into account the real beliefs and traditions of the traditional Aborigines to whom this Bill after all refers. It seems to me that there has been heavy criticism of people who have advised the Government and who have lived in the Territory for many years, which is something that no one in this chamber apart from myself has done. There is a connection between the central Australian traditional land ownership which is connected with the Tjuringa and the Arnhem Land or northern land ownership and clan gathering which is known as the Rangga. There has been much criticism that the Central Australian argument has been triggered by members of the Lutheran Church including Paul Albrecht, but many others have supported these moves. It has been said by the advisers of Mr Justice Woodward that the area in Central Australia was an isolated case of church dominance. Let me refer to a work put out by Dr Berndt which states:

The mala -

That is a clan- points to that religious aspect and to territorial possession. In the recent Gove Land Rights case, Yirrkala Aborigines made the point that members of the particular mada - which is the same as mala- own their land because their linked mala had association which were . . . (secret-sacred) emblems.

This is similar to the Tjuringa in Central Australia. This seems to have been completely ignored by the advisers to Mr Justice Woodward. The whole concept of the original Labor Party land Bill was to some extent based on a false premise. The land councils were set up by Europeans and they tended not to take into consideration the feelings, beliefs and land laws of the traditional Aborigines. We are now seeing this come into effect. I am associating what is happening in Central Australia- it is moving strongly from the traditional owners against this sort of white fellow set-up of large land councils and land ownership by people other than the traditional owners- with the Arnhem Land situation. This has been explained in the publication edited by Dr Peterson, which contains articles by learned men on Aboriginal affairs.

Yesterday at a public meeting Dr Gavranic, who has spent some years at Gove amongst Aborigines, described to us with diagrams why the whole concept of these councils and this land ownership as it is now envisaged is incorrect. Unfortunately, one cannot produce the diagrams in this chamber. He was quite right in what he said. He was backing up such men as Strehlow, Albrecht, De Graf and so on. He said that land ownership was based on the family or clan groups. Aboriginals in those family groups relate many of their customs and actions, such as the marriage ceremony, to beliefs tied up with their history on the law of the land. Our original concept with respect to the needs of these people was that there was a whole mob of blacks out in the bush- we did not determine whether they were clans or tribes- and we ‘white fellows’ or ‘balandas’, as they are known at the Top End had the task of providing something there for these Aborigines. What did we do? We put a settlement in the middle. We did not understand that we were mixing together Aborigines from such tribes as the Pintubi, the Walbri, Aranda, the Iluawa and the like. This fact has only recently become obvious. I am afraid that this Bill, and the legislation introduced by the Labor Party before it, missed that point. The Labor legislation missed the point utterly. This Bill still does. We should realise that this is the situation. We have heard former Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs speaking about the ownership of land and tying it to the large land councils. This is what is happening. -It is not correct. It is time that this Government learned that it is not correct.

Mr WALLIS:
Grey

-After listening to what the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) has just said, perhaps we can expect that when this matter goes to the vote he will oppose the Bill. It is quite obvious from his remarks to the present that he does not support the Bill in its entirety. What I wish to mention this evening is the question of roads. Throughout the schedule to the Bill and in the various descriptions given we find that roads are not included. In the Bill that was introduced last year by the Australian Labor Party but which, as a result of what happened on 11 November, never came before the Parliament for finalisation, roads were included in the definitions. In the definition of Aboriginal land, control of the roads concerned was given to the Aboriginal people. I query whether in considering this aspect Aboriginal people should be given control over these roads.

I suppose that in many areas people do not like to see roads put through their land. As it is their land, they wish to have some say in the use to which it is put. No protection is provided against an influx of people- tourists etcetera- on those roads. I am sure that everyone will admit that such an influx can have a bad effect in certain areas. Consider the property of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in Victoria. Would it be all right if a road were constructed through the Prime Minister’s property and he were given no right whatsoever to restrict the access of people to that road? A similar question would arise in relation to roads being constructed through land held by graziers and others. Why are Aboriginals not to be given control over the roads which run through their lands? Why are roads to be taken out of the control which Aboriginals will exercise over the land through which those roads will run? This is a matter to which I feel consideration should be given. Does this mean that this land will be open to every Tom, Dick and Harry who wishes to gain access to it? I suggest to the Minister that this is a matter to which some consideration should be given. I support the amendments which have been moved by the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson). I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; progress reported.

page 3059

RELIEF OPERATIONS IN DARWIN

Paper and Ministerial Statement

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for De fence-by leave- I table a paper prepared by Major-General Stretton concerning relief operations in Darwin and dated 14 April 1975. Mr Deputy Speaker, may I begin by thanking my honourable friend from Grey (Mr Wallis · Moreton · LP

for his courtesy and the Parliament for its corporate courtesy is allowing me to interrupt this quite important debate on Aboriginal matters. I have interrupted the debate, Sir, perforce, because the report that I have just tabled has reached certain sections of the media and I would adjudge it proper that Parliament should have the report before it so that Parliament in its own way may direct its attention to the report and to its contents.

The report which I have just tabled was prepared by Major-General Stretton during the administration of the last Whitlam Government. Because of that fact, I have sought the approval of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) to table the report. That approval has been given by my friend, the Leader of the Opposition. I spoke to the honourable gentleman last week. I told him that, because the report was an administrative one and not a public one, I deemed it proper that I should have his approval before I used the report publicly. I told him that my assessment of the report was that it was completely innocuous but nevertheless I would send a copy to him. Subsequently, I wrote to him officially and my honourable friend replied giving me his approval to use the report. It may be an old fashioned point of punctilio; nevertheless, I do not believe in using administrative documents belonging to another government unless I have the approval of the lineal heir or successor of that government.

The report is entitled Lessons and Recommendations from the Darwin Disaster. The tabling of this second report means that the only written departmental reports prepared by MajorGeneral Stretton before the publication of his book have now been tabled. As honourable members are aware, Major-General Stretton, the Director-General of the Natural Disasters Organisation within the Department of Defence, has recently published a book on the first 7 days of relief operations in Darwin following cyclone Tracy in 1974. Mr Deputy Speaker, matters raised in the book have been the source of questions and personal explanations in the Parliament. As a result, I undertook to report more fully on this matter. It may be helpful, if I first put some matters in perspective. The book was written by a still serving senior Crown employee. It is relevant to record that Major-General Stretton did not attempt to follow the normal procedures laid down for a Government employee wishing to publish a book or otherwise to make public comment and use official information on matters concerning his duties as a Crown employee. Neither his departmental superiors nor I were aware of his intention, nor asked to approve, nor given an opportunity to study the accuracy and propriety of his text.

It should be said, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the book is a substantially subjective account, essentially of Major-General Stretton ‘s own involvement in the aftermath of cyclone Tracy. In no way could it be said that it is a complete and authoritative record of the disaster, nor of the total relief operations which indeed began in Darwin as soon as the storm subsided. I remind honourable members that on 6 March 1975 the then Minister for Defence, the honourable Lance Barnard, tabled in this Parliament a documented report prepared, as was to be expected of him, by Major-General Stretton. This factual report described the way in which the people of Darwin, the Natural Disasters Organisation, the defence forces, various Commonwealth and State authorities, and indeed the nation as a whole reacted to provide immediate and generous assistance following the worst natural disaster in our history.

It will be apparent from a cursory examination of the paper by Major-General Stretton- that is to say, the paper I have tabled- that it is of a formal and factual kind, discussing problems which occurred during cyclone Tracy, some analysis of the reasons for these problems, and his ideas and suggestions as to action to be consideredwhether by the Commonwealth Government, State governments or local Territory legislatures and authorities- to reduce further risks and problems. I say to my honourable friends that his suggestions ranged from the establishment of lesiglation in this field- if I may indulge myself the luxury of a personal observation, I would have considerable doubt as to whether this Parliament could legislate in the manner suggested by the General- to increasing the level of first aid training in schools. I would hardly have thought that that would have been the preoccupation of this Parliament. I mention this to indicate the range of suggestions made by Major-General Stretton- not to denigrate them, but to indicate the generality of them and, if I may say with respect, the innocuity of them.

The report I have tabled, in its general form and content, is quite different from the book which has now been published by MajorGeneral Stretton. Neither in the formal report on the Darwin disaster dated 10 February 197S and tabled in this Parliament- I trust that it would not be an impertinence on my part if I were to observe that Parliament is entitled to the truthnor in this further submission dated 14 April 1975 which I have tabled this evening are there any suggestions of inadequate or improper conduct, concerning Ministers and other persons involved in the relief operations after cyclone Tracy, of the kind made in the book.

I am not seeking to defend Ministers on my side of politics; I am speaking about Ministers who served in the last Government. Ministers are not, as some people suspect, malleable and given to being swept here and there; neither, may I venture the view, are Ministers disposed to resorting to public concealment. I go further to make this observation: Quite apart from the fact that in neither of these 2 reports are any critical comments made of Ministers- that includes my friend the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden)- critical things are said in the book of unfortunate officials and servicemen in Darwin who, in many cases, with their wives and children, felt the full fury of cyclone Tracy. MajorGeneral Stretton described in the book the effect on him of what he saw when he arrived there after the cyclone had passed. I have already given the House one example of the inaccuracy by Major-General Stretton in his description in the book of the non-availability of the then Minister for Defence, that is to say Mr Barnard, to exercise his authority. The House may recall that in the book the author said that the then Minister for Defence, Mr Barnard, was incommunicado. All my inquiries would indicate that that was simply not true. May I observe that there are other graceless references to Ministers which appear in the book for the first time.

I should comment here on another matter raised by Major-General Stretton in his book, because it bears on the defence preparedness of this country. Major-General Stretton referred to the temporary failure of defence communications and on page 24 of his book observed:

It was unbelievable that the Defence Forces, with all the millions of dollars spent on signals equipment, could not communicate with their units in Darwin. What if there were an enemy attack? The rest of Australia may not know that Darwin was in enemy hands.

I am advised by the Chiefs of Staff- they are the professionals in the field- that the deployment of mobile transmitters and receivers would be an obvious military precaution whenever an attack appeared likely and such action would provide essential alternative and back-up circuits. Such mobile equipment would be located so that damage to the permanent communications stations would not affect effective communications. I observe in passing that as a senior military officer Major-General Stretton, I expect, would understand that such an obvious military precaution would have been taken.

As will be clear from the submission dated 14 April which I have just tabled, action on MajorGeneral Stretton ‘s recommendations involved, firstly, the Natural Disasters Organisation itself and, beyond that, a large number of other Commonwealth and State departments and instrumentalities, and, as well, organisations outside the Government altogether. It is here that I observe that the Natural Disasters Organisation has a general co-ordinating function. As to the content of his report to the Minister in the preceding Administration which I have just tabled, the merit of the various suggestions has been examined by the relevant authorities. I instance to the House that the suggestions range from legislation to first aid training in schools. I assure the House that all these matters have been examined. This examination was initiated by the previous Government and it has been continued by the present Government. It is a matter of some substance to observe that some of the matters referred to by Major-General Stretton plainly belong to State authorities. The writ of this Parliament does not run in some of the fields to which he referred.

My attention has been drawn to a claim by Major-General Stretton that, in addition to the report which I have now tabled, he made one further report to the then Chief of the General Staff concerning the performance of 7 Military District in Darwin. Upon inquiry I have been informed that, in the course of a short de-brief soon after he returned from Darwin, MajorGeneral Stretton did mention this matter to General Sir Francis Hassett, now the Chief of Defence Force Staff. General Hassett did not regard Major-General Stretton ‘s oral- I repeat oral’- observations as being matters which required further action, particularly where they affected individuals. I emphasise ‘particularly where they affected individuals’. For myself, nor do I. The book makes several ungenerous references to the Army but ignores some circumstances that were relevant to the. situation during and after the cyclone.

In conclusion, I am concerned to ensure that the Natural Disasters Organisation- which can be directed adequately only if it enjoys the confidence of, and an atmosphere of co-operation with, State and Territory administrationsshould get down to the work of disaster relief planning which is waiting to be done without the distractions that have lately been imposed upon that Organisation. I am therefore confirming as an instruction to Major-General Stretton that, as a senior serving officer with tasks demanding his effective performance in this civilian establishment, he- like any other military or civilian officer- is not to make public comments on matters of policy or administration pertaining to his official duties without prior approval from designated authority. The latitude which MajorGeneral Stretton has lately improperly claimed for himself does not exist.

Mr Hayden:

– I feel embarrassed commending the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) again.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Order! Why is the honourable member on his feet?

Mr Hayden:

– I am seeking leave to follow the Minister for Defence.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– You must apply for leave. Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

-I was saying that I feel embarrassed commending the Minister for

Defence once again, but I commend him for a restrained and balanced statement on this matter. I full well remember the discussion in the Cabinet, of which I was a member, following the cyclone disaster in Darwin. My impression of those days- I rely on my recollection- is that the most valuable contribution immediately after and thereafter in the relief of Darwin and the organisation of that relief and subsequently the organisation of services and responses necessary to restore the city was largely by the Police Commissioner of the city at that time. I also remember comments about Major-General Stretton. In deference to the gentleman, and as distinct from his behaviour in recent times, I prefer not to make those public.

page 3061

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

Qantas Airways Ltd (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1 976.

Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1976.

page 3061

ACTS INTERPRETATION AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.

page 3061

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) BILL 1976

[No. 2]

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

Mr WALLIS:
Grey

– I wish to add a few remarks to the consideration of this Bill. Matters have been raised here tonight which throw doubts on the impartiality of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly to look at the matters that are left in the hands of that legislative body. It is rather odd that people, some of whom have had quite a long experience with Aborigines in the Northern Territory, have expressed their concern that some of the matters in the Bill have been left to the legislative powers of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory. I refer to the Presbyterian Church, the Quakers and the United Church in Northern Australia. They have made submissions to various members. They are concerned that some of these powers are to be left in the hands of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. I am sure that they would be free of political bias, but they can see a possibility of the Aborigines not getting the fair go to which they are entitled if the Legislative Assembly has these powers. I suggest that these matters should be given further consideration. I suggest that these powers of the

Legislative Assembly should remain in the hands of the Australian Government.

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

-The Government’s attitude towards the amendments is that we do not accept them. I refer briefly to a number of pertinent points. The question of roads was raised by the honourable member for Grey (Mr Wallis). I direct his attention to my reply in the second reading debate on the original Bill, when I explained fully the protection given by the legislation to the position of roads through Aboriginal land. I suggest that if the honourable gentleman reads that he will be satisfied as to the requirements of the Bill. Reference was made by the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) and the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) about the definition of mining interest, particularly the exclusion of renewals of mining interests. I simply point out that the amendments originally proposed by the Government, which are now incorporated in this Bill, are more restrictive of the rights of mining companies holding mining interests which contain a right of renewal than the original provision in this respect in the Bill which I introduced on 4 June. The point is that the only rights of renewal which are protected are statutory rights in existence prior to the land becoming Aboriginal land.

With respect to the amendment moved by the Opposition to include a reference to land in towns, the Opposition has drawn on Mr Justice Woodward’s report. Without elaboration I refer the Committee to paragraphs 274 and 328, item 9, of his report, and remind the Committee that the legislation deals exclusively with traditional land rights. In that respect, to maintain consistency, the Government decided that any request by Aboriginal groups to land in towns should be dealt with outside the Bill and through the ordinary administration of land use in the Northern Territory. His Honour Mr Justice Woodward, when speaking of town claims, clearly indicated that the tenure of any land in towns by Aborigines should be the same kind of tenure as that for all other persons and that any requests for such land should go through the normal town planning procedures of the Northern Territory. That will be done. As I indicated in my initial second reading speech and subsequent statements, and with particular reference here to Alice Springs, the Government is committed to satisfying the requirements of Aborigines for land in towns such as camping areas and other areas of land for residential use. That commitment will be maintained. In fact it is being worked out right at the moment in Alice Springs.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 4 to 9- by leave-taken together.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-May I raise a very brief matter in connection with clause5? Clause 5 concerns the functions of land trusts. In clause 5 (1) (b) there is an alteration from what appeared in the previous Bill which was introduced by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) on 4 June. One of the functions of a Land Trust set out in paragraph (b) is: to exercise its powers as owner of land … for the benefit of Aboriginal groups …

I would like to know why the word ‘communities’ has been deleted from this paragraph. Is group’ in fact to imply ‘community’? Is a group a community? Is a community a group? I looked at a dictionary a short time ago to find the definition of ‘community’. I admit that the dictionary was not the most reputable dictionary available, but it is one that is in common use. The dictionary that I consulted defines ‘community’ as joint ownership; identity of character’, which seems to be an appropriate term to use in respect of Aboriginal people. It also defines the word as meaning ‘fellowship’. I do not want to frighten the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) but the word is also defined as meaning ‘organised political, municipal or social body- a body of people living in the same locality’. There has been this change. Was it deliberate? Was there some real purpose in substituting the word ‘groups’ for ‘communities’?

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– The explanation is straightforward. The deletion of the reference to communities is designed to bring the clause into line with other provisions to the effect that the land is held for the benefit of groups of Aborigines entitled by tradition to its use and occupation.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 10.

  1. For the purposes of this section, a lease of land granted under a law of the Northern Territory relating to mining for minerals shall be deemed to be an estate or interest in that land if the lease was granted before the date of commencement of this section or in pursuance of an agreement entered into by the Commonwealth before that date.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The main issue involved in this clause is similar to the ones that were debated just a short time ago. The clause involves the issue of exempting existing mining leases or interests from delivery to land trusts. Sub-clause 10 (3) reads:

For the purposes of this section, a lease of land granted under a law of the Northern Territory relating to mining for minerals shall be deemed to be an estate or interest in that land if the lease was granted before the date of commencement of this section or in pursuance of an agreement entered into by the Commonwealth before that date.

The Opposition is seeking to omit the words ‘before the date of commencement’. The effect of this sub-clause is to exempt the mining interests that are already existing from the provisions of the Bill which apply to Aboriginal land.

Our views have been stated. We believe that it is not proper and it is not consistent with the recommendations of Mr Justice Woodward to be renewing mining leases; that mining leases should get automatic renewal. We believe that all the companies holding leases should reapply and that they should not take for granted the question of consent. It is interesting to note that His Honour Mr Justice Woodward said in his report, which was brought down in April 1974, that 29 exploration licences had been granted to 17 applicants. We know that the issuing of exploration licences was frozen in December 1972.

I would like to summarise what His Honour had to say. For reasons that I have mentioned I will not quote large extracts from the report as this would be time consuming. His Honour said that the capital involved was risk capital. He pointed out that companies had been on notice for several years that Aboriginal wishes could no longer be ignored. I think that is an understatement of the fact. They have been on notice for a long time- since the 1967 referendum and certainly since the election of the Labor Government in 1972 when the then Prime Minister clearly indicated the intention of the then Government to give effect to these recommendations. So in that context these people have certainly been involved with risk capital and with risks. The fact that they have been there for so long ought not to represent a great deal of consolation or security of tenure for them, in view of the clear indications that there were going to be new concepts applying to these situations.

His Honour said also that the freeze should continue for some time. He said that he did not stand for pre-exemption- and who does? The Opposition does not, anyway. It does not stand for pre-exemption of these existing mining interests- a fait accompli. Now that there are new owners, or the traditional owners have been legalised in terms of the white man’s way of doing things, things obviously have to change. Mining interests cannot regard renewal as a fait accompli. In fact, the Council for Aboriginal Affairs, as His Honour Mr Justice Woodward pointed out, actually made the recommendation that there should be a freeze over mining renewals and mining development for 20 years. This was not just for one year or 2 years. We have had this freeze now for a certain time. As I understand the position it will run to the end of this year. The people who made that recommendationthe members of the Council for Aboriginal Affairs- cannot be regarded as slouchers in this situation. When it is all said and done the Council had among its members Professor Stanner who is one of the country’s leading anthropologists- probably the leading anthropologist- in respect of these matters. Certainly he is highly and mutually well regarded from the standpoint of the 2 major sides of politics in this Parliament. Mr Dexter, the permanent head of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs was also a member of the Council; so too was no less a person than Dr Coombs. These men made the point that the freeze should go on for 20 years. But this Government is not applying that principle. It is seeing that those who have had these vested interests, advantages and privileges for so long are given the chance of compounding their privileges. This, as I see it, is completely unprincipled.

When we consider the conditions enjoyed by some of these people, the Australian community would be shocked to know the extent to which this great bonanza has been handed out on a platter. Let me take, for example, the lease that Nabalco has, which covers 1800 hectares. His Honour pointed out that the rental was $8,630. This lease was given in 1969, and it runs for 42 years with an option for another 42 years. The proposition that the Minister is putting before us is that there should be automatic rights of renewal even in respect of the new legalised Aboriginal ownership. This is contrary to what he put before; it is contrary to what the Bill introduced by the Labor Party provided; it is contrary to what was said by Mr Justice Woodward; it is contrary to the recommendations of the Council for Aboriginal Affairs; and it is contrary to what has been said by anybody with a reputation in respect of these matters. This bonanza is to go on and on. The attitude seems to be that if one has an advantage one should keep it and compound it. We can look at Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd at Groote Eylandt where the Gemco operation is producing manganese. His Honour said that the rental was $478-not $478,000-for 33 square kilometres from 1 964 for 42 years with options. The wharf area has a great allocation of space for 99 years and the town area has another allocation as well. Lots of lesser people like Kailis in the Northern Territory were paying $5.

That is an incongruous amount in terms of the capital which he has invested and the benefits which he accrued. Others were paying a rental of $118.

When we go through the list which His Honour provided in his second report we see companies like Western Nuclear (Aust.) Pty Ltd in the Bulman area which has a lease granted from 1953. The Utah Development Company at Daly River had a mineral lease of 2590 square kilometres granted in 1971. Then, in the petroleum area there was Magellan Petroleum Aust. Ltd at Yuendumu, Southern Pacific Petroleum NL at Lake Mackay, Magellan Petroleum (NT) Pty Ltd at Haasts Bluff, United Canso Oil and Gas N.T. Pty Ltd at the same place and Australian Aquitane Petroleum Pty Ltd at Daly River and Wagait, and so the list goes on. His Honour stated:

Aborigines should have the right to prevent exploration for them -

That is minerals- on their traditional lands.

I do not want to labour the point much more. We were on it for a while when we spoke about the previous provisions which applied to this matter. But is seems to me that, if this legislation is to go through in the form proposed by the Minister, Australia will be breaking new ground. Here we have real owners who will not have any say and whose traditional lands which might be granted to them will be subject to mining ordinances and all sorts of complicated procedures which could deleteriously affect their way of life. They will not be given any opportunity to have any say about the matter. I put it to the Minister that he should accept the amendment which simply provides that there should now be a renegotiation. There is obviously a premium on the fact that owners can have an effective say in a situation which will emerge after the commencement of this legislation. I move:

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-In speaking to the amendment, I think a little bit of history will not go amiss. This is where we came in! I think of Nabalco Pty Ltd which, as I understand it, was one of the bodies with pre-existing arrangements written into its lease back in the 1960s. I recall what that situation was like and how the arrangements were made. There was supposed to be consultation. There was great unrest amongst the people of Yirrkala. A select committee of this Parliament was appointed. We went to the area and examined the matter. We heard what the people had to say. It was quite obvious that the

Aboriginal people had not been consulted in the sense in which we talk of consultation. Neither were the people defended in the way in which people defend their interests in our society. Neither did they have the same sort of advocacy. One of the sad things about the Aboriginal situation is that when they have to have advocates for their own cause, in the face of the needs of the rest of the community, the advocates are normally the people who also act for the sovereign power.

When this happened the mining people had pegged the place out. They had put lines across it. The Aboriginal people raised this matter with us down here in the south. A number of us visited the area. In the first instance there was my friend the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) and myself. The people presented a petition to this Parliament. It was a celebrated petition in the form of a bark painting. Subsequently, the select committee made its recommendations. Not much notice was taken of those recommendations. So the lease was written for Nabalco, one of the great mining enterprises of the world. That was bad enough, but in the writing of the lease there was an extension so that when it is necessary for the company to have extra facilities available it will have the rights to those facilities. As far as I can see, it is almost a continuing right ad infinitum and total in the geographical sense. For example, it covers ports, buildings and the expansion of the mining area. That is not within the spirit of this legislation. That is not what it is supposed to be about. That overwhelms any chance of the Aboriginal people owning the area.

I regarded the whole operation by Nabalco and the Australian Government, and the impact which that had upon the people there, as a sad event in Australian social history. We have not done all that much towards repairing the situation. So I appeal to the Government and to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs as strongly as I can not to tolerate a continuation of this mining mystique in this situation. This of course raises another interesting piece of social philosophy, namely, the question of pre-existing contracts. In this case the contracts are in the mining lease. I do not think that if we were to assert the paramountcy of Aboriginal rights to the land in this situation Nabalco would leave this afternoon or tomorrow or before its 42 years were up. My friend the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) has pointed out the return which the mining companies receive in this instance. They are getting their pound of flesh over and over again. This legislation is not about Aboriginal land rights. It is about miners’ rights. That was all right back at Eureka, but this is a different situation. I believe that we are abdicating our responsibilities.

I speak as one who took an active part in the very beginnings of this matter. I mention this for the benefit of those honourable members who are sitting in the House and who are interested in the matter. It happened at that time that I came across advertisements in a Northern Territory newspaper advising that the company was going to apply for leases on the Gove Peninsula. It was stated on the bottom of the advertisement that objections could be lodged in the Warden’s Court. I was going to Darwin so I sat down and lodged objections. I suppose that was one of the first instances in which Aboriginal land rights were claimed in a court. My action caused a great deal of difficulty for the mining companies and it raised a great deal of hostility on the part of the Government at that time. Some honourable members tried to have me put off the select committee because they said I had a personal interest in the matter. But they were not able to do that because on that occasion they did not have the numbers. So we soldiered on. Here we are still arguing the same case. I think the time has come when we should say that Aboriginal rights to land are superior to the rights of miners to the use of that land. If the land is to be used for mining it should be used for and on behalf of the Aboriginal people by some kind of authority, company or corporation which works on behalf of the Aboriginals, not for anyone else.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I bring to the attention of the Committee an inaccuracy in the remarks of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant). He said that the Aborigines at Yirrkala were not consulted. I defend the name of one of the previous Administrators, Roger Dean. He sat down on 28 occasions to discuss this matter with those people. Whether he convinced them or not I do not know but I am saying this to clear his name in the matter. I repeat that the honourable member has said that he did not know whether the Yirrkala people were consulted. Mr Dean went there 28 times to discuss the matter.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-The meaning I wished to give to what I was saying was that the consultations were totally inadequate as consultations between people who were able to understand one another’s meaning in an absolute sense.

Mr Baillieu:

– Why did you not say that?

Mr BRYANT:

– I did not think that I needed to put it in those precise simple terms for the honourable member but now I have done so.

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– The Government does not accept the proposed amendment. I refer to two or three matters in order to clarify the position. The amendment which the Government has made to the Bill which I introduced on 4 June will preserve the special purpose leave granted to Nabalco at Gove under the special purpose lease ordinance and the Mining Gove Peninsula Nabalco Agreement Ordinance by ensuring that these are treated as land leases to be held in escrow and not mining interests. In other words, in the same way as the Bill preserves existing interests in land, in these respects the Bill preserves the special rnining interests of the companies at Nabalco.

I point out also to honourable members opposite that the Government has protected the Aboriginals in situations such as that at Gove and Groote Eylandt in that, where extensions are required to the interests in land of the companies concerned pursuant to contractual obligations of the Commonwealth entered into with the companies, those companies must negotiate proper terms and conditions for any new lease. Where, however, the companies require new mineral leases, the granting of those new mineral leases will be subject to the same requirements of consent and negotiation of fair terms as all other mineral interests.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11 (Recommendations for grants of Crown land, other than that described in Schedule 1).

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I would like to raise with the Minister a matter that has been referred to before. It concerns the exclusion of roads from grants of land to Aboriginal land trusts. The effect of clause 1 1 is along these lines. When the Minister is satisfied in terms of clause 50 that land should be granted to a Land Trust for the benefit of Aboriginals entitled to that land by Aboriginal tradition, land on which there is a road over which the public has a right of way is not included. Clause 11(3) states:

A reference in sub-section ( I ) to land shall be read as not including a reference to any land on which there is a road over which the public has a right of way.

As the honourable member for Grey (Mr Wallis) pointed out, it seems that Aboriginal people are being very greatly disadvantaged. Without labouring the point, it is contrary to the recommendations made under the tourism heading and under several other headings by His Honour Mr Justice Woodward. It seems to me that it is important to mention that the Opposition feels gravely concerned about this and is obsessed with the conviction that the Aboriginal people will be languishing in great disadvantage as a result of the Government’s intention to exclude roads from Aboriginal lands. As I understand the position, we are speaking not only about roads over which the public has a right of way but also about roads which might be created in the future.

If this is the case, this could play havoc with Aboriginal traditional lands. If this situation was taken to the absurd stage, one could apply an L. J. Hooker type sub-division and mutilate and ruin the characteristics of the land as traditionally enjoyed by Aboriginal people. I do not really think that that is likely to happen but there are all kinds of intermediate levels of development about which one could speculate. In any event, if we look at the situation in Arnhem Land, at Oenpelli and at Maningrida, one already knows that if roads are disregarded as traditional land over which the Northern Territory Administration is to exercise its prerogative and rightswhich I have mentioned is an inferior concept to the concept of Aboriginal people exercising their right- an inundation of tourists can wreak havoc with Aboriginal life. The Aboriginal people will become spectacles posing for photographs. Any kind of white intrusion into a traditional area just brings about diminution of the traditional way of life. Obviously, this is a very important matter. I wonder what great conviction caused the Minister to disregard the recommendations of Mr Jusdee Woodward and all the other people with great knowledge and experience in these matters. Surely he knows, as one who has contemporaneously travelled over land in Aboriginal occupied areas would know, how devastating this can be. Clearly, the roads should be part of that traditional land administered under the provisions of this legislation. I wonder whether the Minister can throw any light on his departure from this principle.

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– I refer the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) as I referred the honourable member for Grey (Mr Wallis) to the explanation that I gave in reply to the second reading debate on the Bill with regard to roads. It is clear that honourable members opposite have not read or understood the provisions of the Bill relating to roads. I refer them particularly to clauses 65, 66 and 68 of the Bill. I shall check those clause numbers in view of the incorporation of amendments in the Bill. They are the clauses to which I referred in my reply to the second reading debate.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12.

  1. A deed of grant under this section shall be expressed to be subject to the reservation that the right to all minerals existing in their natural condition, or in a deposit of waste material obtained from any underground or surface working, on or below the surface of the land remains with the Crown.
Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-I draw the attention of the Committee to subclause 2 of this clause. Sub-clause 9 makes it obligatory to reserve all minerals to the Crown in Aboriginal lands. I think this is reasonable in regard to the Aboriginal lands that will be added from time to time. With regard to the reserves, I hope that it would not be made obligatory to make these reservations in favour of the Crown. I do not say that they should never be made on reserves because it may be that, in cases where mineral rights have already been given, for example at Magellan and at Nabarlek, the reservations to the Crown should, of course, remain. I am speaking only of the lands set out in the schedule and not of other lands. It seems to me that it would be reasonable to give to the Aboriginals the normal mineral rights, with the exceptions of those areas in which some kind of mineral tenure is conceded already.

I know it is said that this should not be done. It is said that this is not done for other people and should not be done for Aboriginals. This is not quite true. Old titles in most of the Australian States did carry mineral rights. Old titles in the Northern Territory, when it was under South Australian administration and some freehold was given, carried mineral rights. I am not suggesting for one moment that there should be a special arrangement in favour of Aboriginals. Rather I am suggesting that, in respect of the reserves and subject to the exceptions I have made, on these reserves the Aboriginals are holding the old title and as such should be treated on the same basis as those who held old titled. I move:

In sub-clause (2), after ‘section’ insert ‘, made following a recommendation under section 11,’.

Textually, it is a small and neat amendment. It does not affect the main structure of the Bill, but I think it does something quite substantial. I suggest that, in order to put the Aboriginals on the same basis as those who have held old titles in these areas, on the reserves where no mineral right has been given already, it should not be obligatory to make the grant of land subject to a reservation of minerals to the Crown. I have not gone further than that. I have suggested only that this should be permissive rather man mandatory. I commend the amendment to the Minister and to the Committee.

Mr VINER:
Mmister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– The Government cannot accept the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth), for a number of reasons. I will put to the Committee the 2 matters of substance. Firstly, the suggestion by the honourable member, admirable as it is, was not accepted either by His Honour Mr Justice Woodward in his report or by the previous Administration. His Honour wrestled with the question as to the nature of the rights which Aboriginals should have to minerals that might be found within Aboriginal land. It was put to him by one of the land councils that Aboriginals should have the absolute ownership of minerals found on Aboriginal land. His Honour rejected that and in its place granted to Aboriginals the veto power, as it is called- that is, the right to withhold consent to the grant of a mining interest over Aboriginal land, qualified however by the power in the Government to override that in the national interest, and qualified again by the power of Parliament to disallow the Government’s action in invoking the national interest.

The other matter that concerns the Government is that if the honourable member’s amendment were followed through it would restrict Crown ownership of minerals in Aboriginal land to lands later granted on the recommendations of the Aboriginal Land Commission and ensure that in the case of lands included in the Schedule- that is mainly the existing reservesfreehold title would not be subject to reservation of minerals to the Crown. This would have the effect of separating those Aboriginals who obtained title to the existing reserves and other areas set out in the Schedule from those who later and by virtue of the machinery under the Bill obtain a title to their own traditional land. It seems to me that a point of distinction cannot be validly drawn between Aboriginal land which is traditional Aboriginal land and which presently is constituted by existing reserves, and other land, whether it be vacant Crown Land or alienated land, which later is found by the land commissioner to be traditional land and in respect of which on his recommendation a grant of title under the Bill is given to the Aboriginals concerned.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13.

  1. Sub-section (1) does not prevent the grant by the Crown of an estate or interest in land referred to in that subsection in any of the following circumstances:

    1. where-
    1. an arbitrator appointed by the Minister is satisfied, after hearing both the views of the applicant and the views of the Land Council on the matter, that the hardship that would be occasioned to the applicant by a refusal of his application would be greater than the hardship that would be occasioned to the Aboriginal communities or groups interested in the land by an approval of the application;
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I move:

In sub-clause (2) (b) (iii) after ‘matter’, insert ‘and after giving paramount consideration to the interests of the traditional Aboriginal owners ‘.

This matter concerns grants of interest in land the subject of a deed in escrow. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that, where land is held in escrow by a land council, if a person seeks to renew his estate or interest in that land for a further period or to convert his interest an arbitrator appointed by the Minister to report on hardship that would be occasioned must give paramount consideration to the interests of the traditional Aboriginal owners. It is very difficult to see, given the tendering of anthropological evidence, that anything could really outweigh the hardship caused to Aboriginals by deprivation of their traditional land. The wording of the proposed amendment follows that which has been judicially interpreted by Australian courts, and it is hoped that this interpretation will be adopted by any person appointed arbitrator.

However, without this amendment it seems clear that the criteria considered may be against the interests of Aboriginals. As honourable members will be aware, contemporary criteria particularly in the Northern Territory are often related to economic wellbeing. However, for Aboriginals no such claim as to the possibility of capital loss can be made. All they may offer to the arbitrator is their religious and traditional links with their land. It is hoped that the amendment will balance this redress and afford Aboriginals the special consideration that their claim warrants. I might add that this formula is taken from the former Matrimonial Causes Act 1959 when it was used in relation to the children of a marriage. It has been judicially interpreted.

I suggest to the Minister that in such a situation, when we are talking about relative hardship, if on the one hand there is a mining interest or a person who is concerned with material interests and on the other hand there is an Aboriginal person who does not appear by contemporary standards and considerations to have much to lose, if those contemporary considerations are applied the Aboriginal person will be regarded as being the one who has least to lose. But, taking into account the criterion which has been proposed and the one which already has judicial acceptance in the matrimonial causes area- that paramount consideration has to be given to the interests of the traditional Aboriginal owner- he has a chance of getting a place m the sun. He would be unable to show that if his application were lost he would lose millions of dollars. He would be unable to show that he would be unable to continue living in a mansion or driving around in a Mercedes. His interests are relative interests. We must have proper regard for those relative interests- the interests of an Aboriginal person who is concerned with very basic things in life as compared with the interests of a person of considerable means, or the entrepreneurial kind of person who is establishing a mine- and clearly we must put the matter on an entirely different basis. It has to be weighted in favour of the Aboriginal person.

Paramount consideration should be given to the person who is the subject of this legislation which is supposed to provide a benefit for the Aborigine. I put it to the Minister that, unless a consideration of this kind is to be accepted and is to apply, the application of this clause and the process of arbitrating will be extremely difficult. The Arbitrator will be left in a most unsatisfactory state of legal limbo. He will be living in the legalism of the twentieth century on the one hand whilst the interests of people taken into account are of bygone times. In fairness to the Arbitrator I put it to the Minister that he ought to adopt a provision which has found legal utilisation and legal effectiveness given in respect of children who would otherwise be disadvantaged in the matrimonial legislation. Aboriginal people unquestionably will be disadvantaged if they are put on the same interpretative basis in respect of this matter.

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

-I should first like to explain the purposes of clause 13 and then refer to the particular provisions mentioned by the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson). This clause prevents the Crown from granting interest in Aboriginal land the subject of a title deed held in escrow except where the Crown is obliged, under law, to grant such interest or the relevant land council consent or in the circumstances outlined in sub-clause 2(b). With respect to subclause 2 (b)(B). might I point out to the honourable gentleman that the provisions cast a burden upon the applicant to make out his case before the Arbitrator and thereby override the interests of the Aboriginals. In that sense, the applicant having such a burden, the interests of the Aboriginals are, by the force of the legislation, superior. That has the same effect as that which the honourable member is seeking, namely, to recognise the paramountcy of the Aboriginal interests. Therefore, it is not necessary for the Government to accede to the proposed amendment because, as I have indicated, the legislation already recognises the superiority of Aboriginal interests. I also mention that it does not refer to mining interests, but estates or interest in land.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14 (Occupation, etc., by the Crown, etc., on Aboriginal land, vested in land trust).

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Rather than proceed to move the amendment which stands m my name, it would be useful if I could obtain from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) an indication of the time that the Committee will have to debate this matter. The Opposition has 28 amendments to move at the Committee stage and I think we are now up to the ninth amendment. I should like to know whether it is a question of picking out priorities. Will we do justice to this Bill or will the debate be curtailed?

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · NCP/NP

– I do want to try to accelerate the consideration of the Bill although I recognise its significance. Time is getting late and I certainly wish to conclude consideration of this legislation tonight. I am afraid that the clauses will have to be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I should like to comment on what the Minister for Primary Inustry (Mr Sinclair) has said. The Aboriginal people have waited 30 000 to 40 000 years for this legislation. It has been mooted for a long time by the present Government. I put it to the Minister in charge of the House that nothing deleterious will happen to the Aboriginal people if the debate is adjourned tonight and resumed tomorrow, Friday or even next week. Perhaps we could sit longer to debate this Bill. This question has been left unattended for a long time, for 175 years. I do not think we can do justice to the legislation in the time that the Minister has proposed.

I ask him whether he will seriously consider extending the time for this debate because there are very important matters yet to be dealt with and it would be a tragedy if the debate concluded with Aboriginal people outside feeling unrepresented. I know, for example that people of one Aboriginal reserve area, the Tanamai people, will be deprived of effective coverage. Their case has not even been mentioned at this stage. It is the last amendment of the 28 amendments that the Opposition will be moving.

Mr Sinclair:

– I suggest you proceed with the amendments as quickly as possible.

Clause agreed to.

Mr Bryant:

– The Opposition wishes to move an amendment.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins)Order!

Mr Bryant:

– I should like to speak to clause 14 before the question is put.

The DEPUTY CHATRMAN-Order! I am sorry, the honourable member for Wills must resume his seat. The question has already been put.

Clause 15. (Payments to Land Council in respect of occupation of land by the Crown, etc.)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is almost impossible to work in this way. We cannot agree to it. The Minister is saying that our next amendment is to clause 20. The fact is that there are other matters we should like to raise on other clauses. An amendment does not have to be made to every clause in order to have an intelligent exchange, as the Minister well knows.

Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:

– Clause 15 is before the Committee and I ask the honourable member to speak to that clause.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-It is not a question of that, Mr Chairman. If we take up time on clause 15 which we would like to do, in terms of what the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) has said, we will not have the opportunity to speak to many other amendments that we wish to move. It is not good enough. I want to register a protest on behalf of the Opposition and on behalf of the Aboriginal people. We have had committees working on this matter for years and we have worked over the weekend on it. We are not even entitled to talk on very important matters at the present time. I suppose that I will have to skip over a number of matters I wanted to raise and move on to clause 20.I do it under protest. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) ought to be protesting also. He is being pushed around in respect of his own administration.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! The honourable member is straying from clause 15.I have allowed some latitude. I think he has made his point and I suggest that he return to the clause.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Thank you, Mr Chairman. I will be glad if I have the support of the Minister. I should like to move the amendment that -

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- If the honourable member will resume his seat it will enable me to put clause 15.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 16 to 20- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- The proposed amendment to be moved by the honourable member for Hughes inserts a new clause after clause 20. Clause 20 has now been dealt with and the honourable member can now move his amendment.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The Opposition seeks to omit sub-clauses (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of clause 20.I know that it has been dealt with.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! I am in some difficulty. The amendment No. 10, as circulated, refers to the insertion of a new clause after clause 20.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-This is to allow a grant of land to Aboriginal councils.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Is the honourable member moving that amendment?

Proposed new clause 20A.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-I move:

After clause 20, page 14, insert the following new clause: 20A.(l)Where-

no person (other than the Crown) has an estate or interest in an area of Crown land;

the Minister is satisfied that the land should be granted to an Aboriginal Council in the area of which the land is situated to be held and applied by the Council for a particular purpose or purposes, being a purpose or purposes within the scope of the functions of the Council; and

the Aboriginal Council agrees to hold and apply the land for that purpose or those purposes, the Minister may recommend to the Governor-General that a grant of an estate in fee simple, or some lesser estate, in the land be made to the Aboriginal Council.

Where a grant of land is made in accordance with a recommendation under sub-section (1), the Minister shall, by notice published in the Gazette, set out the purpose or purposes for which the land is to be held and applied and may, from time to time, with the consent of the Aboriginal Council, by notice published in the Gazette, vary or add to that purpose or those purposes.

Where a grant of land is made to an Aboriginal Council in accordance with a recommendation under sub-section ( 1 ), section 1 9 applies in relation to the Council in respect of that land as if the Council were a Land Trust

Where the Minister is satisfied that land granted to an Aboriginal Council in accordance with recommendation under sub-section ( 1 ) is not being applied in accordance with the statement of purpose or purposes published with respect to that land under sub-section (2), the Minister may recommend to the Governor-General that the grant of the land be revoked.

On the receipt of a recommendation under subsection (4), the Governor-General may revoke the grant of the land to which the recommendation relates and, upon publication in the Gazette of a notice of that revocation, that land shall revert to the Crown.

Where land reverts to the Crown under sub-section (5), compensation is payable by the Commonwealth to the owner of any estate or interest in the land granted by the Aboriginal Council and subsisting immediately before the reversion of the land to the Crown for the loss to that owner of that estate or interest, but compensation is not otherwise payable in respect of that reversion.

Where the grant revoked under sub-section (5) has been entered in the register kept under the law of the Northern Territory relating to the transfer of land, the RegistrarGeneral or other appropriate officer under that law shall, on the publication of notice of the revocation in the Gazette alter that register accordingly. ‘.

The object is to break out of the stranglehold that has been put on the legislation so far by the insistence upon traditional lands and to allow councils in other areas to have land allocated to them. So far as we are concerned it is important that the general principle of rights to land not be confined simply to those that happen to be reserves at this particular moment. I support the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) in his comments about this legislation. It is 12 years or 13 years since the argument first developed in this place. The key year was 1963. In 1967 the people of Australia said: ‘Get on with it’. In 1972 they returned a government which launched this enterprise in this way. The legislation has been dithering around in the pigeonholes of the Government for months. Our committee met all Monday to examine these -

Mr Ruddock:

– Speak to the amendment.

Mr BRYANT:

– There is no point in speaking to anything much except to place on record one’s despair at the way we are dealing with the legislation. The sub-committee of my Party which considers these matters met all day Monday. In this Parliament we cannot have that kind of time to deal with the whole legislation. I think it is important that councils be given more status under this legislation, so I put it to the Committee that we should agree to this amendment.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The purpose of the amendment, as the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) pointed out, is to insert clause 56 of the 1975 Bill into this legislation. This new clause provides for the possibility of vesting land in Aboriginal councils for particular purposes, generally relating to needs, and is based on the recommendations of the Woodward report. In his first report the Commissioner suggested that local Aboriginal land be held on a community basis, a suggestion which was based on what the Commissioner felt to be a fairly clear consensus of Aboriginal opinion and because the Commission represented the basic political and social drift of Aborigines in modern society. However in paragraph 84 of the Commission’s second report His Honour Mr Justice Woodward stated that the system which he considered to be most in harmony with traditional Aboriginal social organisations was that of a trust made up of clan elders supported by an administrative organisation.

The Commissioner then noted that Aboriginal communities had appreciated the lack of practicability in vesting small areas of land in Aboriginal claims but also commented that as ‘the most likely development over the next 50 years or so will be a gradual weakening of links with specific areas and sites and the strengthening of community identity with larger tracts of land’ community ownership would be more appropriate at that time. To provide for this he recommended in paragraph 88 that legislation provide for both land ownership possibilities. The 1975 legislation catered for this, and this amendment makes a similar provision. This amendment will give effect to His Honour’s point made in paragraph 88 that the form of ownership should not be forced along by the imposition of arrangements where they are not wanted and would not willingly be accepted or observed. For these reasons and to give flexibility to Aboriginal communities on this matter I commend the new clause to the Committee.

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– The Government cannot accept the amendment. The Bill as I have indicated before deals with traditional land rights. The granting of land to an Aboriginal council would not be in the nature of a traditional land right. His Honour, Mr Justice Woodward, at paragraph 89 of his report recommended the use of a trust, that is a land trust, in all cases for convenience of legislation and ease of understanding. The Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill which was passed recently by this chamber allows for the creation of Aboriginal councils and the holding of land by those councils.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Clauses 2 1 and 22- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 23 (Functions of Land Council).

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-We would like to record the amendment even if we do not speak to it. I move:

Omit the clause, substitute the following clause: “23. ( 1 ) The functions of a Land Council are-

to administer Aboriginal land in its area that is held by Land Trusts;

where the Land Council holds in escrow a deed of grant of land made to a Land Trust under section 12-

to negotiate with persons having estates or interests in that land with a view to the acquisition of those estates or interests by the Land Trust; and

until those estates or interests have been so acquired, to negotiate with those persons with a view to the use by Aboriginals of the land in such manner as may be agreed between the Land Council and those persons;

to negotiate, on behalf of traditional Aboriginal owners of land in its area held by a Land Trust, being those owners as shown in the register maintained by the Council under section 24, and any other Aboriginals interested in the land, with persons desiring to use, occupy or obtain an interest in that land;

to investigate, and to make representations concerning

the requirements for land of Aboriginals living in its area;

the use, whether by means of the acquisition of an interest or otherwise, by Aboriginals of Crown land in its area in which no person (other than the Crown) has an estate or interest; and

priorities in the expenditure of public moneys in connexion with the acquisition or development of land in its area for the benefit of Aboriginals;

to compile and keep-

a register recording the names of the members of the Land Council; and

a register recording the names of the members of the Land Trusts holding, or established to hold, Aboriginal land in its area and descriptions of each area of such Aboriginal land;

to co-operate with, and assist, the Land Commissioner in exercising his functions and powers in connexion with land in its area;

to issue, and revoke, permits to persons, other than Aboriginals, entitling them to enter and remain on Aboriginal land in its area and to impose conditions to be complied with by holders of permits so issued; and

to supervise, and provide administrative assistance for, Land Trusts holding or established to hold, Aboriginal land in its area. “(2 ) In carrying out its functions with respect to any Aboriginal land in its area, a Land Council shall have regard to the interests of, and, where practicable, shall consult with, the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land as shown in the register maintained by the Council under section 24 and any other Aboriginals interested in the land and, in particular, shall not give a direction under section 27 to a Land Trust with respect to any matter in connexion with land held by that Land Trust unless the Land Council is satisfied that-

the persons (if any) shown in the Register maintained by the Council under section 24 as the traditional Aboriginal owners of that land understand the nature and purpose of the proposed direction and do not oppose it; and

any Aboriginal community or group that may be affected by the proposed direction has been consulted and has had adequate opportunity to express its view to the Land Council. “(3) Where a Land Council issues or revokes a permit to enter and remain on Aboriginal land in the area of an Aboriginal Council, the Land Council shall notify the Aboriginal Council, in writing, of-

where a permit is issued-

the fact that a permit has been issued with respect to land in the area of the Aboriginal Council;

the particulars of the person to whom the permit is issued; and

the conditions (if any) to be complied with by the holder of the permit; or

where a permit is revoked-

the fact that a permit with respect to land in the area of the Aboriginal Council has been revoked; and

the particulars of the person who was the holder of the permit.”.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 24.

A Land Council shall compile, and maintain, a register setting out-

  1. the names of the persons who, in the opinion of the Council, are the traditional Aboriginal owners of Aboriginal land in the area of the Land Council; and
  2. in relation to each group of traditional Aboriginal owners, a map or other references showing the sites belonging to them.
Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I have a small amendment which I very earnestly ask the Government to accept. I move:

At the end of paragraph (b) add ‘in so far as such can be done without breach of Aboriginal usage ‘.

I think that this is a matter of some practical importance to traditional Aboriginals. Some sites are known and some sites are made known by Aboriginals. Other sites are not known and not made known by their traditional owners. There are sites whose secrecy is part of their sacredness. This does not apply to all sites. In many cases the site referred to is not an artifact, a painting on a wall or anything like that; it is simply a natural feature. The fact that this natural feature is sacred and is a site of significance means that it has to be concealed from everybody except the traditional people who are entitled to that knowledge. This is really fundamental to the nature and structure of Aboriginal society. By making it mandatory for these sites to be disclosed and put in a register we are violating one of the canons of Aboriginal society.

Mr Kelly:

– It is sacred. It cannot be described.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– In many cases the sites can be described but not in every case. It is a real affront to Aboriginals to require them- as this clause does- to put sacred sites upon a register. It might be said that the register itself could be kept secret. Anybody who says this would not be really in touch with the nature of Aboriginal usage. Bad though it might be to disclose a site to a European, in Aboriginal eyes it would be far, far worse to describe and identify a site to another Aboriginal who was not entitled to know about it. It would be much worse to let another Aboriginal know than to let a European know. Until quite recently ceremonial murders have been committed in the centre of Australia just to protect the sacredness of this knowledge. This is something we may laugh at as some people would laugh at masonic secrecy or something of that character.

It is absolutely fundamental to Aboriginal society that some things should be kept secret especially from other Aboriginals who are not permitted to know about them. This incidentally, is one of the main coherent forces which has kept Aboriginal society together in the past. It is a fact that Aboriginal society has remained together because the knowledge which is the authority has been kept compartmentalised. This is a matter which does not have any practical significance for anybody except Aboriginals. I am not suggesting that, where sites can be disclosed by Aboriginal usage, they should not be disclosed. But because apparently this aspect has not been sufficiently considered, I most earnestly ask the Government to add after the words ‘disclosure of the sites for a register’ the words insofar as such can be done without breach for Aboriginal usage’. It is for the Aboriginals themselves to say from time to time what their usage and traditional customs are.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I rise to support the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) in his remarks regarding these sites and lands. What has been said by people from the Northern Territory, supported by telexes, telegrams and letters from the traditional owners of Aboriginal land, is that they do not wish to have large councils and trusts. They have said that again and again and again. They say this because the concept of the compilation of a register of their lands which are once again tied to their Tjuringa and their beliefs is something which relates in many cases to matters which are secret to them. This is what we have been saying over and over again.

The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) and the Government would be well advised to take note of the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mackellar and also to take note of what the Aboriginal people are saying in this respect. This is so much a part of their complete history. We are trying to impose on them a concept of which they have no real understanding. The advice which came to the Labor Government and which has come to this Government on this aspect has not been given by these people; it has come from those whose job it is to advise those governments. If the Government persists with the present proposal without adopting the amendment it will be breaking across traditional Aboriginal beliefs.

Mr YATES:
Holt

-From my experience in other parts of the world, I can assure the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) that what has been moved and supported is correct.

Mr Kelly:

– It is essential.

Mr YATES:

– In some cases it is essential. It would not be difficult for the Government to listen to what it has been told and to consider this amendment as one which is of some importance to us all. Therefore, I support what the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) and the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) have said as there are, I know, people in the world who do not want registration of what are their private beliefs and customs. Without any offence to the Government, this amendment could easily be carried.

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– The amendment which the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) has moved is implicit in the legislation because, from their very nature, identification and mapping of such sites would not be done in breach of Aboriginal usage. The intention of the amendment apparently is to ensure that the register does not record, or at least does not make available to unauthorised persons, information on secret or sacred matters. There is no reason whatever why the recording and mapping of sites for the purpose of identifying clan areas- and that is the purpose of this work- need incorporate any such material. It could be done by the simple location and nomination of sites without additional information and might often be done without referring to the most sacred or dangerous sites, and certainly without including any secret or sacred information. It seems preferable to leave a matter of this kind to the Aboriginals of the land councils who are themselves well versed in Aboriginal lore and custom. Indeed, there is already throughout Australia mapping of such sites. The Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies undertakes this kind of work, as I am sure the honourable member for Mackellar would acknowledge. However, I do acknowledge the force of what the honourable member says. For that reason, I am prepared to accede to the amendment. However, I do not accept the force of the reasons advanced in support of the amendment- I must say with respect- by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder). The advice received by this Government on the contents of this Bill has come from traditional Aboriginal land owners and others who have traditional interests in Aboriginal land.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 25 to 39- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 40 (Grants of mining interests).

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

Omit the clause, substitute the following clause:

A mining interest in respect of Aboriginal land shall not be granted unless-

both the Minister and the Land Council for the area in which the land is situated have consented, in writing, to the making of the grant; or

the Governor-General has, by Proclamation, declared that the national interest requires that the grant be made and that Proclamation has taken effect in accordance with section 42. ‘.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 41 (Application of Acts authorising mining on Aboriginal land)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

Omit the clause, substitute the following clause:

The Atomic Energy Act 1 953 or any other Act authorising mining for minerals does not apply in relation to land that is Aboriginal land so as to authorise the entry or remaining of a person on the land or the doing of any act by a person on the land unless-

the Governor-General has, by Proclamation, declared that both the Minister and the Land Council for the area in which the land is situated have consented to the application of that Act in relation to entry on that land; or

the Governor-General has, by Proclamation, declared that the national interest requires the application of that Act in relation to entry on that land and that Proclamation has taken effect in accordance with section 42.’.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-Mr Chairman, I believe that a brief explanation of the purpose of this amendment is in order. The force of a proclamation is raised in this clause. It is our belief that the proclamation ought to have some of the force of regulations before the Parliament. If somebody moves for the disallowance of a regulation, that regulation is prevented from being implemented unless it is discussed within 1 5 sitting days. One of the difficulties with a proclamation is that it does not carry some of the force of a regulation. We think that its powers ought to be strengthened so that the Parliament can discuss each proclamation. In fact, the Parliament must discuss each proclamation. The problem with a proclamation at present is that it does not need to be discussed. If somebody moves for the disallowance of a regulation, that brings the matter before the Parliament for discussion. We propose to add the 2 techniques used by the Parliament together. I think we produce better parliamentary scrutiny of what is proposed by this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 42.

  1. The Minister shall, as soon as practicable after the making of a Proclamation referred to m paragraph 40 ( 1 ) ( b ) or 4 1 ( 1 ) ( b ), cause a copy of the Proclamation to be laid before each House of the Parliament.
  2. Either House of the Parliament, within15 sitting days of that House after a copy of a Proclamation has been laid before that House under sub-section ( 1 ), may, in pursuance of a motion upon notice, pass a resolution disapproving of the declaration in the Proclamation.
  3. If neither House of the Parliament passes a resolution in accordance with sub-section (2) disapproving of the declaration in a Proclamation referred to in sub-section ( 1 ), the Proclamation takes effect on the day immediately following the last day upon which such a resolution could have been passed.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

After sub-clause (3), insert the following new sub-clause: (3A) If notice of a motion to disapprove of a declaration in a Proclamation that has been laid before either House of the Parliament under sub-section ( 1 ) is given in that House within15 sitting days after the copy of the Proclamation has been laid before that House and on the last day on which the resolution could have been passed-

the notice has not been withdrawn and the motion has not been called on; or

the motion has been called on, moved and seconded and has not been withdrawn or otherwise disposed of, that House shall be deemed to have passed, on that day, a resolution disapproving of the declaration in the Proclamation.’.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 43 and 44- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 45.

  1. 1 ) Where the Minister is satisfied that a Land Council has refused, or is unwilling, to give its consent to the grant of a mining interest by reason that the applicant for the grant will not enter into an agreement proposed by the Land Council as consideration for the giving of its consent to the grant, the Minister may, after consultation with the Land Council and with the applicant for the grant, appoint an Arbitrator, being a person whom the Minister considers to be in a position to deal with the matter impartially, to determine the terms and conditions of the agreement that, in the opinion of the Arbitrator, should be acceptable to the Land Council and to the applicant as consideration for the giving by the Land Council of its consent to the grant.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

Omit sub-clause ( 1 ), substitute the following sub-clauses:

Where the Minister is satisfied that a Land Council has refused, or is unwilling, to give its consent to the grant of a mining interest by reason that the applicant for the grant will not enter into an agreement proposed by the Land Council as consideration for the giving of the grant, he shall require production to him of a copy of a statement in writing by the applicant for the grant and an acknowledgement in writing signed by not less than one half of the members of the Land Council that they have seen and understood the proposals contained in the statement in writing. ( 1a) If the Minister considers the proposals contained in the statement in writing referred to in sub-section ( 1 ) by the applicant for the grant to be just and equitable in the circumstances, after consultation with the Land Council and the applicant for the grant, the Minister may appoint a person whom he considers to be in a position to deal with the matter impartially to be an Arbitrator to determine in accordance with the law for the time being in force in the Northern Territory with respect to Arbitration, the terms and conditions of the agreement that, in the opinion of the Arbitrator, should be acceptable to the Land Council and to the applicant as consideration for the giving by the Land Council of its consent to the grant. (1b) The written statement referred to in sub-section ( 1 ) shall set out-

the amount of payments which the applicant for the grant is prepared to make for the Land Council on behalf of the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land-

in consideration of the right to enter upon the land to explore and prospect for minerals; and

by way of royalties in respect of minerals, if any, extracted from the land;

the amount and nature of any other interest or benefit which is proposed to be granted to, or to any person or Land Council on behalf of the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land;

the type of employment proposed to be available for Aborigines in connexion with the activities which the applicant for the grant proposes to carry out upon the land;

the manner in which the applicant for the grant proposes to preserve and protect any site or object upon the land which is of significance to the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land;

e) the nature of each type of activity which the applicant for the grant proposes to carry out upon the land, and the order in which such activities are proposed to be carried out;

the manner in which the applicant for the grant proposes to consult with the Land Council and the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land in respect of activities carried out by him or by others on his behalf upon or in respect of the land; and

such other matters as the Minister may require. ‘.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 46 to 49- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 50.

  1. 1 ) The functions of the Commissioner are-

    1. on an application being made to the Commissioner by or on behalf of Aboriginals claiming to have a traditional land claim to an area of land, being unalienated Crown land or alienated Crown land in which all estates and interests not held by the Crown are held by, or on behalf of, Aboriginals-
    1. to ascertain whether those Aboriginals or any other Aboriginals are the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land; and

    2. to report his findings to the Minister and to the Minister for the Northern Territory, and, where he finds that there are Aboriginals who are the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land, to make recommendations to the Minister for the granting of the land or any part of the land in accordance with sections 1 1 and 12;

    3. to inquire into the likely extent of traditional land claims by Aboriginals to alienated Crown land and to report to the Minister and to the Minister for the Northern Territory, from time to time, the results of his inquiries;
    4. to establish and maintain a register of the traditional land claims referred to in paragraph (b);
    5. to advise the Minister in connexion with any other matter relevant to the operation of this Act that is referred to the Commissioner by the Minister; and
    6. ) to advise the Minister and the Minister for the Northern Territory in connexion with any other matter relating to land in the Northern Territory that is referred to the Commissioner by the Minister with the concurrence of the Minister for the Northern Territory.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

Omit the clause, substitute the following clause: “50.(1) The functions of the Commissioner are-

to ascertain, and to report to the Minister on, the needs of Aboriginals, whether as individuals or communities, for land in the Northern Territory to be used for residential, employment or other purposes;

to ascertain, and to report to the Minister on, the availability of land to satisfy the needs referred to in paragraph (a);

to prepare for the consideration of the Minister plans for the acquisition and development of land in the

Northern Territory by, or for the benefit of, Aboriginals and financial estimates of the cost of carrying out such plans;

to advise the Minister in connexion with-

the making of recommendations for the granting of land under section 1 1 or 20A;

the resumption of Crown Land held under a lease that is required for Aboriginal community purposes;

the reservation by planning authorities of land for Aboriginal community purposes in towns;

the revocation of a grant of land made to an Aboriginal Council under section 20a; and

v) any other matter relevant to the operation of this Act that is referred to the Commissioner by the Minister;

on an application being made to the Commissioner by or on behalf of the traditional Aboriginal owners of land, being Crown land, to inquire into, and to report to the Minister on, the desirability of securing that land for the use of those traditional owners; and

f) to compile and keep maps and other records concerning traditional Aboriginal owners of land, other than Aboriginal land, in the Northern Territory. “(2) In carrying out his functions the Commissioner shall have regard to the following principles-

Aboriginals who by choice are living at a place on the traditional country of the tribe or linguistic group to which they belong but do not have a right or entitlement to live at that place ought, where practicable, to be able to acquire secure occupancy of that place; and

Aboriginals who are not living at a place on the traditional country of the tribe or linguistic group to which they belong but desire to live at such a place ought, where practicable, to be able to acquire secure occupancy of such a place. “.

Amendment negatived.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I have 2 small amendments designed to give cut-offdates. I move:

In sub-clause (1), after ‘Commissioner’ insert ‘before 31 December 1977’.

In sub-clause (l)(b), after ‘time’, second appearing, insert ‘but before 30 June 1978’.

It seems to me that in the absence of such a cut-off date, which should not be immediate but should give some time for Aboriginals to lodge claims, there may arise continual bitterness between the Aboriginal and European communities in the Northern Territory. I do not think this would be to the advantage of either community. In this respect I am thinking particularly of the advantage of the Aboriginal community. I think it would help Aboriginals if there were some kind of cut-off date to which they could work, because this would absolve them from continual bitterness and all sorts of finangling which otherwise might go on.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I support these amendments for the reasons stated by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth). A backlash and so on might arise in the Northern Territory. This Bill is designed supposedly to help the traditional owners, the Aborigines in the Northern Territory. That isfair enough. But, if there is not some time decided upon after which claims cannot be made for areas- whether they be mining areas, pastoral areas, or what ever- we will not have development such as that carried out by the Gemco company on Groote Eylandt, at Gove, or at any other place, from which the Aborigines might derive considerable income. Therefore there will tend to be no development from which they can receive the considerable funds envisaged in this Bill to finance the councils and trusts, the benefit trust fund and so on. If we wish the Territory to be developed and the Aborigines to gain from that development, which is their right and of which we all are in favour, there should be some arrangement in this Bill which will give people investing risk capital in the Territory-most of the money invested in the Territory is risk capitalsome confidence that they will have security of their leases, whether they be pastoral, mining or whatever.

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– The Government cannot accept either of the proposed amendments. The first amendment deals with vacant Crown land and the second with alienated Crown land. That distinction needs to be borne in mind when considering the amendments. The first proposed amendment would give Aboriginals only 12 months in which to lodge claims to vacant Crown land. There has been a freeze against the alienation of any vacant Crown land until 31 December this year, pending the lodgment of any claims by Aboriginals to any part of that vacant Crown land. After 3 1 December this year there will be no alienation in respect of any land for which a claim has been made.

It is difficult to see any reason to increase the existing pressure on Aboriginals to lodge such claims, since this is likely to induce them to make hasty or even unwise claims to land which is waste and likely to remain so. In this respect I refer the Committee to what was said by His Honour, Mr Justice Woodward, at paragraph 161 of his report. After a lengthy consideration of the nature of areas already held by Aboriginals as reserves and other parts of the Northern Territory, he said of vacant Crown land:

This is equally true of much of the remaining unalienated Crown lands. Aboriginal people should think carefully before laying claim to any areas which are not going to be of value to them- particularly since they have unimpeded access to this country at present if they want to visit it for any traditional purposes.

I am quite satisfied that, as the present claims or pending claims are worked out, there will be no clash between other interests in the Northern Territory and Aboriginals in respect of the balance of vacant Crown land.

The second amendment would require the Land Commissioner to complete his inquiry which is authorised under the Bill and his report on claims to alienated land within 18 months. This seems quite impracticable, being too short a time, given the likely pressure on the Commissioner to report on claims to vacant land and land leased by Aboriginals, such as Wave Hill, Willowra, Kildurk and the Tanami Desert. It also seems undesirable, since it is a difficult task which might properly take several years to complete satisfactorily, depending on the interest of Aboriginals in lodging claims and the Commissioner’s ability to compile an adequate register of land owning groups outside reserves. If the Commissioner is given the time to make his inquiry, based on evidence put before him, and with objectivity, I am quite sure that there will not be any pressure on existing interests holding alienated Crown land, or undue pressure on Aboriginals, and there will not be any clash between Aboriginals and others in the Northern Territory.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 51 to 67- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Proposed new clause 6 7 A.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

After clause 67, insert the following new clause: “67 A. ( 1 ) An Aboriginal is entitled, with respect to land contained within a lease for pastoral purposes granted under a law of the Northern Territory-

to enter and remain on the land;

to bring on to, and use on, the land, horses for the transport of persons or goods;

to take and use the natural waters of the land; and

subject to sub-section (2), to kill wildlife for food on the land. “(2) Where regulations under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 that are expressed to be made for the purposes of the protection or conservation of an endangered species of wildlife prohibit the lulling of members of that species on land to which the regulations apply, an Aboriginal is not entitled, under sub-section (I), to kill members of that species on that land. “(3) Where there are no convenient natural waters on land referred to in sub-section ( 1 ), an Aboriginal is entitled to use bore waters on the land for drinking, cooking, washing or watering horses. “(4) In exercising his rights under sub-section (3), an Aboriginal is not entitled knowingly to disregard any reasonable requirements of the lessee of the pastoral lease in connexion with the bore waters on the land. “(5) Sub-sections (1), (3) and (4) do not apply at any point within a distance of 1 kilometre from any homestead on the land. “(6) A person who, without just cause, proof of which lies upon the person, prevents or obstructs, or attempts to prevent or obstruct, an Aboriginal from exercising his rights under this section is guilty of an offence against this section punishable, upon conviction, by a fine not exceeding $1,000.”.

Obviously I cannot talk about this proposed new clause because time is not available. It is an important matter relating to pastoral leases and the right of Aboriginal people to enter on to such land, a right which is to be curtailed greatly and circumvented. I only regret that I am unable to put a case on their behalf.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Clause 68 agreed to.

Proposed new clause 68A.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

After clause 68, insert the following new clause: “68A. (1) Regulations under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 197S providing for the protection or conservation of, or making other provision with respect to, wildlife, whether those regulations were made before or after the commencement of this Act, do not apply in relation to an area of Aboriginal land unless-

the Governor-General has, by Proclamation, declared that the application of those regulations to that area of land has been consented to by a Committee for that area established under this section; or

the Governor-General has, by Proclamation, declared that the national interest requires the application of those regulations to that area of land and that Proclamation nas taken effect in accordance with section 42. “(2) For the purposes of paragraph ( 1 ) (a), the Minister shall, on the application of the Minister administering the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975, establish a Committee for an area of Aboriginal land. “(3) A Committee shall consist of-

a Chairman appointed by the Minister after consultation with the Minister administering the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975;

such number of members, not being less than 3, as the Minister determines appointed by the Minister on the nomination of the Land Council for the area in which the Aboriginal land concerned is situated; and

a number of members equal to the number determined by the Minister under paragraph (b) appointed by the Minister on the nomination of the Director of National Parks and Wildlife.

The Chairman shall convene a meeting of a Committee for the purpose of considering the giving of a consent to a proposal to apply, in relation to the area of Aboriginal land for which the Committee is established, regulations made, or proposed to be made, under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 providing for the protection and conservation of, or making other provision with respect to, wildlife.

The Chairman shall preside at a meeting convened under sub-section (4).

The consent of a Committee for the purposes of paragraph ( 1) (a) shall be given by resolution passed at a meeting of the Committee by a number of votes greater than the number determined by the Minister for the purposes of paragraph (3) (b).

Where a resolution referred to in sub-section (6) is moved, the Chairman shall endeavour to reconcile any conflicts of opinion among the other members of the Committee but the Chairman shall not vote on that unless the voting of the other members is equal and, in that event, the Chairman has a casting vote.

The Chairman shall, on the request of a member of a Committee who is an Aboriginal, arrange for the translation of the proceedings of the committee as they occur into the language of that member.

Subject to any direction of the Chairman, a member of a Committee who is an Aboriginal may be accompanied to a meeting of the Committee by such advisers as he may wish to accompany him.

In this section- “Chairman”, means the Chairman of a Committee; “Committee”, means a Committee established under sub-section (2).

Where an area of land becomes Aboriginal land, regulations in force under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 providing for the protection or conservation of, or making other provision with respect to, wildlife, that were applicable to that area immediately before it became Aboriginal land continue, notwithstanding sub-section ( 1 ), to be applicable to that area but cease to apply to that area at the expiration of the period of 12 months commencing on the day on which that area became Aboriginal land unless, before that time-

the regulations are repealed; or

the requirements of sub-section (1) are complied with in relation to the regulations. ‘.

This proposed new clause relates to important matters involving the protection of wildlife and the general question of conservation. The way this matter is treated has a very significant effect on the way Aboriginal people live, in the sense that they live from the land. If they are to be restricted in their use of vehicles or certain processes of hunting, their health can be affected adversely. There is a great deal to be said about this matter. Many Aboriginal communities which have briefed members of the Opposition will be disappointed and frustrated with the parliamentary processes that prevent us from saying any more on this matter.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Consideration interrupted.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins)Order! It being 10.30 p.m., in accordance with the order of the House of 18 February, I shall report progress.

Progress reported.

page 3077

ADJOURNMENT

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The question is:

That the House do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 3077

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) BILL 1976

[No. 2]

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

Clause 69 (Sacred Sites).

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

Omit the clause, substitute the following clause:

( 1 ) A person shall not desecrate land in the Northern Territory that is a site of significance according to Aboriginal tradition.

Penalty: $1,000.

  1. Without limiting the generality of sub-section ( 1), a person shall be deemed to have desecrated a site if, on or near the site, he knowingly does an act, or causes damage, of such a nature that the doing of the act or the causing of the damage, as the case may be, would, if witnessed by Aboriginals to whom the site is significant, be offensive to them by reason of the Aboriginal tradition in respect of that site.

  2. It is a defence to a charge under sub-section ( 1 ) if the person charged proves-

    1. that the doing of the act, or the causing of the damage, as set out in the charge was accidental;
    2. where the site was not on Aboriginal land-that the person charged had no reasonable grounds for suspecting that the site was of significance according to Aboriginal tradition; or
    3. c) where the site was on Aboriginal land- that:
    1. the person charged was lawfully on the land and sought the services of a guide from the Land Council for the area in which the site was situated; and
    2. a guide was not provided within a reasonable time or the guide provided failed to identify the site as one of significance according to Aboriginal tradition.
  3. The regulations may declare areas of land in the Northern Territory to be sites of significance according to Aboriginal tradition for the purposes of this section.

  4. In proceedings for an offence against sub-section ( 1 ) in relation to an area declared under sub-section (4)-

    1. the declaration is conclusive proof that the area to which it relates is a site of significance according to Aboriginal tradition; and
    2. the defences set out in paragraphs (3) (b) and (c) do not apply.

  5. This section does not apply in relation to an act done in relation to land if-

    1. the Land Council for the area in which the land is situated has given consent in writing to that act; or
    2. b ) that act is done in the course of, or in connexion with, mining operations authorised by a law of the Northern Territory or by the Atomic Energy Act 1953 or any other Act authorising mining for minerals and the Minister has authorised, in writing, the doing of that act.
  6. A Land Council may agree with an applicant for a consent referred to in paragraph (6) (a) for the giving of that consent by the Land Council in consideration of the payment to the Land Council by the applicant of an amount specified in the agreement.

  7. The Minister shall not grant an authorisation under paragraph (6) (b) unless he is satisfied that the applicant for the authorisation had sought the consent of the relevant Land Council to the doing of the act to which the proposed authorisation relates and that consent has been refused or has not, within 60 days after application for it was made, been granted, and, in deciding whether to grant or refuse such an authorisation, he shall have regard to-

    1. the extent of the hardship that the proposed act would cause to the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land concerned if the authorisation were granted;
    2. b ) the extent of the loss to persons interested in the mining operations concerned if the authorisation were not granted; and
    3. the extent to which the national interest would be affected by granting or refusing to grant the authorisation.’

I am heartened by recent events. I do not know whether they provide a licence to say a few words on this amendment. It is an important one. The Opposition proposes to delete clause 69 and to insert a new clause in relation to sacred sites. The Northern Territory legislature has a very disappointing record in regard to the protection of sacred sites. It has declared only 6 sites in 18 years. It seems that there are good reasons why we should have regard for the recommendation of Mr Justice Woodward that this matter be the subject of Federal legislation. The Senate Select Committee on Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders recently reported on this matter and recommended, in particular, that this matter remain the responsibility of the Australian Par.liament and Government. As honourable members would know, that Committee is chaired by a Government member, Senator Bonner. Its report was a unanimous one. It represented the views of both sides of the Parliament. At least among these informed people there is an attitude which is at variance with the one that the Government is incorporating in this legislation.

The proposed new clause makes it an offence knowingly to damage or desecrate a site of significance to Aboriginal tradition. Sub-clause (3) lists defences against a prosecution under this clause. Sub-clause (4) provides for the declaration by regulation of sites of significance. It is not intended that all sites of significance be declared. In many cases Aborigines are unwilling to reveal the location of such sites. Existing protection for aU sites under the Native and Historical Objects Preservation Ordinance is inadequate because acquisition with compensation must occur before a site may be designated or protected in any way. The recent comment of the Majority Leader in the Legislative Assembly is important. He said that the Assembly would try to identify and specify sacred sites. Even taken with the assurances expressed by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner), it is so general that honourable members opposite will see why Aboriginals, in particular the elders, of almost every clan in the Territory have made representations to have this matter legislated for and regulated by the Commonwealth.

The Committee of the Whole will recollect what the Minister said in his second reading speech, the good intentions and assurances of both the Minister for the Northern Territory (Mr Adermann) and the Majority Leader in the Legislative Assembly. It seems to me that it is a very poor way to do business, to be stacking all our hopes and aspirations in respect of these matters on good intent rather than on matters that are properly prescribed in legislation. The question of the preservation of sacred sites has been the subject of very great indifference and neglect on the part of the Northern Territory legislature in the past. It is very difficult to generalise and to indict an entire legislature for what has happened, but I think it is fair to say that if one has regard to the history of the legislative body in the Northern Territory in respect of this matter one would hardly regard it as a body that is inspired with and obsessed by the need to act effectively on this matter. It is another matter for which Mr Justice Woodward recommended the Australian Government should have responsibility. There is no question that the Aboriginal 1>eople would like that. The effect of my very lengthy amendment is to provide for the acceptance of Commonwealth responsibility for this matter.

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for the Northern Territory · Fisher · NCP/NP

-What I want to say relates not only to this amendment but also to subsequent amendments. The Opposition has been saying quite a lot by way of denigration of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. I think the words that the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) used should be rebuted. He talked about the unenviable record of the legislature of the Northern Territory. Already my colleague the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) has sought to put the record straight. It is in this context, and in the context of those words, that I pay tribute to the pioneering work on the subject of Aboriginal land rights which has been undertaken over the years by the Northern Territory legislature. Apparently members opposite do not know that many of the principles governing land rights were considered initially in the Northern Territory Legislative Council in the 1960s by people familiar with the needs and traditions of the Aboriginals, developed over many years of direct association with those people. I believe that it was from those debates that the first recognition of land rights for the Aboriginal people emerged.

In 1964 the Northern Territory Legislative Council appointed a committee on Aboriginal integration. In May 1965 the committee, in tabling one of its reports, proposed the first steps to give effect to land tenure for Aboriginals on reserves. In August 1966 a Bill dealing with land titles for Aboriginals was introduced by a private member of that Council, but this initiative was overtaken by a further Bill sponsored by the Federal Government. This latter legislation came into effect in 1970. My colleague Mr Ralph Hunt, the then Minister for the Interior, was able to approve a grant of over 70 leases to Aboriginals before the change of government in 1972.

I thank sincerely the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) for his consultation with the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, his time and the co-operative discussion on a large number of occasions with the Assembly. The Assembly is most anxious to give full cooperation to the Government. Indeed, it may well indicate the path for co-operation in legislation which eventually will reach far beyond the Northern Territory. I do not believe that sufficient recognition has been given by the Opposition and critics of the responsible approach adopted by the Northern Territory legislature to the question of land rights, especially in earlier years when the subject was less fashionable than it is now.

I remind the Parliament that the large schedule of land to be declared Aboriginal land under this Bill was set aside and protected over the years for the benefit of Aboriginals under the authority of the Northern Territory ordinances, not by legislation passed by this Parliament. The responsible approach adopted by the Northern Territory legislature in the past gives every reason for confidence that the complementary legislation entrusted to the Legislative Assembly by this Bill will be wholly in harmony with the objectives of the Government and will fully protect the interests of the Aboriginal people of the Territory. That is the sort of undertaking which I and the Assembly have given to the Minister. I do not take very kindly to the remarks of members of the Opposition about the attitude of the Assembly. I do not think it is worthy of them.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-The Minister for the Northern Territory (Mr Adermann) can talk at great length, but the facts are that over the years the general membership of the Northern Territory legislature, particularly the political philosophy of the membership of the present Legislative Assembly, has been the principal factor in holding back the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory. The Minister said that the Assembly would co-operate with the Government. That does not fill me with any glee. This legislation is designed to entrench the capacity of miners to mine on Aboriginal lands. It does not confer any absolute right at all. It is there until it is required to be used for something else. That has been the case with all the legislation that has come through the Legislative Council, as it was previously known, and the Legislative Assembly in the Northern Territory by proclamation, by ordinance or by any other means. I have sat here for 2 1 years now and watched the operation -

Mr Sullivan:

– Too long.

Mr BRYANTThat is right, and I will be here for a while yet. I might be here longer than some of the people barking over there in possum corner, as Mr Calwell used to call it. The facts are that every possible step that could be taken to stultify and frustrate the development of the rights of the Aboriginal people of Australia has emanated principally from the National Country Party, and its principal spokesmen have been people like the Minister for the Northern Territory (Mr Adermann) and the members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, as it is now called. As I said before, this Bill is simply the continual entrenchment of vested rights, particularly in mining areas but also in pastoral areas, by the people of the Northern Territory. It is a step in the right direction but it is a very small step indeed. It does not matter what the Minister says in any form of sophistry that he happens to bring to this matter- he cannot ClOUd the issue. The facts are that unless this Parliament takes the initiative, takes up its own duties and establishes Aboriginal rights, these rights will never be protected.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I feel that I should say something about the disgraceful remarks made by the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant). He has completely misrepresented the work that has been done by the Legislative Assembly on which at one timenot now, mind you- there were Labor members. Those Labor members were the ones who wanted to throw open the Aboriginal land to everyone.

Mr Bryant:
Mr CALDER:

– Yes, they did. They fought 3 elections on that proposal and they were defeated every time. Finally, they were utterly defeated and as a result there are now no Labor members on the Legislative Assembly. That is why the Labor Party is now so crooked on the Legislative Assembly. It is just a case of sour grapes. The members of the Legislative Assembly have been working on Aboriginal land legislation for longer than the honourable member has, and they know far more about it than do many other people in this chamber who are interested in this subject.

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– I thank my colleague the Minister for the Northern Territory (Mr Adermann) for what he has said so as to clarify the position of the legislation, particularly with respect to the assurances that have been given and the participation of this Government, through me as Minister, in the preparation of the complementary legislation. Might I refer the Opposition to the provisions of clause 73 ( 1 ) (a) which will require the Legislative Assembly ordinances to accord with certain stipulations that are directed towards protecting the interests of Aboriginals. Might I also with respect to the amendment refer members of the Opposition to sub-clause (6) and point out to them what they are proposing to do with regard to sacred sites which they seek to protect. That sub-clause envisages the legal desecration of sacred sites in relation to a mining operation. Not only that, a proposal of this nature negates the whole intention of this section as it further envisages the sale of a sacred site to rnining interests. That is the proposal put forward by members of the Opposition who are so intent on denigrating rnining in the name of upholding Aboriginal interests.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 70 ( Entry on Aboriginal land )

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

Omit the clause, substitute the following clause:

( 1 ) Subject to this section, an Aboriginal is entitled to enter and remain upon Aboriginal land if his presence on that land would not interfere with the use or enjoyment of an estate or interest in the land held by a person, not being a Land Trust or an Aboriginal Council.

Subject to this Act and except as otherwise provided by the regulations, a person other than an Aboriginal shall not enter or remain on Aboriginal land unless he is the holder of a permit, in writing, issued to him by or on behalf of the Land Council for the area in which the land is situated.

Penalty: $1,000.

  1. Before the making of regulations for the purposes of sub-section (2), the Minister shall consult any Land Council in the area of which is situated any Aboriginal land to which the regulations, if made, would apply and shall, when considering the making of die regulations, take into account any views on the matter expressed by the Land Council.
  2. A person who is on Aboriginal land (whether in accordance with a permit or not), other than a person who is on the land in accordance with regulations under sub-section (2) or in accordance with paragraph (S) (a) or is one of the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land, may be required to leave that land by a person authorised on that behalf by the Land Council for the area in which the land is situated, and the person on whom such a requirement is made shall comply with the requirement within a reasonable time.

Penalty: $1,000.

  1. Where a person, other than a Land Trust or an Aboriginal Council, has an estate or interest in Aboriginal land-

    1. a person is entitled to enter and remain on the land for any purpose that is necessary for the use or enjoyment of that estate or interest by the owner;
    2. a permit shall not be issued to a person under subsection (2) with respect to the land if the presence of the person on the land would interfere with the use or enjoyment of that estate or interest by the owner; and
    3. a permit issued under sub-section (2) with respect to the land shall be expressed to impose on the holder of the permit a condition that he will not interfere with the use or enjoyment of that estate or interest by the owner.

  2. The holder of a permit to enter and remain on Aboriginal land shall comply with any condition referred to in paragragh (S)(c) or otherwise imposed on him as such older by the issuing authority.

Penalty: $1,000.

  1. In proceedings for an offence against sub-section (2) or (4) it is a defence if the person charged proves-

    1. in the case of an offence against sub-section (2)-that-
    1. his entry or remaining on the land was due to necessity; and

    2. it was not practicable to apply for the necessary permit; or

    3. in the case of an offence against sub-section (4)- that his remaining on the land was due to circumstances outside his control.

  2. Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, the law of the Northern Territory relating to travelling stock on pastoral leases applies to and in relation to Aboriginal land used for pastoral purposes’.

The amendment concerns permits to enter Aboriginal land. Something has been said about this matter. If more time were given to debate the amendment the Committee would be able to get the issue into much sharper perspective. In view of the time available to me I can only express concern that again the Woodward recommendations have been disregarded and that the Aboriginal people will be administered by a Darwin-based bureaucracy as against operating the permit system through their own council structure.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Proposed new clause 70a.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I move:

After clause 70, insert the following new clause: 70a. (1) Subject to this section, where Aboriginal land adjoins the territorial sea, or internal waters of the Commonwealth, appertaining to the Northern Territory, that part of the territorial sea or internal waters so appertaining that is within 2 kilometres of the boundary of the Aboriginal land shall, for the purposes of section 70, be deemed to be part of that Aboriginal land.

This section has effect subject to the obligations of the Commonwealth under international law, including obligations under any agreement between the Commonwealth and another country or countries.

Regulations made for the purposes of sub-section 70 (2) may make provision for the exemption from the provisions of that sub-section, in its application by virtue of this section, of persons on board ships included in a prescribed class of ships, either absolutely or subject to conditions (4)Where-

a court convicts a person of an offence against section 70 in its application by virtue of this section; and

at the time of the offence, the person was on board a boat that was carrying fish, the court may order the forfeiture of that fish or of the proceeds of the sale of that fish.

Any property ordered by a court to be forfeited under sub-section (4) becomes the property of the Commonwealth and shall be dealt with or disposed of in accordance with the directions of the Minister. ‘.

This clause concerns Aboriginal control over entry on the area of sea immediately adjoining Aboriginal land. This is again another matter to be referred to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly for complementary legislation. It is another matter about which there were specific recommendations by Mr Justice Woodward. It was a matter which was the subject of more high principled objectivity in the Labor legislation. There will be a great deal of disappointment on the part of the Aboriginal people who will not have as an effective right over the use of the waters adjoining traditional Aboriginal land.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Clause 71.

  1. Sub-section ( 1 ) does not authorize an entry, use or occupation that would interfere with the use or enjoyment of an estate or interest in the land held by a person not being a Land Trust or an Aboriginal Council or other incorporated association of Aboriginals.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I move:

Omit sub-clause (2).

This clause prohibits Aboriginal entry if it interferes with the use or enjoyment of an estate or interest. Very precise recommendations were made by His Honour Mr Justice Woodward in respect to permitting reasonable access to pastoral properties. The fact is that a person can get an interest or an estate which can be quite massive in size and say that Aboriginal people are not allowed entry. This provision can be used or invoked to deprive Aboriginal people of the use of their land. It is a very serious matter. It is just another one of the more recent issues that have come before the Committee, which really cut the whole basis of the Woodward recommendations down to a level where what remains is of infinitesimal benefit to the Aboriginal people. I express great concern that the hour will not allow the Committee to go into this matter in greater depth.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 72 agreed to.

Clause 73 (Reciprocal legislation of the Northern Territory)

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I want to oppose clause 73. With proper respect for my colleague the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) and his impassioned defence of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, let us transfer this to another medium. Clause 73 leaves certain responsibilities to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. That may very well be a sound procedure in some instances, but it is not in this instance. The Minister is responsible for a certain area of this legislation. The land councils and land trusts are also a part of the system. We have interposed the Legislative Assembly and we expect it to carry out certain complementary operations. This seems to me to be a totally unnecessary complication of the system. Regardless of the composition of the Legislative Assembly and of its political philosophy, I think it is totally wrong for us to implement legislation here which puts this final complication into the Act. It will only bedevil the system right from the beginning. I think it is an unwarranted concession to whatever happens to be the sacred State rights that prevail somewhere north of the boundary of the Northern Territory. I appeal to the Minister to take a good look at this clause and not to complicate the system. Australia is nearly ungovernable as it presently stands. To put this piece of nonsense into the situation is totally unnecessary. In fact, we ought to send that advice to Britain.

Mr YATES:
Holt

– I think a point has been raised here which the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) will well understand when this Bill is debated in the other place. I hope the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs will ask the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle), who will be in charge of the Bill, to look at this clause extremely carefully because it questions our rights in relation to what we have responsibility for when compared with State rights. When it comes to wildlife and certain other aspects I believe the Commonwealth should soil hold that power.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 74 (Application of laws of Northern Territory to Aboriginal land)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

Omit the clause, substitute the following clause:

( 1 ) Subject to sub-section (2), this Act does not affect the application to Aboriginal land of a law of the Northern Territory to the extent that that law is capable of operating concurrently with this Act.

The regulations may provide for the exclusion or modification of a law of the Northern Territory in its application to Aboriginal land ‘.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 75 to 78- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Schedule 1.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

After the description of land set out under the heading Santa Teresa ‘, insert the following:

page 3082

TANAMI

All that piece of land in the Northern Territory of Australia containing an area of 37 S29 square kilometres more or less: Commencing at the intersection of the meridian of east longitude 130 degrees 28 minutes 53.96 seconds with the parallel of south latitude 2 1 degrees; thence west for a distance of 16 093 metres; thence north to the parallel of south latitude 19 degrees 51 minutes 16.69 seconds; thence east to a point north of the western corner of Pastoral Lease 594 (Willowra); thence south to the said western corner, thence southeasterly, southerly, westerly and again southerly by southwestern, western, northern and again western boundaries of the said Pastoral Lease to the southwestern corner of the said Pastoral Lease; thence southerly by the western boundary of Pastoral Lease 634 (Mount Barkly) to the southwestern corner of the said Pastoral Lease; thence westerly, northerly and again westerly and southerly by part of northern, an eastern, again a northern and a western boundary of Pastoral Lease 590 (Mount Denison) to the most western southwestern corner of the said Pastoral Lease; thence westerly by part of the northern boundary of the Yuendumu Aboriginal Reserve as notified in Northern Territory Government Gazette No. 24 of 28 May 1952 to the northwestern corner of the said Reserve; thence northerly, westerly, again northerly and again westerly by an eastern, a northern, across a stock route, again a northern, again an eastern and again a northern boundary of Pastoral Lease 802 (Mount Doreen) to the most northern northwestern corner of the said Pastoral Lease; then northerly and westerly by part of the eastern boundary and the northern boundary of Pastoral Lease 764 (Chilla Well) to its intersection with the meridian of east longitude 130 degrees 28 minutes 53.96 seconds; thence north to the point of commencement.’.

This amendment concerns Tanami and its description. The deletion of the area known as the Tanami region, the traditional land of the Walpiri people, based principally at Yuendumu and Hooker Creek is in complete contrast to the recommendations of Mr Justice Woodward. The Commissioner in his second report, stated:

As for the . . . Tanami Desert, I am satisfied that there are sufficiently close ties between Aborigines still living nearby and those lands to justify their immediate transfer to Aboriginal ownership . . .

This clear statement was accepted by the previous Government The land owners of the Tanami Desert were included in the schedule to the 1 975 Bill. This provision was in the Bill which was introduced in June of this year, but the Minister has since attributed that fact to a printer’s error. I simply say that for reasons known only to the Minister it has been deleted from this Bill. We were told by the Minister in his second reading speech that the area was included as a mistake. No further explanation, other than that, was added. I think an explanation is due tonight. The insult to the Walpiri people is clear, and their concern is equally clear. In a letter to the Minister on the third of this month they rejected the Government’s move and requested an alteration to the Schedule so that their land would be put back under the operation of this Bill. However, on 17 November the Minister rejected their request.

These people have been seeking to have this land transferred to their ownership for almost 41 years. The first application was made in 1935 only 7 years after they suffered the last known Aboriginal massacre in Australian history when 31 members of their tribe were murdered in revenge killings. There is considerable documentation here which I would like to have dealt with. I imagine that this matter might be handled effectively in another place. Probably some of this material will be incorporated in the Hansard of that place. At this stage I prefer to convey to the Minister the fact that the Opposition is very seriously concerned about this matter. I want him to have sufficient time to deal with it. Supporters of the Government may like to say something about the matter; so I conclude my remarks and hope that there will be a satisfactory response.

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– The honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) said that no explanation was given for the deletion of the Tanami wildlife sanctuary from the Schedule to the Bill. I refer the honourable gentleman to page 278 1 of Hansard where the position of the Government with respect to this area is fully explained.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Schedule 2

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

Omit the schedule.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Title

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I reiterate the remarks which I made earlier. The Title is a total misnomer. It ought to be changed to Northern Territory Miners Right (Aboriginal Lands) Bill.

Title agreed to.

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

Third Reading

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

page 3083

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) BILL 1976

Motion ( by Mr Viner) agreed to:

That order of the day No. 1- Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill 1976- further consideration in Committee- be discharged.

page 3083

APPROPRIATION (URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT) BILL 1976

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

House adjourned at 10.58 p.m.

page 3084

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Graduates from Service Establishments (Question No. 1600)

Mr Sullivan:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

How many cadets from (a) the Royal Military College, Duntroon, (b) the Royal Australian Naval College, Jervis Bay and (c) the RAAF Academy, Point Cook, have graduated with recognised university degrees from those establishments in each of the years 1 970 to 1 975 inclusive.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

The following numbers of Australian cadets graduated from the Service colleges with recognised university degrees in the years 1 970 to 1 975 inclusive:

The first year in which recognised university degrees were awarded to cadets at the Royal Military College and the Royal Australian Naval College was 1971. In addition, the following numbers of cadets from other countries have received recognised university degrees at Royal Military

College:

Australian Industry Development Corporation and Poseidon

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

– On Wednesday, 20 October, the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating), asked me whether the Government would look at the role of the Australian Industry Development Corporation in respect of both its appointment of a receiver to the Poseidon Company and its approach to the international market for a loan raising in Australian dollars.

I am advised by the Australian Industry Development Corporation that:

The AIDC acted at the request of the Board of Directors of Poseidon Ltd in appointing a receiver to the company to stabilise the situation and enable negotiations concerning the future role of Poseidon in the Windarra Nickel joint venture to be settled.

The AIDC’s loan to Poseidon is an important investment in the Corporation’s financing of Australian Development, though by no means its largest.

The AIDC’s investment is secured by a first charge over Poseidon’s share of a valuable resource, being developed in association with Western Mining Corporation as operational manager of the venture. The AIDC’s financial position is thus not materially affected by the immediate financial difficulties of the Posiedon company.

It follows that any imputation that the AIDC acted improperly in not referring to Poseidon’s financial difficulties in its loan documentation is without foundation. It is not the function of the AIDC to make public comment on the affairs of a client company whose situation does not affect the financial position of the Corporation itself.

The AIDC did not advance $250,000 a week to Poseidon. In fact, from January 1976 until after the loan had closed, the AIDC had only advanced a single amount of $ 1 1 7,000 of bridging finance which was subsequently repaid. Now that the company is in receivership, the AIDC is of course providing the Receiver Manager with funds as necessary to maintain contributions to the Windarra development while Poseidon ‘s future is being determined. ‘

Regional Employment Development Scheme (Question No. 990)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) What was the date on which it was decided to discontinue the RED Scheme.
  2. Was the decision taken at Cabinet level; if not, why not.
Mr Street:
LP

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

The previous Government, in the context of its 1975-76 Budget deliberations, decided to provide $I35m for the Regional Empolyment Development Scheme in that year. This necessitated a review of all projects approved after 30 June 1975 and of those approved before that date on which work had not begun. As a result of that review the Ministerial Committee, to whom responsibility for oversighting the Scheme had been delegated, decided on 10 September 1975 that:

the $135m provided in the Budget for the Scheme in 1975-76 should enable all projects already commenced, Le. on which unemployed workers had been engaged, to be continued within their approved financial allocation under the Scheme;

the projects which had not already commenced should proceed now only in the small number of areas experiencing most severe unemployment. In general this would mean a local unemployment rate of twice the national rate;

all other projects previously approved should not be funded, but that claims for any legitimate expenditure of moneys already incurred in relation to these projects would be considered sympathetically and speedily;

no new requests for assistance under the Scheme would be accepted; and

no further cost escalation would be funded on projects other than in the most exceptional circumstances.

Shortly after it assumed office, the present Government, in its review of expenditure for 1975-76, decided that the Budget allocation of $ 135m should not be exceeded and that decisions taken by the former Ministers should continue to be applied.

Legal Aid: Trade Practices Act (Question No. 1163)

Mr Lionel Bowen:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has he authorised any officer of the Australian Public Service under section 170(2) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 to authorise the grant of legal of financial assistance in relation to the proceedings referred to in section 170 ( 1) of that Act.
  2. To what applicants and in what proceedings has legal or financial assistance been (a) granted and (b) refused under section 170 (2) (i) prior to 1 1 November 1975 and (ii) subsequent thereto.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

  1. No.

  2. I do not think it appropriate to make public information about particular applicants for legal aid who are entitled to expect that information supplied would be kept confidential. I would, however, be prepared to make it available to the member, if he wishes, on a confidential basis. I can, however, supply the following information:

    1. I am informed that three applications for fiancial assistance were approved prior to 1 1 November 1975 to enable the applicants to appear before the Trade Practices Commission on the hearing of applications for authorisation under section 88 of the Trade Practices Act of exclusive dealing agreements.

I am informed that applications for financial assistance were approved after 1 1 November 1 975 in respect of the following matters:

  1. To enable the applicant to appear before the Trade Practices Commission on the hearing of an application for authorisation under section 88 of restraint of trade agreements relating to the accreditation of advertising agencies.
  2. To enable the applicant to appear before the Trade Practices Commission on the hearing of an application under section 88 of exclusive dealing arrangements limiting borrowers’ choice of insurance companies for insuring the mortgaged property.
  3. To three applciants to enable them to defend prosecutions instituted by the Trade Practices Commission for an alleged contravention of the restraint of trade provisions (section 45) of the Act
  4. To three applicants to enable them to appeal to the High Court of Australia against a ruling of the Australian Industrial Court on the question of the onus of proof under section 45 (2) of the Act
  5. To enable the applicant to institute an action against a company for damages arising from the termination of a dealership agreement that it is alleged contravened sections 45 and 46 of the Trade Practices Act.
  6. To enable the applicant to institute an action for damages against a company following the termination of a franchise agreement.
  7. To enable the applicant to defend an action for damages for alleged breach of section 46 ( 1 ) (a) and (c) and section 48 of the Act.
  8. To enable the applicant to institute an action for damages arising from alleged breaches of sections 45 and 46 of the Act.
  9. To two applicants to enable them to institute an action against a company arising from an alleged breach of sub-sections 47 (3) and (4) of the Act.
  10. ) To enable the applicant to institute an action for damages against three companies arising from alleged breaches of section 52 of the Act.

I am informed that no applications for financial assistance were refused prior to 11 November 1975. Applications for financial assistance were, I am informed, refused after 11 November 1 975 in respect of the following matters:

  1. To enable the applicant to defend a prosecution by the Trade Practices Commission for an alleged breach of the restraint of trade provision (section 45) of the Act.
  2. To enable the applicant to appear before the Trade Practices Commisiion on the hearing of applications for authorisation under section 88 of the Trade Practices Act of exclusive dealing agreements.
  3. To enable the applicant to institute an action for damages for alleged breaches of the restraint of trade provision (section 45) and the exclusive dealing provision (section 47 ) of the Act.
  4. To enable the applicant to institute an action for damages against a company for alleged misleading and deceptive conduct (section 52(1)) and false representation (section 53(a)(0).
  5. To cover the costs of the applicant at the public hearing of its application for authorisation under section 88 of the Trade Practices Act of exclusive dealing agreements.
  6. f) To cover the costs of an application to the Trade Practices Commission for authorisation or clearance of a mutually exclusive merger proposal between the applicant and another company for the control of a third company.
  7. To cover the applicant’s costs to be incurred in appearing before the Trade Practices Commission on the hearing of applications for authorisation under section 88 of the Act.

Health Insurance Organisations (Question No. 1204)

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

am asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. In which of the organisations registered under the National Health Act as hospital benefits or medical benefits organisations are contributors entitled to vote for the directors of the organisations.
  2. In which of them have there been contested elections of directors in the last year.
  3. What percentage of members voted in the elections of directors.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. to (3) The information requested by the honourable member is not available from Departmental sources. However, my colleague, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, and myself have arranged an examination of, inter alia, the question of consumer representation.

I would expect that, in the course of this examination, as much relevant information as possible will be sought, and if the information sought by the honourable member becomes available, I will be only too happy to provide it for him.

Dual Citizenship for Children of Visitors (Question No. 1220)

Mr Hodges:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice.

  1. 1 ) Are alien expectant mothers coming to Australia on visitors’ visas for confinements in order to gain dual citizenship for their chilren
  2. If so, how many children have gained dual Australian citizenship in this manner during each year since 1970 and with what other countries is this dual citizenship shared.
  3. How many persons who have received dual citizenship in this manner have returned to take up permanent residence in Australia since 19S0.
Mr MacKellar:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. 1 ) There is no record of expectant alien women seeking visitors’ visas in order that their confinements should take place in Australia and there is no provision within visitor policy for applications to be approved if they were made for that purpose. Children have, however, been born in Australia to women- both British and alien- who were granted visitor entry for other purposes.
  2. and (3) No statistics have been maintained.

Exploration and Development of North West Shelf (Question No. 1262)

Mr Hurford:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Which operating companies and holding companies are involved in exploration and development of oil and natural gas on the North West Shelf.
  2. What proportion of the equity and of the voting strength on the boards of each of these companies is held by Australians.
  3. Do the ownership and control arrangements of these companies meet the Government’s foreign investment guidelines.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. I am advised that the registered holders of off-shore petroleum exploration permits on the North West Shelf, in which major discoveries of natural gas have been made and concerning which development proposals are under consideration, are as follows:

BOCAL Pty Ltd,

Woodside Oil NL.,

Mid-Eastern Oil N.L.,

North West Shelf Development Pty Ltd,

BP Petroleum Development Australia Pty Ltd,

California Asiatic Oil Company.

  1. Such information as may be supplied by companies to the Government concerning, among other things, their operations, equity structure and board voting arrangements, is provided on a strictly confidential basis. It would not therefore be appropriate for me to provide details of the information sought by the honourable member.
  2. Proposals by foreign interests to develop the oil and natural gas fields in the North West Shelf are subject to consideration under the Government’s foreign investment policy as outlined by me on 1 April of this year.

Voluntary Advertising Codes (Question No. 1285)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) With reference to question No. 9 1 4, have any or all of the voluntary advertising codes of the various sectors of the liquor industry mentioned in his reply been accepted by the Government.
  2. If not, what is the position with each group.
  3. If so, when will the codes come into practice, and what policing mechanism will be used.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. and (2) Yes. The voluntary code of advertising of alcoholic beverages as dicussed and amended by the Working Party and liquor industry representatives, and subsequently endorsed by the 1976 Health Minister’s Conference, has been accepted by the Government.
  2. The liquor industry has shown itself to be aware of its responsibilities by voluntary acceptance of an advertising code. As the code is voluntary it is not intended that a formal policing mechanism should be established. It is anticipated the Working Party will monitor the code and that there will be regular meetings of the Working Party and liquor industry representatives at which the operation of the code will be discussed.

Interest Rates (Question No. 1303)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the estimated total interest bill paid by Australian citizens and companies in each year since 1970.
  2. What are the dates and details of changes in the interest rates in the same period, and what did each such change cost or save the Australian public.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. Estimated gross interest paid and received by Australian citizens and companies since 1970 were:
  1. There is a multitude of interest rates which affect Australian citizens and companies, and changes in rates are always taking place. Indeed, some very sensitive short-term rates vary from day to day. It is not possible to estimate the effects on interest payments and receipts of changes in interest rates since 1970.

In its monthly Statistical Bulletin the Reserve Bank of Australia publishes details of a wide range of interest rates. Changes to the maximum trading bank overdraft rates provide a broad guide to the general trend in rates since 1 970:

Pharmaceutical Benefits: Cows’ Milk Substitutes (Question No. 1319)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Did he state, in answer to my question No. 635, that the Pharmaceutical Advisory Committee would consider the availability of cows’ milk substitutes as pharmaceutical benefits for the treatment of cows’ milk allergy in children at its next meeting on 24-25 June 1976.
  2. If so, (a) did the Committee meet on those dates; (b), was the matter considered and (c) what was the decision.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (c) The Committee has now recommended that the availability of the cows’ milk substitutes, soya formula, Nutramigen and goats’ milk, as pharmaceutical benefits be amended to include the treatment of cows’ milk allergy in children under the age of two (2) years. This recommendation is to take effect from 1 April 1977.

Defence Services: Supply of Materials and Equipment (Question No. 1332)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What contracts for the supply of materials and equipment to the Defence Services have been placed outside Australia during 1976.
  2. Are there any terms of supply in the tender conditions which would ensure that preference is given to Australian sources of supply.
  3. 3 ) Which contracts let overseas were for goods previously supplied from Australian sources.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) During the first nine months of 1976 some thousands of orders were placed overseas under Co-operative Logistics Agreements and, in addition, more than 8000 contracts were placed overseas commercially.
  2. Where there is a reasonable expectation that Australian goods may be available, suitable quotes are obtained by the Services or tenders are invited by the Department of Administrative Services if the value exceeds $1,000. Where orders are placed directly overseas there are no terms in the tender conditions for the supply of these items which would ensure preference is given to Australian sources of supply, except for the offset provisions in major purchases.
  3. The history of previous suppliers is maintained on an individual item basis and it would be impossible to obtain the information you have requested without a very large manpower effort on the part of all three Services. I am not prepared to authorise that effort, particularly as our purchasing policy is geared to arranging contracts outside Australia without opportunity for Australian industry to tender only when items are not expected to be available from Australian sources to meet Service requirements. Accordingly, it is most improbable that there would prove to be any significant incidence of contracts placed outside Australia for items previously supplied from Australian sources.

Estate Duty (Question No. 1338)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What revenue has been received by the Australian Government from estate duty in each of the last 10 years.
  2. What amount is expected to be received during 1976-77.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Commonwealth estate duty collections in each of the financial years 1966-67 to 1975-76 were as follows:
  1. Collections of estate duty in 1976-77 are estimated at $71,910,000.

Federal Assistance to Local Government Authorities (Question No. 1339)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What was the amount of assistance given by the Australian Government to local government authorities during each of the last 10 years, and what percentage of the annual Federal expenditure was represented by this assistance in each year.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. These figures were extracted from Table l,page 142, 1976-77 Budget Paper No. 1
  2. Figures under this heading were extracted from Chapter V of Payments to or for the States and Local Government Authorities 1 976-77 (Budget Paper No. 7) and from internal Treasury records.
  3. Payments to local government under the Employment Grants Schemes and the REDS scheme are shown separately as this assistance was of a temporary non-recurring nature and was provided for objectives other than those of making funds available for the normal functions of local government.
  4. The percentage figures may not add due to rounding.
  5. Less than 0.0 1 per cent.

New Residence for the Prime Minister (Question No. 1353)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What plans have been made to build a new and adequate residence for the Prime Minister.
  2. ) What site has been set aside for such a building.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. None.
  2. Suitable sites for such a residence are available, the preferred site being in Yarralumla adjacent to Lake Burley Griffin.

Matters relating to the residence of the Prime Minister are within the scope of the newly-appointed Committee on Official Establishments and I would not want to pre-empt any recommendations they make on the subject.

Costs of Overseas Travel (Question No. 1375)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Has there been any change in the method of allocating costs associated with the overseas travel of:

The Prime Minister and

Ministers since the present Government took office.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. No.

Aboriginal Employment at Garden Point (Question No. 1398)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Was Aboriginal employment at the Garden Point community on Melville Island reduced from the present level of 40 to 19 as from 3 1 October 1976.
  2. As stated by the President of the Garden Point Council, is this due to their reduced budget allocation; if so, what is the reason for the reduction when he gave his personal assurances to the Aboriginal community on 30 June 1976 and repeated it on 19 August 1976 that levels of Aboriginal employment would be maintained.
  3. Did a meeting of the entire Garden Point community on 19 October 1976 pass a resolution condemning the Government for misleading the people and making untrue promises.
  4. Will he consult with the Minister for Social Security to have the waiting period for unemployment benefits waived for those persons to be retrenched, and will he give an undertaking to other Aboriginal communities throughout

Australia that no other communities will be treated in the same manner.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. and (2) No. The Garden Point Council decided that it would have to reduce the level of employment from 3 1 October if no additional funds could be made available. The Council was notified that further allocations were to be made and was asked to maintain employment levels. I understand that the threatened reductions in employment have not been made.
  2. Yes.
  3. See answer to ( 1 ) and (2 ).

Committee on Care of the Aged and the Infirm (Question No. 1407)

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

am asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Has the Government set up a Committee of Inquiry into the care of the aged and the infirm comprising Mr Austin Holmes, Dr Sidney Sax, Mr Neil Hyden and Mr Keith Medbury.
  2. When was the committee appointed.
  3. What are its terms of reference.
  4. When will it report.
Mr Fraser:
Prime Minister · WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (4) See my answer to Question No. 1 189 (Hansard, 2 November 1976, p. 2254).

Taxation on Children’s Income (Question No. 1408)

Mr Hurford:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that, with the abolition of dependant taxation claims, children can now earn over $2,500 without increasing their parents’ or guardians’ net income tax, and that many families have transferred investments and investment income into discretionary trusts so that their children can earn the income from these investments.
  2. How many high income families will receive a double benefit from this generous provision in the Government’s family allowances program.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Income derived by a child, whether directly or through a trust, may be taxed to the child, or, in the case of trust income to which a minor child is presently entitled, to the trustee, and does not directly affect the tax payable by the child’s parents or guardians. Because of the general concessional rebate for resident individuals, no tax was payable for the 1975-76 income year by a child whose taxable income was less than $2,519 or by a trustee where the income to which a minor child was presently entitled was less than $2,519. With indexation, the corresponding tax threshhold for the 1 976-77 income year is $2,846.

Prior to the 1976-77 income year the concessional deduction or rebate to which a parent was entitled for the maintenance of a child was reduced on a sliding scale, and the tax payable by the parent thus increased, where the separate net income of the child exceeded a specified level. This was $ 150 in1975-76 and the $200 rebate for a student, for example, was eliminated entirely when the student’s separate income reached $950. As from I July 1976 the replacement of rebates for dependent children by increased family allowances means that a child’s separate income can no longer affect, by way of reduction in concessional rebates, the amount of tax payable by the parent or guardian. I understand, however, that in determining eligibility for payment of family allowance in respect of a student child aged between 18 and 25 years, the amount of income of the student is taken into account in deciding whether the student is dependent on the claimant.

Information to answer the other questions asked by the honourable member is not available.

Expected Deficit (Question No. 1410)

Mr Hurford:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) In view of the deficit on the first 3 month’s financial transactions by the Government of $2,276m compared with the budgeted deficit of $2,608m, what is the level of the deficit now expected for 1 976-77.
  2. If there is any change in the expected deficit, what factors are influencing this revision.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The honourable member should be aware that it is not possible to reach firm conclusions about the likely deficit for the year as a whole on the basis of figures for the first few months only. At the very least it is important to look at the movements in outlays and receipts and to take account of any special factors bearing upon those movements.

Figures are now available for the first four months of 1976-77 and show a deficit of $2,859m, compared with the budgeted estimate for the year of $2,608m. However, an examination of the figures shows that outlays in the four months to October were 10.6 per cent higher than in the corresponding months a year earner, this rate of increase is marginally below the Budget estimate of an increase of 1 1.3 per cent for the year as a whole. Movements in outlays throughout the year are affected by the incidence of pay-days and other ‘lumpy’ transactions, but movements to date are broadly in line with the Budget estimate.

It is the slow rate of growth of receipts- relative to the Budget estimate- which is responsible for the large deficit to date; total receipts in the four months to October were 1 1.0 per cent higher than in the corresponding months a year earlier, which compares with the Budget estimate of an increase of 18.8 per cent for the year as a whole. The relatively low increase in the most recent period, however, was largely a reflection of the fact that there was no quarterly collection of company tax in the first four months of this year.

Because of the marked seasonal pattern in collections of tax from companies and non-PAYE individuals, further sizeable monthly deficits can be expected before the accounts swing into surplus next March or April.

  1. ) The Budget estimates are subject to many assumptions and influences and it is inevitable that a number of revisions -in both directions-will be called for as the year progresses. At this time, however, there is no reason to believe that the outcome for the deficit will be substantially different from the Budget estimate of $2,608m.

Investment Allowance: Effect on Employment (Question No. 1412)

Mr Hurford:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Has his Department made any attempt to study the effect of the investment allowance on employment creation.
  2. If not, does the Department plan to conduct or commission research on this issue.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Initially the effects on employment arise from the construction and operation of additional plant. In general, the investment allowance increases the return to the investor from the plant and makes it more likely that he would undertake the investment. The resultant higher level of investment activity does, of course, contribute to the process of economic recovery.

As to quantifying the employment effects of the investment allowance, the honourable member would know that it is not possible to differentiate in practice between the employment-creating effects of each of the many influences affecting employment in a dynamic economy. It is clear from the foregoing, however, that the allowance has both an initial and a continuing impact on employment.

  1. The Treasury will continue to keep all aspects of the operation and effectiveness of the allowance under review. There are no plans to commission research on this issue.

Australian Wool Corporation: Market Support Fund (Question No. 1418)

Mr Porter:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. What is the purpose of the Market Support Fund maintained by the Australian Wool Corporation.
  2. How is the Fund financed.
  3. Are records of individual growers’ levy payments maintained; if so, for how long are these records kept.
  4. What is the present balance of the Fund, and what would be the possible state of the Fund if the Corporation was to sell its entire stockpile of wool in 1976 at current market prices.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. 1 ) The primary purpose of the Fund is to meet any losses incurred as a result of maintaining the reserve price operations at wool auctions since the floor price policy was introduced in the 1974-75 season. Until the scheme is terminated it is provided that any money standing to the credit of the Fund may be used by the Australian Wool Corporation for the purchase of wool in the performance of its functions or in the payment of advances to growers, the marketing of whose wool has been delayed by reason of the exercise of the powers and functions of the Corporation, or it may be invested.
  2. 2 ) The Fund is financed by a tax of 5 per cent on the gross sales value of shorn wool sold. In addition, there is payable into the Fund any income derived from the investment of money standing to the credit of the Fund; interest received on advances to growers; interest on moneys standing to the credit of the Fund and used by the Corporation for the purchase of wool.
  3. Yes. The Australian Wool Corporation receives information from the Commissioner of Taxation and arrangements have been made by the Corporation with the National Council of Wool-Selling Brokers of Australia for each broker to maintain a full record of tax deducted from account sales. Private buyers of wool and other dealers provide the Corporation with monthly lists of their transactions containing an identification of names and addresses of growers with whom they deal in wool. These records will be maintained until a decision is taken on the disposal of any final balance remaining to the credit of the Fund.
  4. The balance of the Market Support Fund at 31 October 1976 was approximately $36.5m. A hypothetical assessment of the possible state of the Fund, if the Corporation was able to sell the entire stockpile of wool it had purchased under the stockpile arrangement, at current market prices, requires a range of further assumptions to be made. The question therefore requests an answer to a set of hypothetical circumstances. If the Corporation were to sell the total inventory before the end of 1976 at current prices, the credit balance in the Fund would be possibly of the order of $90m. Assuming, in addition, the continuation of the existing wool tax until June 1977, the revenue from the wool taxplus interest earned on money standing to the credit of the Fund could produce a hypothetical balance of some $135m by 30 June 1976.

Aircraft Movements at Brisbane Airport (Question No. 1420)

Mr Jull:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many aircraft movements, by aircraft type, were there at Brisbane Airport during each of the years 1974-75 and 1975-76?
  2. What revenue did these movements represent to the Commonwealth, by way of landing charges?
  3. Which international airlines used Brisbane Airport in 1974- 75 and 1975-76, and what were the total movements by each airline?
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. Statistics for aircraft movements by aircraft type for Brisbane Airport during each of the years 1974-75 and 1975- 76 are as follows:
  1. Air navigation charges for domestic airline scheduled operations are levied on a flight basis and the charge covers both the use of airport facilities at each end of theflight and the use of en route navigation aids and communications services. A flight charge also applies to international operations, but this again covers en route and communications services as well as the use of the Australian airport facilities. There is no simple method of separating the component parts of the charge for scheduled airline services, but it is estimated that airline payments for landings and take-offs at Brisbane in 1975-76 amounted to $4. 9m. Charges for general aviation aircraft are in the form of an annual fee. No estimate can be made of the revenue from these charges which is attributable to the use by these aircraft of Brisbane Airport.
  2. International Airlines using Brisbane Airport and total movements by each airline:

Purchase of Livestock for Foreign Aid Projects (Question No. 1246)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. What are the procedures for the purchase of livestock, particularly dairy cattle, for foreign aid programs such as the sheep and cattle projects at Hissar in India.
  2. What requirements are there to ensure that superior quality breeding stock are purchased, and that this assessment is genetically sound.
  3. What procedures are there to check these requirements.
  4. Are contracts let to purchasing agents purely on a commercial basis.
  5. Has he considered the use of breed societies or expert organisations, such as the Victorian Artificial Breeders Society, in the place of private agents.
  6. Has consideration been given to the use of proven semen at the Hissar cattle station in place of unproven pedigree bulls.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. The purchase of livestock for Australian foreign aid projects is carried out under normal Government purchasing procedures in accordance with Treasury Regulations and Directions. Public tenders for the supply of animals to specifications provided are called, or agreed to, by the recipient government Tenders received are evaluated by suitably qualified livestock officers of government instrumentalities appointed by the Australian Development Assistance Agency for the purpose. Tenderers offering stock which meet the specifications are visited by the livestock officers where the nominated stock is inspected.

Recommendations for purchase, based on the conformity of the stock to the specifications and on relative price, are then considered by a tender board which selects the most appropriate tender. Contracts are issued accordingly.

  1. Tender specifications, as agreed with the recipient government, state the breed, type, quality, pedigree, age and condition of the stock required. Pedigrees are established through records held by the appropriate breed societies and all stock purchased are physically examined before acceptance for shipment
  2. See answers ( 1 ) and (2) above.
  3. No. See answer ( 1 ) above.
  4. Discussions are being held with the breed societies to agree upon a basis for their more active participation in the selection and examination of breeding stock.

  5. The Hissar Cattle Project in India was developed for two reasons:

    1. to develop a herd of cattle from which progeny tested bulls could be bred for distribution to selected State farms throughout India; and
    2. to use proven semen from Australia to maintain the breeding strength of the foundation herd supplied from Australia.

At the Hissar Project, there exists the largest herd of exotic cattle (Jersey and friesian) in India. To maintain the standard of the breeding herd it is intended to use a balance between natural service and artificial insemination using semen from top progeny tested bulls in Australia.

Purchase of Aid Items (Question No. 1247)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When a request is made by an Australian foreign aid team for a replacement part or for new or additional machinery, through which Government Departments is the request processed before the item is finally dispatched.
  2. Has there been criticism of undue delay in the fulfilment of these requests or orders.
  3. Have simple replacement parts sometimes been delayed for months because of cumbersome departmental procedures.
  4. Are purchase procedures sufficiently flexible to allow foreign aid teams to purchase equipment, vehicles or tractors in the recipient country rather than Australia when it is obvious that the initial purchase and /or the provision of replacement parts is more efficiently obtained in that country.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. When a request is received for a replacement part or for new or additional machinery for an Australian aid project overseas which is managed directly by the Australian Development Assistance Agency (ADAA), the request is processed and the item procured and dispatched by the Agency. In cases where another Government Department or instrumentality is acting on behalf of ADAA in the management of an aid project then that Department or instrumentality is empowered by ADAA to procure and dispatch the required item(s).

  2. 2 ) Yes, from time to time there is criticism of delays in the fulfilment of requests. Delays have most commonly been the result of:

    1. inadequate specifications on the part of the recipient government agency or project authority;
    2. the inability of Australian manufacturers or suppliers to meet contracted delivery times;
    3. the infrequency of sailings of vessels from Australia to certain overseas ports;
    4. the time-consuming customs clearance procedures of some recipient countries.
  3. As with other Australian Government purchasing authorities ADAA’s purchasing procedures must meet the requirements of the Audit Act and Treasury Regulations and Directions. Delays in providing replacement parts are more often due to the reasons given in (2 ) above.
  4. The Australian aid program is essentially a grant program under which Australian-produced equipment is normally made available to developing countries at no cost to them. Such gifts include spare parts where necessary. Minor items of equipment may be purchased by aid teams within the recipient country. In special circumstances major equipment may be purchased from non-Australian sources including those in recipient countries.

Export of Mineral Sand: Fraser Island (Question No. 1260)

Dr Cass:

asked the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

  1. 1) On what date was the last contract for the export of mineral sand by Queensland Titanium Mines Pty Ltd approved by his Department, and what quantity was involved.
  2. In view of the findings of the First Report of the Fraser Island Environmental Inquiry, which reported on 1 December 1975, was the contract referred to him or to Cabinet.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1) and (2) As announced to the Parliament by the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development on 10 November, the Government has reviewed in detail the findings and recommendations of the final report of the Fraser Island Environmental Inquiry and has decided that the export of minerals extracted from Fraser Island, other than from below high water mark on the beach south of Indian Head, should be phased out and export should not be permitted for minerals mined after 3 1 December 1 976.

Staffing of Nuclear Reactor Plant: Lucas Heights (Question No. 1264)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What was the staff component at the nuclear reactor plant at Lucas Heights on (a) 30 June 1976, (b) 30 June 1974 and (c) 30 June 1972.
  2. What was the turnover of staff at the plant in (a) 1975-76,(b) 1973-74 and (c 1971-72.
  3. What was the cost of maintaining the reactor in (a) 1975-76, (b) 1973-74 and (c) 1971-72.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. (a) on 30.6.76-70
  1. It is assumed that the question refers to the cost of maintaining the reactor in an operating condition, including the cost of replacement fuel and salaries and overheads of the staff required to operate the reactor.

Australian Atomic Energy Commission: Training of Scientists (Question No. 1291)

Mr Garrick:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

  1. Are Australian scientists being sponsored by the Atomic Energy Commission to receive training in the United States of America in general nuclear technology.
  2. If so, does this training include the processing of nuclear power and the manufacture of plutomom which can be usedin atomic bombs.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. The Australian Atomic Energy Commission has one research scientist attached to the Stanford Research Institute in the United States of America undertaking research into applications of radioisotopes. No other Australian scientist is being sponsored by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission for training in the U.S.A.
  2. No.

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Question No. 1311)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

What is the reason for the inordinate delay that has occurred between the date on which Australia signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the date on which the Covenant was ratified.

Mr Peacock:
LP

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

Australia signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on 18 December 1972 and ratified it on 10 December 1975: the delay in ratifying the Covenant thus took place under the previous Government. I am informed that the Covenant was not ratified earlier because it had been suggested that both the Interantional Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights should be ratified at the same time. I am further informed that when it was decided not to pursue the original proposal to implement the terms of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in legislation, it was thought desirable to ratify the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights at that stage and examine, separately, what domestic problems were required to be overcome to make it possible for Australia to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Member for Bradfield- Visit to Rhodesia (Question No. 1325)

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

am asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it in keeping with Australia’s obligations under the United Nations’ sanctions for a Member or officials of the Australian Government to visit Southern Rhodesia.
  2. On what date did the Member for Bradfield leave Australia to travel to the Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference in Madrid.
  3. On what dates did the Member enter and leave Southern Rhodesia.
  4. On what date and by what means did the Government learn, as the Acting Minister wrote to me on 7 October 1 976, that the Member would be visiting Southern Rhodesia.
  5. On what type of passport or travel document did the Member travel to Southern Rhodesia (Hansard, 7 October 1976, page 1619).
Mr Peacock:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. In compliance with Australia’s obligation under the United Nations Security Council resolutions, successive Australian Governments have adhered to a policy of refraining from all official dealings with the Rhodesian regime. It would, therefore, not seem to be in keeping with such a policy for Ministers or members of the Commonwealth Public Service to visit Southern Rhodesia in any official capacity. This does not mean, however, that backbench members of any party in the Parliament, acting in their personal capacity, should not visit Southern Rhodesia to gain information on the situation there;
  2. 9September1976;
  3. 14 September- 15 September 1976;
  4. Mr Connolly advised my office in person on 6 September 1976;
  5. 5 ) Ordinary Australian passport.

Diplomatic Representation (Question No. 1346)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

In which overseas countries does Australia not have its own diplomatic presence, diplomatic representation by some other country or a representative of the Trade Commissioner Service.

Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Australia does not have resident diplomatic presence in the member States of the United Nations listed in the lefthand column of the following table. It is, however, represented by the dual accreditation of Heads of Mission resident in the countries indicated in the right-hand column.
  1. The Australian Ambassador resident in Beirut was accredited to Jordan and Syria, as well as to Lebanon. This remains formally the case, although the Australian Embassy in Beirut has suspended operations for safety reasons. Australian representation in the Middle East is currently being reviewed. In the meantime an immigration task force has been set up within the Australian High Commission in Nicosia to handle inquiries which would previously have been dealt with by the Australian Embassy in Beirut.
  2. Australia has not arranged diplomatic accreditation to those member States of the United Nations listed in the lefthand column of the following table. However, to the extent that their resources permit, the Australian diplomatic missions in the countries listed in the right-hand column fulfil certain visiting, reporting and consular responsibilities in respect of those member States.
  1. Australia is not represented diplomatically by any other country, although in certain countries British representatives perform consular functions on behalf of Australia.

Off-Shore Petroleum Exploration Permits: Timor Sea (Question No. 1363)

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

am asked the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What exploration permits for petroleum or production licences for petroleum have the (a) Australian, (b) Western Australian and (c) Portuguese Governments purported to grant over parts of the seabed which lie (i) closer to the coast of Timor than the coast of Australia and/or (ii) to the northward of a straight line commencing at the point of Latitude 9° 28’ South, Longitude 127° 56’ East and ending at the point of Latitude 10° 28 ‘South, Longitude 126° 00 ‘East.
  2. What was the date and period of each grant, and to whom was it made.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. and (2) There are currently five off-shore petroleum exploration permits granted under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 which lie, in part, closer to the coast of Timor than the coast of Australia. Pan of one of these permits (NT/P8) lies marginally northward of the straight line described by the honourable member. Four of the permits were granted under the Commonwealth

Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act and the other was granted jointly under the Commonwealth Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act and Western Australian Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act The permit numbers, the registered permit holders and the dates of renewal of each permit are shown below. Each permit was granted for an initial six-year term in 1969 and all have been renewed for five years.

I am not in a position to say with certainty what titles the Portuguese Government may have purported to grant in the areas referred to by the honourable member. However, I am aware that by Decree No.25/74of31 January 1974 the Portuguese Government purported to grant a petroleum concession that included part of the seabed closer to the coast of Timor than the coast of Australia and on both sides of the straight line referred to.

East Timor (Question No. 1403)

Mr Garrick:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is the Government considering barring Fretilin leaders from Australia and stopping Telecom from receiving and disseminating Fretilin messages from inside East Timor.
  2. If so, is this action an outgrowth of fear of instability in South East Asia.
  3. Does he see any parallels with this sort of thinking now, and that which led Australia into the war in Vietnam.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. Any application for entry to Australia made by any member of the party known as Fretilin, will be considered when it is lodged. Any questions concerning Telecom’s responsibility for handling messages received by it are the responsibility of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications.
  2. ) In the light of my answer to part ( 1 ) of this question, (2) is not relevant
  3. No.

Government Medical Research Grants (Question No. 1498)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What is his attitude to the criticism that cancer and heart disease are receiving too high a percentage of medical research grants to the detriment of other areas, particularly basic biological research.
  2. What is the category allocation of current Government medical research grants.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Medical research is supported by the Commonwealth Government through the National Health and Medical Research Council which has an overall interest in supporting all types of high-quality medical research. It would be an oversimplification of the position to say, as far as NH and MRC support is concerned, that cancer and heart disease receive more support than basic biological research. Firstly, the principal criterion used to determine support is high scientific merit and, secondly, research in a great may intances covers both basic and applied areas. Thus, while a project may be generally related to cancer, it could be heavily oriented towards basic biological research or, alternatively, while having a strong clinical emphasis, it could also extend basic knowledge.

All applications for project grant support are evaluated by a peer review system and the Council’s Medical Research Advisory Committee before being recommended for support Only projects of the highest scientific merit attract support.

  1. The following information shows the break-up of initial applications approved for 1977 support.

Construction of New Barrier on German Borders (Question No. 1547)

Mr Abel:
EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to a report on page 6 of the Age of 5 October 1976, headlined ‘Reds Plan a Wall to Seal Germany’, which detailed moves by the East German Government to extend and reinforce ‘the wall’ surrounding that country.
  2. Can he say if the East German Government is acting in this way; if so, to what extent.
  3. Over what percentage, and for how many kilometres, of its borders does East Germany maintain its ‘wall ‘.
  4. Between East Germany and what other countries does this ‘wall ‘stand.
  5. How many persons are known to have lost their lives at the borders in attempting to (a) leave and (b) enter East Germany since World war II.
  6. What is the official explanation given by the East German Government for the maintenance and expansion of its wall’ which consists of a wire mesh fence, trip wires, remote controlled mines, an anti-vehicular trap, a soft-earth strip and special motor cycle tracks.
  7. 7 ) What is the real reason for ‘ the wall ‘.
Mr Peacock:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. Yes.
  2. Articles in the Western Press have reported the construction of a new barrier on the border between the German Democratic Republic (GDR) and the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). This construction is said to be the fourth barrier to be raised along the border since World War II. It is understood that work on this barrier began in April 1976 and is now about two-thirds completed.
  3. The new barrier extends over approximately 1346 km of the GDR’s total borders which is about 60 per cent of the total GDR frontier with other countries.
  4. The barrier currently being erected stands on the border between the GDR and the FRG. There is also a barrier separating West Berlin from the territory of the GDR.
  5. Figures on the number of people who have left the GDR illegally since 1945 vary from source to source. One source claims that over 3 million GDR citizens have left the country illegally since 1949, and that 173 people have lost their lives attempting to leave the GDR for West Germany or West Berlin since the construction of the Berlin Wall in 1961. Other sources put the figure of deaths at between 200 and 500 people. No cases are known of people losing their lives attempting to enter the GDR illegally, although many arrests of ‘ illegal immigrants’ have been made by the GDR authorities. A recent case involved the arrest of a West Berliner who ran across the border waving a black flag in protest at the action of GDR border guards m shooting down a would-be defector at the Berlin Wall.
  6. The official GDR explanation for the barrier between the GDR and the FRG is that it is a normal border installation on the border between sovereign States, and that the controls exercised at the border are normal controls exercised by any sovereign State on its frontiers. The GDR claims that the barriers have been erected to protect its territorial integrity and to prevent incursion into the GDR by militaristic and revanchist elements’ from the West and to prevent the luring of GDR citizens to the West with ‘propaganda ‘ and ‘ false promises ‘.
  7. The barriers between the GDR and the FRG were established after the illegal departure of almost 2.5 million people from the GDR for the FRG. After the border with the FRG had been effectively sealed, the main departure point became West Berlin and in August 1961 construction began on a wall to seal off West Berlin from the territory of the GDR. This reduced the flow of illegal departures substantially. As the total population has declined since the creation of the GDR, the authorities there obviously feel it necessary to maintain an effective control over emigration from the country.

Asian Development Fund (Question No. 1586)

Mr Hurford:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

In relation to the Asian Development Fund, did the Government decide in August 1976 to untie the outstanding balance of our multi-purpose special funds contribution so that it could be transferred to the Asian Development Fund, or had the Government already stated its intentions by March 1976 when the Asian Development Bank published its Annual Report which indicated that this was so.

Mr Peacock:
LP

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

This matter was first considered by the Government in August 1976 when it decided to accept the commitment implied in a statement by the then Treasurer of the previous Government in an address to the Bank ‘s Board of Governors in April 1975. The reference in the Asian Development Bank’s Annual Report 1975 to Australia’s decision to untie its contribution was based on the statement by the previous Treasurer.

Motor Vehicles at Overseas Missions (Question No. 1313)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the (a) number and (b) make of each motor vehicle attached to each Australian overseas mission.
  2. What was the amount paid by each mission for extra transport costs for the years ended 30 June 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) See table which follows (2 ).
  2. The intended purport of ‘extra transport costs’ is not precisely clear. From time to time when needs arise that cannot be met by official vehicles, missions hire cars. It is not possible, however, to identify expenditure for this purpose. It is charged to the mission’s travel vote together with such other costs as leave fares, meal and travel allowances for Australia-based and locally-engaged staff, and travel of Australia-based officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs within the country of posting.

Community Health Centres (Question No. 983)

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

am asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many community health centres were operating in each State with Australian Government assistance on (a) 30 June 1973, (b) 31 December 1975 and (c) 30 June 1976.
  2. What was the total number of staff employed in these centres in each State on those dates.
  3. How many centres were under construction in each State with Australian Government assistance on those dates.
  4. How many centres, other than those under construction, had been allocated funds by the Australian Government but were not yet operating in each State on those dates.
  5. How many centres will be operating in each State with Australian Government assistance on 30 June 1977.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

For the purpose of answering this question, a ‘community health centre is defined as a community located facility which has the characteristics of a general health service as distinct from a specialised service (e.g. mental health, alcoholism), which provides two or more categories of service (e.g. medical, nursing, therapy, counselling), and which may or may not provide general practitioner services.

The following information has been provided or confirmed by the relevant State health authorities:

1 Includes eight projects which, at 30 June 1 976, were providing services from temporary premises, pending completion of construction of permanent premises and six projects which, since 30 June 1976, have been co-located with other community health projects.

Includes six projects which, at 30 June 1976, were providing services from temporary premises pending completion of construction of permanent premises. 1 Includes one project which, since 30 June 1976, has ceased operations. 4 Includes two projects which, at 30 June 1976, were providing services from temporary premises pending completion of construction of permanent premises. 1 Includes one project which, since 30 June 1976, has ceased operations.

Includes three projects which, at 30 June 1 976, were providing services from temporary premises pending completion of permanent premises.

  1. 30 June 1977: New South Wales, 207; Victoria, 41; Queensland, 21; South Australia, 17; Western Australia, 7; Tasmania, 8.

Applications under the Child Care Act (Question No. 1130)

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

am asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

How many applications under the Child Care Act have been approved m local government areas in each category defined in the report of the Priorities Review Staff tabled on 30 July 1974 as at (a) 30 June 1975, (b) 3 1 December 1975 and (c) 30 June 1976.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question.

The Priorities Review Staff Report on Early Childhood Services tabled on 30 July 1 974 refers to ‘ a scheme for classifying local government areas according to need’ developed by the Social Welfare Commission, and went on to give some examples of local government areas for the three categories of highest priority as put forward in that scheme.

The table below sets out by State and by time period of the initial approval related to each particular centre, the number of centres approved for assistance under the Child Care Act 1972 in each of the three categories of highest priority of the five-point rating scale developed by the Social Welfare Commission.

In all, 232 child care centres have been approved for capital and /or recurrent assistance under the Child Care Act to date. Of these five are in the Australian Capital Territory and three in the Northern Territory.

The 101 other centres or proposed other centres in the States for which capital and/or recurrent grants have been approved are located in local government areas of a higher socio-economic category than those specified in the above table.

In this regard, three points are made: the socio-economic category rating is a broad scheme that does not specifically identify pockets of need in otherwise relatively affluent areas; the placement of child care centres needs to take into account such factors as major transport routes and thus convenience to clients who may not necessarily live in the immediate area of the centre; a number of centres being assisted under the Child Care Act existed before that legislation was enacted.

The honourable member’s attention is drawn to the situation that assistance has also been made available outside the provisions of the Child Care Act 1972, both through the States and directly to organisations for the establishment and/or operation of multifunctional and integrated projects providing a range of care and developmental services for children, including full and part-time day care and outside school hours care.

Pre-School Teachers: Salaries (Question No. 1131)

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

am asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. How much was paid to each State for pre-school teachers ‘ salaries in 1 975-76.
  2. What is the estimated total payment to each State for pre-school teachers ‘salaries in 1976-77.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question.

  1. Recurrent support forpre-school education services under the Commonwealth Government’s Children’s Services Program is directed towards the salary costs of both pre-school teachers and assistants. Grants for pre-school education also contribute to the support of play centres and toddlers’ groups, where staff are employed, and pre-school advisers.

State authorities are responsible for the detailed disbursement of the bulk of the moneys provided for these purposes, and the Commonwealth does not have details of the proportion of these grant moneys paid towards pre-school teachers’ salaries as distinct from other staff categories.

Payments to the States from the 1975-76 appropriations for support for staff in pre-school services, including play centres, toddlers’ groups and advisers, were as follows:

Payments made directly to organisations in 1975-76 for recurrent assistance for pre-schoolservices were:

  1. The estimated payments by the Commonwealth in 1976-77 in respect of recurrent assistance to pre-school services as outlined in the answer to ( 1 ) above, are:

National Sewerage Program (Question No. 1150)

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

am asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

  1. Who have been appointed to carry out the urgent review of the National Sewerage Program announced by the Acting Minister on 20 May 1976 (Hansard, 17 August 1976, page 205).
  2. When were they appointed.
  3. 3 ) What are their terms of reference.
  4. When will they report
Mr Newman:
Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development · BASS, TASMANIA · LP

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

  1. to (4) An Interdepartmental Committee comprising representatives of Prime Minister and Cabinet (Chairman), Treasury and Environment, Housing and Community Development was established immediately before the Acting Minister’s announcement. The IDC Report has been considered by the Government and decisions will be announced in due course.

Meat Exports to United States of America (Question No. 1293)

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Was the Mackey Marketing Scheme adopted by the Australian Meat Board at the meeting on 23 September 1976.
  2. ) What was the share of the United States market served by Australian exports which was gained by exports from (a) New South Wales, (b) Victoria, (c) Queensland, (d) Tasmania, and (e) Northern Territory in 1 975-76.
  3. Having regard to the proposed allocations of quotas by the Australian Meat Board according to the Mackey Scheme, the seasonality of exports from certain parts of Australia, and the Mackey proposals to allocate quotas on selected market destinations on the 1975-76 performance, what would be the quotas awarded to (a) Tasmania and (b) Queensland for 1976-77.
  4. If inequities occur in the award of quotas for 1976-77 compared with 1975-76, has the Board the power to recommend alterations.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The scheme referred to was considered by the Australian Meat Board at its meeting on 23 September 1976 and was subsequently approved by me on the recommendation of the Board.

  2. Australian Meat Board figures show that Australia’s exports to the United States in 1975-76 were shared among the States as follows:

    1. New South Wales 26.9 per cent.
    2. Victoria 22.4 percent.
    3. Queensland 35.3 percent.
    4. Tasmania 3.5 percent.
    5. South Australia and Northern Territory 4.5 per cent. (Separate details for the Northern Territory are not available for publication. )
  3. Entitlements to ship meat to the United States are not distributed on a State basis. Entitlements are earned by licensed exporters based on their past export performance. It is a matter for individual exporters to decide from which of their works they will ship if they have works in more than one State.
  4. Yes.

Assistance to Investors (Question No. 1343)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Productivity, upon notice:

What sums have been expended by the Australian Government on inventors advisory schemes in the last 10 years, and what follow up assistance has been provided.

Mr Macphee:
Minister for Productivity · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · LP

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

Since 1968-69 the Commonwealth has provided annual grants to the Inventors ‘ Association of Australia, a non-profit organisation which provides private investors who are members of the Association with free advice and guidance in the development of new ideas. These payments have taken the form of base grants, and grants which’ match ‘ contributions to the Association from other sources up to an annual limit. Payments made to the Association are as follows:

In October 1974 the Assistance to Inventors Scheme was also introduced to assist private Australian inventors in the development of worthwhile new concepts. The scheme provides grants of up to $10,000 to individuals for the purpose of assisting them with the further development of their inventions, whether by the inventor himself or by other bodies carrying out work on his behalf. Since the commencement of the scheme, grants totalling $45,8 16 to 10 inventors have been approved.

In addition to direct financial assistance to inventors, a great deal of technical and commercial assistance has been provided by the Australian Inventions Advisory Committee and advisory panels of the Committee which have been established in all States. The Committee and its panels are now chaired and serviced by the Department of Productivity. This work was previously handled by the Department of Industry and Commerce.

Assistance has taken the form of arranging the testing of prototypes, and the provision of advice on possible sources of investment capital and market outlets.

Expenditure on Education (Question No. 1344)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) What was the Federal expenditure in each of the following areas during each of the last 20 years: (a) primary schools, (b ) secondary schools and (c) tertiary institutions.
  2. What was the per capita expenditure in each area in each of those years.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2)I refer the honourable member to the following publications for available information:

Budget Paper No. 7: Payments to or for the States and Local Government Authorities 1975-76, 1976-77.

Budget Papers Nos 2 and 3: Appropriation Acts (No. l),(No.2)for all relevant years.

Australian Bureau of Statistics annual publications:

Expenditure on Education- Reference No. 5.44

Public Authority Finance- Reference No. 5. 12

Schools- Reference No. 13.5

University Statistics Part 1-Reference No. 13.7

Colleges of Advanced Education- Reference No. 1 3. 1 0

Reports of the Universities Commission, the Commission on Advanced Education, the Schools Commission and the Technical and Further Education Commission.

Sewerage Reticulation Works (Question No. 1354)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

  1. What Federal funds were provided for sewerage reticulation works in each State in each of the years 1965-66 to 1975-76.
  2. What amount is provided for sewerage reticulation works in each of the States in the Budget for 1 976-77.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1965-66 to 1972-73: Nil. 1973-74: New South Wales $9.7m; Victoria $3.3m; Queensland $1.0m; South Australia SI. 6m; Western Australia $2.7m; Tasmania Nil.

From 1974-75 onwards. Commonwealth financial assistance to State sewerage is of a ‘total program ‘ nature with the Commonwealth allocating specific amounts to Authorities to assist their total programs of approved sewerage works comprehending sewerage reticulation, trunk sewers and treatment plants. The exact amount of Commonwealth funds spent on sewerage reticulation works in each State is not available to my Department.

  1. Information not available as explained in part ( 1 ).

Area Improvement Program: Queensland (Question No. 1366)

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

am asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Which were the 4 projects awaiting approval under the Area Improvement Program in Queensland at 31 December 1975 (Hansard, 14 October 1976, page 1929).
  2. Which of these projects will receive assistance in 1976-77.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. A schedule of projects awaiting approval at 31 December 1975 is attached.
  2. A decision on programs and projects in the community development area will be reached after examination of the report of the Task Force on Co-ordination in Welfare and Health which is expected to be available to the Government in November 1976.

Area Improvement Program: Victoria (Question No. 1367)

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

am asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

Which were the 8 projects awaiting approval under the Area Improvement Program in Victoria at 31 December 1975 (Hansard, 14 October 1976, page 1929).

Mr Newman:
LP

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

A schedule of projects awaiting approval at 3 1 December 1975 appears below.

Area Improvement Program: South Australia (Question No. 1368)

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

am asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

Which were the 14 projects awaiting approval under the Area Improvement Program in South Australia at 31 December 1975 (Hansard, 14 October 1976, page 1929).

Mr Newman:
LP

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

A schedule of projects awaiting approval at 31 December 1975 appears below.

Area Improvement Program: Western Australia (Question No. 1369)

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

am asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

Which were the 5 projects awaiting approval under the Area Improvement Program in Western Australia at 31 December 1975 (Hansard, 14 October 1976, page 1929).

Mr Newman:
LP

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

A schedule of projects awaiting approval at 31 December 1975 appears below.

Australian Manufacturing Industry (Question No. 1381)

Mr Fry:

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

  1. 1 ) Do figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that foreign control of Australian manufacturing industry increased from 28.7 per cent in 1966-67 to 34.3 per cent in 1 972-73, an increase of almost 6 per cent in 6 years.
  2. If so, has this increase continued during the subsequent period to 1976.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. Figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that foreign control of Australian manufacturing industry increased from 28.7 per cent of the value of total manufacturing production in 1966-67 to 34.3 per cent of manufacturing value added in 1972-73. However, the Bureau has stressed that because of changes in definitions the statistics for the two years are not strictly comparable and should be taken only as a broad approximation of changes in the level of foreign control.
  2. ) No data is available on changes in the extent of foreign control in manufacturing since 1972-73 but it is considered unlikely that any significant changes have occurred.

Imports of Buses and Coaches (Question No. 1383)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. How many (a) new and (b) second-hand buses and coaches were imported into Australia during the last 2 years.
  2. What sum was expended on these imported (a) new and (b) second-hand buses and coaches, and what was the country of origin of the vehicles.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The Australian Statistician has advised that he cannot supply particulars of imports of buses and coaches according to whether they are new or second-hand since imports of buses and coaches are not separately recorded on that basis. However, the Statistician has supplied the following information showing imports into Australia of ( a ) assembled buses and coaches and (b) unassembled buses and coaches for the years 1974-75 and 1975-76:

The Statistician advised that no statistics are compiled on the number of unassembled buses and coaches. Statistics for 197S-76 are preliminary and subject to revision.

Tourist Industry: Financial Assistance (Question No. 1390)

Mr Stewart:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. Did Federal and State Tourist Ministers at a recent meeting of the Tourist Ministers ‘ Council express the conviction that Government investment in the Tourist Industry was sound and that such investment was essential if the current imbalance between outbound and inbound tourism was to be removed.
  2. ) What is the present level of imbalance.
  3. What specific objectives based on economic, social and public interest concepts were agreed to by the Tourist Ministers ‘ Council.
  4. When will the Minister be able to announce details of Commonwealth financial assistance for the development and promotion of tourism into and within Australia.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. Yes- the Tourist Ministers’ Council agreed that the tourist and travel industry in Australia currently oners opportunity for growth, development and expansion. Governments at all levels, but particularly the States, are one source of provision of the necessary infrastructure, facilities and services from which a viable industry can develop. Industry must also be prepared to take up the available investment opportunities and government policies are being directed to improving the economic climate so that such decisions can be made more readily and with greater certainty.
  2. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has recently revised its travel debit and credit estimates for the year ended 30 June 1976 and as set out in their balance of payments bulletin released 3 November 1 976, the imbalance between inbound and outbound travel for this period was $264m. This amends the previous estimate of $292m.

  3. The following objectives were agreed to by the Tourist Ministers ‘ Council:

    1. The development of a viable and efficient tourist industry in Australia.

An economic concept that includes Governments’ overall objectives and optimises the use of available resources. It envisages a dynamic tourist industry component of the total economy, containing a balanced mix of enterprises, supported by Government provided infrastructure, the whole existing at levels responding sensitively to growth and changes in demand.

  1. The development of a range and quality of tourism opportunities appropriate to the needs of residents of and visitors to Australia.

A social concept that expresses Governments’ desire to induce the development of a structure of tourist facilities and services designed to meet people’s needs for leisure recreation consistent with their desire for an improved quality of life.

  1. Achievement of the above with due regard to the natural and social environment of Australia.

This is a public interest concept providing for the control and regulation of tourist activity, so that the rights of individuals and groups are safeguarded, one against the other, and resources are preserved, as considered desirable, for the common good and for future generations.

  1. As announced in the 1976-77 Budget $3m has been allocated to the Australian Tourist Commission during the current year for the promotion of tourism into Australia. The promotion of tourism within Australia is primarily a matter for the States and Territories. The 1 976-77 Budget also made provision for a sum of $833,000 to meet outstanding commitments under the grants scheme for the development of tourist attractions.

Education: Tertiary Allowances Scheme (Question No. 1395)

Mr Garrick:

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

  1. 1 ) Will 8000 students be financially worse off under the Government’s new proposals on tertiary allowances, and will others now receiving allowances become ineligible.
  2. Will all students be discouraged from working during vacations because they are allowed to earn only $1,500 per annum, whereas previously, under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme, they could earn that amount during the year and an unlimited sum during vacation.
  3. Are bonded trainee teachers in Victoria and South Australia now ineligible for assistance because they receive $600 per annum from their respective State Governments.
  4. Has the Government claimed that allowances have increased by up to $ 10; if so, is it a fact that the vast majority will still receive less than $42 per week which is the figure recommended by a Government inquiry over 12 months ago.
Mr Viner:
LP

-The Minister for Education has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. I ) The majority of students who will receive allowances under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme in 1 977 will be better off financially compared with the situation in 1976. Allowances have been increased substantially, by up to 40 per cent in the case of students who are independent of parental support; the limit of family income at which the maximum allowance is payable has been increased and requirements relating to the student’s program have been eased where a student is unable to undertake a full study load because of course requirements or arising out of a direction by the student ‘s institution.

These changes will have the effect of enabling a number of students who did not qualify for benefits in 1976 to receive assistance in 1977.

However, students who receive assistance from other Commonwealth awards will no longer be eligible for Tertiary Education Assistance. Other students who receive substantial amounts from employment or from other, nonCommonwealth awards will have their allowances reduced. The number who will be affected in 1 977 is not known.

  1. The Williams Committee, which in 1975 reviewed the scheme, recommended that a student’s own income should be means tested over the calendar year, since the allowance is intended to contribute to the support of the student for the calendar year, and not only the academic year. The Government has accepted this recommendation. Students who in 1977 will earn more than $ 1 500, however, will not automatically lose their allowance. For every $2 earned in excess of $1500 a student’s allowance will be reduced by $1. Previously the reduction for dependent students was $1 for $1 and that for independent students was $ 1 for every $1.50.

The Government is mindful that not all students who work during the long vacation also work part-time during the year. In these cases income earned may not exceed $1500 and the issue would not arise.

  1. There are two aspects to this question. In the first place, bonded teacher trainees have always been ineligible. Some states have moved recently to provide unbonded teacher training scholarships. Students are currently able to receive up to $600 from unbonded scholarships without affecting their allowances. In arriving at its decision to reduce this amount to $150 from 1977, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Williams Committee on this matter. The Committee felt that an amount as high as $600 ran contrary to the purpose of the means test designed to measure the level of support required by needy students.
  2. The maximum allowance of $43 per week payable to independent students in 1977 will represent an increase of more than $12 per week over the 1976 figure. Increases for dependent students are $7 per week for those living away from home and $5 per week for those living at home.

In 1 976, 27 per cent of all TEAS beneficiaries were receiving maximum independent rates. An additional 48 per cent were receiving the maximum amount applicable to the two categories of dependent students. It must be assumed that the remainder received some support from either their own resources or their families.

No significant change in these proportions can be predicted.

Dairy Herd Improvement Scheme (Question No. 1442)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is there a possibility of a breakdown in the dairy herd improvement schemes of the various States due to the inability of dairy farmers to pay for herd test and artificial breeding services.
  2. Does the Industries Assistance Commission’s study on National Dairy Herd Improvement provide an opportunity to assist herd improvement and provide a better basis for progeny testing.
  3. If so, what steps will be taken to discuss and implement these herd improvement proposals.
  4. What opportunity will there be for herd improvement organisations to submit proposals.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. It is increasingly difficult for dairy farmers to remain viable under the present climate of rising costs and depressed returns. As a result some dairyman with smaller herds will be obliged, at least temporarily, to curtail some of their normal expenditures.

Herd testing or the use of AB services may come into this category. The extent of any such lower level of participation would vary from State to State.

  1. , (3) and (4) It is possible that the recent favourable report by the IAC on a benefit-cost study of dairy herd improvement will help lead to Australian-wide arrangements that could include provision of a more comprehensive range of services at competitive prices.

A Steering Committee appointed by the Australian Agricultural Council is presently formulating, in specific terms, a proposal for a National Dairy Herd Improvement Scheme to be presented to Governments for consideration.

American Tourists (Question No. 1468)

Mr Stewart:

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

  1. 1 ) Does the Australian Tourist Commission predict and increase in overseas travel by Americans during the next 12 months.
  2. If so, does the Commission intend to increase its promotional spending in the U.S.A. to ensure that Australia attracts a larger number of high spending American visitors.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. The Australian Tourist Commission does expect an increase in overseas travel by Americans during the next twelve months, provided there is a continued improvement in the U.S. economy. Some 75 000 Americans are expected to visit Australia in 1 976, increasing to 80 000 in 1 977.
  2. The Australian Tourist Commission fully appreciates the potential of the American market and has indicated it will be doing everything possible within its resources to capitalise on this market Following a very successful North American Travel Task Force organised and sponsored by the Commission during1975-76, plans are in hand to mount a further Task Force which will promote Australia to the American travel trade and American consumers in the Western States, in April-May 1977.

National Sewerage Program (Question No. 1491)

Mr Cohen:

asked the Minister for Environ ment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What funds were allocated through the State of New South Wales to the Shires of Gosford, Wyong and Lake Macquarie under the National Sewerage Program in each of the years 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75, and 1975-76 and what funds are to be provided in 1976-77.
  2. Are there plans for funding in future years; if so, what are they.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

(1)

Lake Macquarie Shire is served by the Hunter District Water Board and individual figures are not available to this Department.

  1. The Acting Prime Minister announced on 20 May 1976 that an urgent review of the National Sewerage Program would be carried out The report of the IDC established to carry out the review has been considered by the Government and decisions will be announced in due course.

Disadvantaged Schools Program (Question No. 1495)

Mr Lloyd:

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

  1. Further to question No. 506 and correspondence on the subject of the disadvantaged schools program and rural schools, what State education authorities are using the socioeconomic scale developed by Broom, Jones and Zubrycki in 1 965 for the determination of eligibility for the program.
  2. What work has been done by the Australian Council of Educational Research or the Schools Commission or other bodies to update the socio-economic scale to recognise the significant shifts in wealth in the various occupation categories since 1965.
  3. If nothing has been done, will the Minister initiate research on this matter.
  4. Is the Victorian Education Department currently reviewing the socio-economic scale or the disadvantaged criteria.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. Government and Catholic education authorities in each State are responsible for developing procedures for determining which of their schools should be declared as disadvantaged, and a variety of measures of the socioeconomic nature of the communities served by the schools are employed in these selection processes. I understand that most States are using scales based upon the work of Broom, Jones and Zubrycki as a part of their procedures; it is my information that in all such instances other measures- such as the incidence of non-English speaking migrants, student retention rates, truancy, pupil performance, for exampleare also used, and that local knowledge and common sense play a large part in the determination of which schools should participate in the Disadvantaged Schools Program.
  2. Officers involved in administering the Program in both Government and Catholic systems meet together from time to time and discuss various measures of disadvantage and its educational manifestations; relevant studies being carried out by particular education authorities are presented and considered at these meetings. Organisers of the Disadvantaged Schools Program are aware of, and in some instances participate in, the researches in this field being conducted by the Australian Council for Educational Research, by some university education departments and by other agencies.
  3. Not applicable.
  4. While reiterating that the process of selecting schools for declaration as disadvantaged is a matter for the education authorities in the States, I would add that it is my understanding that the Victorian Education Department is currently reviewing it procedures for determining socioeconomic disadvantage and is indeed devoting considerable effort to refining the methods of selecting its disadvantaged schools.

Lizard Island (Question No. 1511)

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

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

  1. 1 ) Did the Minister recently spend a few days on Lizard Island: if so, how many days did he spend there, and who accompanied him.
  2. What direct and/or indirect interests in Lizard Island are held by Mr Henry Sydney Williams whom the Minister has appointed as a member of the Australian Tourist Commission.
  3. Has Mr Williams given the Government or the Commission a declaration of his financial interests.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 visited Lizard Island from 13 June 1976 to 24 June 1976, accompanied by my wife.
  2. Mr Williams is Chairman of Lizard Island Pty Ltd and Trustee of Lizard Island Research Station.
  3. Yes.

New South Wales Royal National Park (Question No. 1534)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

Has the State Government of New South Wales ever sought Federal financial assistance in respect of the maintenance and development of the Royal National Park, New South Wales; if so, with what result.

Mr Newman:
LP

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

page 3107

No

Oriental Fruit Fly (Question No. 1575)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Further to question No. 977 and the monitoring of the oriental fruit fly, does the Government agree that, although monitoring activities outside the Northern Territory are not a Commonwealth responsibility, the possible spread of oriental fruit fly is a national problem.
  2. Has he discussed with the Western Australian and Queensland authorities a co-ordinated monitoring program in the appropriate locations in those States; if not, will this be done.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The Government, through my Department, has accepted responsibility for monitoring for oriental fruit fly across the whole of northern Australia, and has made funds available for this purpose. Research is being undertaken, as part of an overall program, to determine whether this insect presents an economic threat to Australia.
  2. The program of monitoring, which has been in progress since 1975, has included the Western Australian and Queensland authorities, and has been approved by the Australian Agricultural Council, on which all States are represented.

Unemployment Statistics (Question No. 1606)

Dr Klugman:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

How many persons were registered as unemployed for 12 weeks or longer (a) at the end of October 1975 and (b) at the latest available date.

Mr Street:
LP

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

Statistics of persons registered as unemployed by duration of registration are currently extracted only twice yearly at end-May and end-November. Subject to this qualification, the number of persons registered as unemployed for 3 months and over at end-November 1975 was 78 320 and, at end-May 1976,90 497.

Australian National Gallery- Loan of Paintings to Governor-General (Question No. 1335)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Which paintings of the Australian National Gallery collection are presently on loan to the Governor-General.
  2. What was the date on which each of these paintings was borrowed from the national collection.
  3. 3 ) What is the value of each painting.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (l)and(2)-

  1. Works of art fluctuate in price almost all the time, and quite quickly the original cost may have no relation to the current value. Short of calling in independent, expert valuers- whose services would be costly and whose judgments would only be of short currency- there is no satisfactory way of putting a value on each painting.

Area Improvement Program: New South Wales (Question No.1365)

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

am asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Which were the 32 projects awaiting approval under the Area Improvement Program in New South Wales at 3 1 December 1975 (Hansard, 14 October 1976, page 1929).
  2. Which of these projects will receive assistance in 1976-77.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. A schedule of projects awaiting approval at 31 December 1975 is attached. Including the sum unallocated at that date of specific projects and councils in the Western Region of Sydney, the total value of these projects was $1,095,055.
  2. A decision on programs and projects in the community development area will be reached after examination of the report of the Task Force on Co-ordination in Welfare and Health which is expected to be availabel to the Government in November 1 976.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 1 December 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1976/19761201_reps_30_hor102/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant